I find some of these arguments to be tedious because they begin and end with statements of "I know that this is true" and tend to be based upon the believers claim to be in touch with the real "truth" of the world.
A common example is found in "I know that G-d exists and if you do not it is only because you are intentionally not open to him/her/it."
Look, I believe in G-d because of faith. I believe that G-d makes sense because I exist, you exist, my children, this blog, animals, the universe etc exist and it makes sense to me that a higher power created it. But even with the empirical evidence of life that I cited, I don't expect that to be enough for proof based upon scientific testing.
This is my own thing, but I really don't have a problem with seeing the world as incorporating a blend of science and faith. That means that I don't take every word of the Torah as being literal. I am not a literalist. I see room for interpretation and I see how that interpretation can change based upon evidence developed by scientists.
It reminds me of an old joke that goes something like this. Congregants at a local synagogue have an ongoing debate about whether to rise or sit for a certain section of the liturgy.
One half claims that they have always stood and the other claims that they have always sat. The debate rages on until they can’t take it any longer and demand that the rabbi resolve it.
His solution is to go ask the oldest congregant 96 year-old Abe Goldberg what the tradition was to which Goldberg responds, "the tradition is that we fight over this every year."”
The point being that people like to think of themselves as living life a certain way and that their way is one, correct true way when often there are multiple ways to do things and when you try to make it a black and white world you often get hit with an awful lot of shades of grey.
Ok, now I am not sure if any of this made sense to anyone but me, but I get it which is good, because I wrote it.