My response was that I find it much, much more impressive to create a system with simple rules that results in an incredible universe than to just create the universe. At the time I had in mind the elegantly simple laws of physics, but the system of evolution would have been just as good an example.

You’re brave to step into this territory.

And I’m only biting off a small morsel, deferring to other forums for the complete discussion.

I mean, it seems that implicit in your question is a perception of a platonic set of absolute truths that might be arrived at by argument (some kind of an argument convergent logical iteration – like a mathematical proof). I kind of half believe in this, but have to admit, to being a bit of a relativist. I think what becomes accepted as truth (even in my beloved science) is in large part the product of debate (as you say just persuading some one else – every one if you can but most people will do).

More specifically, I think, people who really want to believe in god (or anything else – and i don’t exclude my self from this) will prefer augments (type 1 or type 2) that support their conviction. Jesus types are keen to make room for some kind of god in a distorted arguments ranging from ‘creation science’ to god some how inventing evolution or pressing a button to fire off the big bang.