Absolute undeniable evidence for existence of God?

[genkaus]

Not so much incredulity as a recognition that reality has an intelligible order that, in my opinion, confirms Providential governance.

It doesn't.

The only real difference between an atheistic interpretation of natural law and a theistic one is this. For the atheist, lawful order is inherent to the physical universe for no particular reason; it just is. For the theist, lawful order is intentionally imposed on the physical universe by a rational intellect.

That would be putting the cart before the horse. Natural laws are descriptions of how the universe works, not prescriptions of how it should work. I do not regard "lawful order of the universe" as its inherent feature. In fact, I regard the concept as redundant. The lawful order isn't imposed on the universe. The universe doesn't conform to any particular external standard. It simply acts in the manner it does and that manner - whatever it may be - is regarded as the "lawful order". And this is one of the reasons why theistic interpretation is ridiculous - assuming the existence of an independent standard externally imposed simply disregards the basis of that standards existence.

I prefer thinking that things are the way they are for a reason and that inspires great curiosity to ponder those reasons more fully. Saying that something "just is" puts an end to inquiry.

It seems to me the better opinion to hold is the one that encourages the pursuit of knowledge rather than the one that stops it at some arbitrary limit.

Understanding the basis of natural laws - i.e. acknowledging that those laws derive from how the universe works, but not determine it - is not the end of inquiry. Rather, it guides the inquiry into the correct direction. Given this knowledge, we can then say that we do not know why the universe works in a particular manner and then proceed to find out.

Here's how the theistic interpretation puts a stop to the inquiry. What you seem to instinctively understand is that any set of "laws" require an intellect to conceive them. If those laws are descriptions of the universe, then human intellect is sufficient to account for their existence. However, if those laws hold primacy over the universe and the universe has to conform to them, then you'd assume the existence of an entity superior to the universe and then that would be sufficient to explain their existence. And once that is done, both avenues of inquiry (why the universe works the way it does and what is the basis of natural laws) have been satisfied and put to a stop. Whereas, in atheistic interpretation, one of them remains open.