Science, faith, and theists

[Cato]

My question did not address logical validity nor experientially soundness, but whether the argument was meaningful.

Challenging premises by quibbling over the definition of 'beginning' or invoking a concept of 'hard' evidence is a direct attack on the soundness of the syllogism Michael parsed from the broader argument. I agree with you that this part of the argument is meaningless in that it's not where the true disagreement resides. My suggestion is to eliminate the distraction by accepting it in order to concentrate on the meaningful and contentious parts of the argument.

Edit: Just to follow up. Your original point was not made poorly nor do I find it disagreeable. Perhaps I should have said your precision was unnecessary rather than tedious.