I think that talking about Jesus holds the greatest potential for convincing non believers who prefer a reasoned approach to comprehension. There is more literary proof that Jesus lived, died, came back to life and ascended into Heaven than there is that Julius Caesar ever lived or that George Washington ever crossed the Delaware. Yet nobody doubts the existence of Julius Caesar or the actions of Washington.

Understanding that Jesus was an actual person, not just a creation of religion, is a start. Your commenter says that all humans must obey the laws of physics. It is clearly obvious Jesus did not have to obey those laws. All of his miracles, the healings, the walking on water, the calming of the sea, were against the laws of physics. We don’t have to claim rightness from faith, we can claim it from fact. Jesus gave credible evidence that he was both human and God. In addition to the miracles, he fulfilled over 300 prophecies of the Old Testament. It would be statistically impossible for any person to fulfill even eight of them, let alone all of them.

Finally, the man died and came back to life three days later. Who else but God can do that? And none of these things require faith in the bible alone. In addition to them being in the bible, they have all been verified and written about by historians living at the time of Jesus who weren’t Christians. And we can still read those texts today.

I think that faith in God has a different meaning today than it did 2,000 years ago, but it isn’t a blind faith, as some would say. It is well rooted in fact.

Yet, he admits that he has a “desire to comprehend the incomprehensible” (a logical impossibility), that he wants an answer that will satisfy his intellect (as if it was necessary for the universe to be understandable to him personally), and he doesn’t want the answer to be “merely convenient” (I guess he means conclusions derived by other people just to satisfy the lazy and curious).

Unfortunately, Science does not satisfy any of these requirements: it cannot lead to the comprehension of the incomprehensible, it cannot be understood in its entirety by any individual, and almost all of its conclusions are derived by others.

Supposedly his challenges to religious people are based on “reason,” that is, a requirement that they answer everything to his satisfaction; yet, he doesn’t want any answer that sounds like each individual is the center of his or her own universe. Supposedly he rejects any answer based on “faith,” because then he would have to accept an explanation that might oppose the “laws of physics,” which after all are a set of universal claims that he surely does not understand in full.

I think you are being unaccountably kind to your critics, given their inconsistencies. The worst of all is the complaint that he was “misled” because it turns out that you have a point of view that he disagrees with, as if every webcomic is required to entertain him without challenging his personal prejudices, and moreover must clearly warn him ahead of time that some remark might injure his fragile ego.