This is getting long, I'm going to have to add a bit of bold for clarity :)
"HOWEVER, all pagan religions, at some way or another, tend to point in the direction of a similar notion of the Godhead... Even if the above was not true, 5000 years of Judao-Christian religion, and the global reach of the "Big Three" ... demand a reasonable reply greater than an appeal to ignorance."
The figure of godhead is generally lacking in animist religions and various superstitious beliefs; and in pantheistic religions it is so dramatically different and more limited then the omnipotent / omniscient god of Abraham as to be a functionally different concept altogether.
Although we disagree on the exact nature of the universal supernatural beliefs, we do agree that there is in fact a universal (or nearly so) tendency in humanity to believe in the supernatural. That most of humanity would have an inborn tendency to believe in something, especially something that I would propose is nonexistent does indeed demand a reply.
I would propose that the universal thread among them, from complex structured religions all the way down to simple superstitious beliefs such as ghosts and fairies, is the belief in of the existence of "mysterious" intelligent agents as being the cause of what we generally now know to be natural, describable and even predictable phenomenon.
You can see this built in assumption of an intelligent agent as the cause of what are generally inanimate phenomenon by taking a greenhorn out camping. When the twigs start snapping due to the wind, what is their first reaction? That it was caused by the wind or that it was caused by "lions, tigers and bears"? Almost unfailingly, when an unknown phenomenon is encountered mans initial reaction is to assume intelligence as it's cause.
The tendency to assume an intelligent cause to a mysterious event, although more often wrong then right, has great survival value. You can jump and run from a wind snapped twig 1000 times with little ill effect. If however it really was a lion, tiger or bear, sticking around to find out could be disastrous.
Add to that the ability of religion to create strong social bonds which provide a powerful support structure for it's adherents and you have a strong formula for the propagation of a set of beliefs regardless of thier underlying Truth. They persist because they are useful, that is they can provide a survival advantage to those who hold them in some situations. In other situations, say being a Christian in Pagan Rome they can be extremely deleterious.
"Yes, if the notion of God were the equivalent of Smurfs, vampires, Frankenstein, and other such products of the imgination, then my argument would not have a leg to stand on."
And I hold that they are indeed equivalent. Just because ones imagination runs a bit farther then another's does not make the product of that imagination any more real. Your argument based on the stated nature of the J.C. God being evidence for it's existence only carries water if you accept that it exists in the first place.
"Sorry that I keep promising the argument but not yet delivering, .... Apologies in advance. I haven't yet tried to do this on something like an online forum."
None needed, you are doing an excellent job of laying the necessary foundations of why you think what you do and I only hope I can be as clear.
"...I am here to tell you, the notion of God is in a different category than Smurfs and flying spaghetti monsters. Those things are finite, God is infinite. Smurfs exist within creation, God exists outside of and is the origin of creation."
Not that I would argue for pantheism which I also reject, but it is logically impossible for God to be infinite without the creation also being part of God. If there is something that he is not, then that is a definalble limit and the very definition of finite. I don't see how you can have it any other way without rewriting the dictionary. The Judeo-Christian God is, as generally accepted by his followers, anything but infinite.
"But I believe that qualities attributed to God within the Judao-Christian tradition (but not limited to that tradition) are necessarily a priori grounds for the belief in an intelligible universe."
Safe to say I disagree.
"... I think if one does assume existence is intelligible, at the same time as they assert an atheist doctrine of non-belief in God, then they are living a contradictory set of beliefs. I say this because I am led to believe that God is the ontological precondition for intelligibility, the Logos so to speak of Being. Without that promise, there is really no point in going about doing natural science, because naturalism assumes that the end of science is to arrive at Truth. "
Science assumes no such thing. Science strives only to provide a best explanation for the current evidence.
"Hm, not sure what you mean. Please elaborate. "
First allow me repeat your original statement for clarity.
"The case here is that God must be presumed in order for existence to have intelligibility in the first place and, therefore, God is (or more exactly, the qualities of the Judao-Christian God are) implicitly endorsed and presumed by any scientific investigation, if it is to be meaningful and intelligible"
I know of no currently accepted scientific theory or law that endorses or presumes the existence of any god, much less a specific one, implicitly or explicitly; nor am I aware of any scientific theory or law which is unintelligible or lacking in meaning. Any scientist that tried to publish an unintelligible and or meaningless paper would quickly find the peer review process impenetrable.
Except possibly for Jeremy Stribling, Daniel Aguayo and Maxwell Krohn.
"I am suggesting, on the contrary, that ANY scientific investigation presupposes as its ontological ground of Being the existence of God, the Logos that is the ground of Being."
I can't see how this is anything more than an arbitrary claim with no supporting evidence.
"I know this statement in itself will probably not be very convincing to you."
Correct.
"But for now suffice it for me to say that this is basically the story physics will tell. The facts will repeat empirically what I have stated above ontologically. Enough so that it becomes (arguably) more credible to believe in God than to reject God."
I am more then passingly familiar with the physical sciences and your claim is without merit. Unless you care to support it with at least one fact then it is little more then a verbose version of "because I said so" which does not make for a powerful argument.
Nobody on the thread has asked the big question. If I go out of my way to avoid Maher when he's on TV for free then why would I bother to go to a theater and pay to see him?