eating cucumbers without permission...

I don't think the response to the question about "reasonable faith" was adequate. A posteriori belief is not a matter of evidence alone, it's a matter of falsifiability. Years of falling apples don't prove Newton was right or that the force we call gravity will continue to operate in the future, but his observations have been tested and verified (unless and until faced with contrary evidence). It's reasonable to believe in gravity. By contrast, most claims of faith -- e.g., Intelligent Falling -- cannot be tested even in principle, let alone in practice. It's not that there isn't any evidence, but that adequate evidence is impossible.

Scary that so many of these (or variants slightly less facetious) are offered seriously. I like this one:

ARGUMENT FROM INCOMPLETE DEVASTATION (1) A plane crashed killing 143 passengers and crew. (2) But one child survived with only third-degree burns. (3) Therefore, God exists.

It's a miracle!