kombiguy, the problem I see with your house analogy is that theologians are clearly unqualified to make any accurate observations about architects, contractors, blueprints, original designs or intent. Everything they say is unsupported speculation, packaged as revelation, divine inspiration, or some other form of magic. Scientists deal with observed phenomena. Theologians either make stuff up, or extend a position based on things that other people invented out of their imagination.
The brilliant Thomas Aquinas wrote volumes in support of Roman Catholic theology. The starting point for Aquinas was the observation that everything in existence has some cause; is the product of some action that brought it into being. Logic, he tells us, argues against an endless infinity of such causal links. He then postulates a First Cause, a Prime Mover, the Uncaused Cause. This, he states, is a fundamental proof of God's existence. He then reasons forward from that point, eventually arriving at the complex theology of orthodox medieval Christianity. Naturally, as he progresses beyond the initial proposition, his argument becomes increasingly thin, despite its immense volume.
