I see your Hitchens' Razor and raise you "Absence of Evidence is NOT Evidence of Absence".
There's a lot of assumptions necessary for anyone who takes a position on the existence (or not) of God. Most make rather illogical leaps when backing their position. For example, many people say that they have not seen evidence that God exists, and therefore he doesn't. That's not logical, all you have there is a lack of evidence, not evidence of non-existence.
Many will point to scientific records, and say that - for example - fossils prove that Creationism is wrong, ergo God isn't real. The only things that proves is that a) there are things we've called fossils, and b) I know the word Ergo.
Interested in the last thing you said though. It's clear that you think a decline in 'organised' religion is a good thing. What's your stance on personal faith (particularly how people work that faith through their daily lives and interactions with others)? Do you see that as something that should decline, or something that should flourish?
I should make clear to everyone at this point that I love these debates and will stretch it out forever if possible. For those that may find my points upsetting or infuriating please put me on ignore (I'm guessing many already have).
Let's take god out of the equation and say that I believe that there is a giant pink elephant with fairy wings living on the other side of the universe. You haven't seen any evidence that it doesn't exist, therefore is it safe to assume that it does?
Surely faith is all about the absence of evidence Willy? If you have evidence for something you don't need faith. If I were to suddenly say, on the basis of the evidence, I now believe in a Christian God, no personal revelation needed, I'm not sure I should be taken seriously, as I wouldn't have faith.
At present there can be no definitive yes/no about the prime mover of existence - it may be that science can someday show what caused the Big Bang, but that just pushes the argument back a step (what caused the thing which caused the Big Bang etc etc ad infinitum). It may be that these things can never be explained in terms which our limited intellects can grasp. But not being able to understand something does not equate to 'God must have done it then'. And even if you think that the prime mover is God, like the deists believe, it does not follow that God has any particular interest in humanity, let alone individual humans.
I agree that the creationist argument you highlight is weak (and doubtless why you chose it!) and no self respecting, or vaguely competent, debater would use it. All the creationist stuff shows is that there are some people who have been indoctrinated into still believing something which is patently stupid.
Personal faith is a personal matter. Pretty obviously I don't have any, but I would never attempt to deny someone who has had a personal revelation, which I cannot experience (however sceptical I may be about it) the journey that it takes them on. I do wonder why people born in say, a country with a Christian tradition, tend to have revelations which lead them to a Christian God though. What I object to is people inflicting their personal faith on others, selling their revelations second hand to others, setting up rules (eat fish on Friday!) and organisations, and indoctrinating others, especially children - in other words religion.
I don't think personal belief will necessarily decline, because as long as there is the human urge to search for meaning, and the human fear of death, it offers a solution. And that's fine with me, just don't ask me or my kids (or your kids) to agree, and don't set up schools and churches to spread the word. Keep it personal. Organised religion on the other hand should decline, its primary purpose in the olden days was to build stories to enable collective actions amongst large groups of people. We have other vehicles for this now - countries, companies etc. See Yuval Harari's 'Sapiens' for the full argument.
