That's an importantly profound observation about the question at hand. Considering the idea of 'least hypothesis', the idea of a consciousness behind the nature of the Universe - i.e. God - seems to be far more straightforward than the mass of conflicting hypotheses to explain the origin of the Universe and the (known) life forms within it. Taken one by one, and within constraints, many of those hypotheses do make sense - for instance, the idea of natural selection. That makes sense as the dynamics of a working system. But the origin of the system it assumes as its basis is not well explained by that same hypothesis, nor are apparently 'disruptive' events within it, e.g. the rise of human-order intelligence (or even the existence of higher-order life). Unfortunately, 'belief in God' is too often tied to 'belief' in a lot of other stuff, much of which seems to be contrived to ensure that those who work in the business of Organized Religion don't miss any meals. That tends to give it a bad name, especially among thinking people. I will argue there's a difference between 'unsupported conclusions' and 'faith.' The latter is more similar to selection of a set of axioms. Axioms are exempt from proof (although showing one is invalid is good for nuking anything premised thereupon), but should be atomic in nature to be useful in logical discourse. Once you show a proof for an article of faith, it enters into the realm of 'known facts.' Unsupported conclusions seem disjoint from the realm of 'known facts' and even from that of 'faith,' assumed to be self-evident without a supporting framework of axioms, hypothesis and logical process. (See, social conservatives.) Given the nature of this discussion, I'm going to the effort to make the following disclaimer: the above is my personal opinion and does not represent the official or casual opinion of my employer. -- Ian