[NotReady]

But I do not want to get into the macro evolution/ biogenesis theory stuff, but just would like a discussion on use of logic in the chair anology.

The argument you are considering is the theistic proof usually referred to as the teleological proof. Paley is famous for stating it, though in a sense it is also contained in Scripture, though not offered there as a formal philosopical proof ("The heavens are telling of the glory of God" and other passages.) It's a very strong argument because it appeals to our intuition - we know deep down that order doesn't come from chaos and order as great and complex as displayed throughout the universe implies a designer beyond our ability to comprehend.

There are 5 proofs considered to be classic, and many variations. The problem is none of them are perfect - none achieve objective, demonstrable certainty. The reason for this is primarily that man is finite and so must start his reasoning process from certain assumptions which can't be proved. So the logic may be perfect but the argument cannot be made certain because of the need for assumptions. This same problem afflicts atheists as well no matter how strongly people like Dawkins assert they have solved the mystery of life. Every time they think they have they just uncover many new mysteries exposed by their "answer".

Paul stated that he did not come with clever words of wisdom and he indicated that Christianity is not based on philosophical reasoning. Our faith rests on the Word of God, not on the flawed and sinful imaginations of man. That doesn't mean that we are irrational or that we have no reasons for believing. But we can't present absolute proof, anymore than the atheist can do so concerning his theories.

We walk by faith and admit it. Atheists walk by faith and don't realize it.