> No, I suggested that those who believe in the anthropic principle are the ones who live on faith (blind faith actually).
I don't believe in it. I merely present it as an alternative to your assertion that God is a necessary precondition to pretty much everything. Since there is no evidence in favor of either, both are equally probable; however, the anthropic principle is slightly more scientifically valid, therefore I like it better from a personal standpoint.
> My evidence is found in the God's revealed Word. You may not agree with my evidence, however it is an account for the validity of my reasoning, an account which you do not have.
I'm willing to accept the God's revealed Word as evidence. However, if by the God's revealed Word you mean the Bible, that document has had errors, mistranslations, deletions, additions, opinions, lies, and countless other alternations introduced into it by several thousand humans over several thousand years. Its reliability now is highly suspect. Please present a factual or at least a primary source as "evidence".
> Surely you see the circularity in such a comment!!! How could you possibly know that your reasoning was flawed unless you FIRST assumed that the reasoning you used to determine this, was NOT itself flawed.
I will know it if you convince me that my reasoning is flawed using your own reasoning.