i'm so tempted to give you a little visual..
So you start by stating that the Bible is one of the most historically accurate, reliable documents from all of antiquity. Are you talking about the old testament and the new testament? Are you saying that the flood and noah's ark, Adam & Eve and all the various miracles have been proven as accurate? What proof are you refereing to? Also, you say it is more studied than Homer's Odyssey, do you realise that Homer's Odyssey is a peace of fiction?
Their are no ancient document witnesses witch are separate to the bible. As regards the historicity of Jesus i have said several time's that i do not doubt he existed.
With regards to the Bible being irrelevant today, of course it is. You say it is pertinent for millions of people but of course your not suggesting that millions of people don't get Tattoos because the bible say's not to, or that millions of wives help out their husbands in fights because the bible says to or that millions of women do not speak in churches because the bible says they should not. No, of course what your really suggesting is that people think it is bad to murder and steal etc. Of course the problem here is that this is basic common sense and does not stem from the bible (though people may feel that it does) but from human instinct. The Bible irelevance in this area is proven given that in almost all societies murder etc is forbidden regardless of the christian nature of these societies. The point here is that religious society highlights parts of the bible that are acceptable at any given time whilst ignoring those that have become unacceptable (such as slavery). If you claim that 'relevant' parts of the bible lend it valdity then by that logic parts of the bible that are now ignored should lend equal weight to the idea that the bible is becoming increasingly irelevant as we progress as a society?
You go on to say; "I said that i would not use logic as a means by which to validate the authenticity of Christianity". Funnily enough that is exactly what you have just done in the previous paragraphs of your reply. In arguments that involve the very nature of our existence logic is hugely important, and should be rightly deifyed since without logic argument is simply impossible. Argument without logic just leads to incoherent ramblings. Indeed your attempts at using logic throughout your reply proove that you cannot do without it.
You go on to state that;
"it is not any more 'logical' to believe in God than it is to 'believe that billions of galaxies, containing billions of stars, powered by the nuclear fusion of trillions of atoms, emerged- at random- in a universe so large that it appears infinite, for no particular purpose, out of nothing"
Of course it is. God is a man made creation. 'proof' of God comes either from the mind's of man or as an explanation for things we do not understand. God has existed for thousands of years as an explanation for anything from the Sun to fire. That is why this 'god of the gaps' has slowly recinded as our scientific knowledge has grown. Still people like you will see God in what remains to be discovered by scientists. The fact is that huamans have DISCOVERED evidence that suggests billions of galaxies, powered by nuclear fusion of trillions of atoms emerged at random in a very large universe. This evidence is indepenent of any particular view of the world and leads to different people coming to the same conclusions based on facts. God on the other hand comes not from studying the world arround us but from within the minds of humans as an explanation for what he does not understand. The Theory of gravity, for example, is testable. The theory of gravity has helped put man on the moon. Their are no theories that proof the existence of a God. That is because their is no evidence.
You also then go on to contradict yourself by saying;
"Nor is it not particularly "rational" that the constants in our universe should be so exquisitely fine-tuned to support the emergence of life, in the face of odds so astronomical that they require the invention of a theoretical multiverse to account for them!"
Just a couple of sentences before that you said yourself that "..a universe so large that it appears infinite". So on the one hand your saying the universe appears infinite (although in actual fact scientists know how large the universe is) and then you say it is not rational that the constants in our universe should be so 'equistiely fine-tuned to support the emergence of life'. How can you possibly suggest that the costants in our universe are fine-tuned to support life when we only know of one planet that does so, and in a universe that you yourself have just said 'appears infinite'. Surely the fact that the huge majority of planets are inhospitable to any kind of life would suggest that the universe is not planned, or made by a supreme being? What kind of god would make 99.9% of what he made uninhabitable to the life that he is suposed to have created?
On a side note to this point, the 'invention' of a theoretical multiverse has not occured to justify the existence of life.
You then make your most ridiculous statement up to this point;
"To accept such theories- be they scientific or religious- requires belief, because they cannot be proven"
This demonstrates that you have NO understanding of what a theory is, or indeed what proof is. Just because something is a theory it does not mean it has not been proven. It's about weighing up the evidence for and against and testing theoriesl. Once again going back to the example of gravity, gravity is a theory. Their is overwhelming evidence to suggest it exists. Proof even. Still it is a theory. But because of this debate and proof that has been built upon it is entirely logical to assume its existence. On the other hand their is no such proof or evidence for god and so it is entirely illogical to belief in his existence. Their are of course bad and good theories, but the quality of theories are decided by the evidence in favour or against such theories and not the commands of the elite or the babbling of a mad man.
It is not good enough to merely say that i cannot disprove God. You cannot disprove the tooth fairy exists, but we assume he does not because their is no evidence for it's existence. On the other hand their is POSITIVE evidence for all that scientists claim. Their is NO positive evidence for the proof of God and so their is no reason to assume he exists. Especially when logic suggests he does not.
You then say "There are many things about the nature of the Universe and reality as we know it that remain shrouded in mystery, because we do not yet have enough information to understand them fully. Until then, an acceptance of these ideas requires a measure of faith."
If we do not understand something it does make any sense to feel that (ever decreasing) space with a super natural being. It makes sense to say we do not know, so lets try to work out what's going on. That's what scientists do, and because of this they have been able to explain an increasing amount about our world. None of this requires faith, and no scientific theories require faith.
why does the immesnse complexity and algorithmic elegance of creation provide evidence of vast creative genius?
Lastly you end by saying "I am, however, gifted with a sense of wonder, and an intellect sound enough to realize that I don’t know enough to claim certainty about anything".
Am i to believe then that you do not claim certainty with regards to Jesus being the son of god or that god exists?
I agree with the majority of your post but feel compelled to point out certain fallacies in it.
"although in actual fact scientists know how large the universe is"
This actually isn't known firmly, the formulas and methods we used to determine the size of the universe were more recently discovered to perhaps only indicate horizen lines. So it might be that the universe is bigger then we thought it was, we just aren't able to "see" beyond the point we've discovered.
"How can you possibly suggest that the costants in our universe are fine-tuned to support life when we only know of one planet that does so"
We've actually found several planets we think could support life, though we do only know for certain of our own.
"To accept such theories- be they scientific or religious- requires belief, because they cannot be proven"
This is actually true, some theories simply require more belief then others. For instance we can't quite prove that we evolved from apes or anything else, we can simply look at the rather overwhelming evidence. But we still miss the last few pieces of the puzzle and therefor cannot prove it. So in a way it does require a modicum of belief for our secular theories.
"Once again going back to the example of gravity, gravity is a theory. Their is overwhelming evidence to suggest it exists. Proof even."
Side note, we've found that gravity might not actually exist, it might simply be a result of other fundamental forces interacting. Similar to how centrifugal force doesn't exist, its a result of momentum. Of course this doesn't invalidate your argument at all, I just felt like pointing it out.
Thats all I spotted, otherwise well said.