The Problem with Christians

[LadyForCamus]

In other words...how do you, in your mind, reconcile requiring scientific evidence to believe in your designer, but NOT require it at any point after accepting that belief? Let me ask you this: if you couldn't make a scientific case in your own mind for a designer, would you believe in Him anyway?

[AJW333]

Strictly speaking, Christians believe in abiogenesis. The difference is , they believe that God was responsible for it, and that he created Adam complete, with no intermediary steps.

But why?
Why do people believe this?
What is there that makes them accept this unsupported proposition?

Christianity is not science.  At the end of the day it is a matter of faith and reason. My reason to believe is multifaceted but I regard the Scripture as being accurate because of its ability to reliably predict the future.

Concerning evolution, I don't regard it as being scientific. If you called it a faith, that would make more sense to me. One thing I would like to know is, what are the stages of the evolution of humans? Apart from neanderthals, what was the progenitor to humans? And what was the progenitor to that?

[AJW333]

In other words...how do you, in your mind, reconcile requiring scientific evidence to believe in your designer, but NOT require it at any point after accepting that belief?  Let me ask you this:  if you couldn't make a scientific case in your own mind for a designer, would you believe in Him anyway?

 When I first believed, I did not understand science at all, so requiring "scientific evidence" to believe in a designer was not relevant at the time. If I wish to make an argument now for the existence of God, I may choose to use science but it isn't a requirement for faith. For some, it's as simple as staring at the stars and finding faith as a natural consequence.

There are other personal experiences that have led me to believe in God, none of which are scientifically provable, especially since they are past events that cannot be reproduced under laboratory conditions. These alone would be sufficient to cause me to believe, without any science being involved.

[AJW333]

Strictly speaking, Christians believe in abiogenesis. The difference is , they believe that God was responsible for it, and that he created Adam complete, with no intermediary steps.

Holy eff.

Still missing the point.

If abiogenesis is incorrect, you have no explanation at all for the origin of life. You may be comfortable with that as millions are, but I am not. We all agree that there must have been a first cause of life since the earth had a beginning in which no life was possible. Since all life that we observe, (billions of examples) comes from other life, and you cannot have infinite regression, therefore at some point, life must have arisen from non-life. There isn't really a credible alternative option.

[AAA]

Yes, my reasons for believing in a designer I feel are scientific. 

My reasons for being a Christian are not scientific in the empirical sense of the word, but it is still mostly based on evidence. For example, I saw a lecture given by a man named Rick Larson who (using digital software) looked at cosmological features occurring during the time of Jesus's birth/ crucifixion and noticed incredibly rare astronomical events that coincided with things described in the Bible. I know it sounds very sketchy, and I was skeptical at first too, but it was one of the most interesting videos I have seen in a while. I can post the link if you want. Atheist or not, it is worth an hour of your time. 

And I am skeptical of some of the supernatural claims in the Bible. If you are asking me if I think God has ever intervened, then I would say yes.

I think you missed the question. There is nothing scientific at all about that. "I feel" is not an acceptable opener to "are scientific".

Not. Science.

Don't lecture me about what is and what isn't science. I wrote it like that because I didn't want to cycle back in to whether or not the reasons I gave were scientific. If you are going to restrict us to the empirical definition of science, then nothing about the past is scientific, end of story.

[AAA]

Who are you to rate the universe's functionality? You're doing it too. And the design is as good as it can get compared to theoretical alternatives. What do you expect to see in cellular biology 100 million years from now that they do not yet have?

The difference is that I'm pointing it out the lack of deliberate design to indicate the lack of deliberate design, while you are pointing out what you have admitted is a flawed design that innately enables suffering and claiming it's evidence of a perfect, all-knowing benevolent designer.

I don't remember admitting that the design was flawed. Aren't you tired of the laptop analogy or do you not get it? Our bodies were not intended to deal with as many carcinogens as they are. It is because we pump tons of harmful chemicals into our environment hourly.

[AAA]

In other words...how do you, in your mind, reconcile requiring scientific evidence to believe in your designer, but NOT require it at any point after accepting that belief?  Let me ask you this:  if you couldn't make a scientific case in your own mind for a designer, would you believe in Him anyway?

It is much easier to reach the conclusion that something was designed than to determine the identity of the designer. They are two very different questions and require different approaches. Nobody has come up with a scientific way to identify the designer from a designed system, so I can't require it. But we can look at other evidence that isn't as solid as typical science. 

For example. If I was trying to determine the identity of the designer of my car, I can use other clues to reach a reasonable conclusion. The year of my car helps me gain a possible age range for the designer. The country it was built in helps me gain a general location where the designer may have lived. You can eventually assemble clues to get a picture. They aren't as solid as the science that would be ideal, but they are still useful.

And no I would not to answer the last question.

[rexbeccarox]

Holy eff.

Still missing the point.

If abiogenesis is incorrect, you have no explanation at all for the origin of life. You may be comfortable with that as millions are, but I am not. We all agree that there must have been a first cause of life since the earth had a beginning in which no life was possible. Since all life that we observe, (billions of examples) comes from other life, and you cannot have infinite regression, therefore at some point, life must have arisen from non-life. There isn't really a credible alternative option.

I will fully admit I do not have an answer to the origin of life. Neither do you just because you assert it so. Now what?

[rexbeccarox]

I think you missed the question. There is nothing scientific at all about that. "I feel" is not an acceptable opener to "are scientific".

Not. Science.

Don't lecture me about what is and what isn't science. I wrote it like that because I didn't want to cycle back in to whether or not the reasons I gave were scientific. If you are going to restrict us to the empirical definition of science, then nothing about the past is scientific, end of story.

You need the lecture because you obviously don't have a clue what science actually is.

Just because you assert "end of story" does not make it so.

[AAA]

Don't lecture me about what is and what isn't science. I wrote it like that because I didn't want to cycle back in to whether or not the reasons I gave were scientific. If you are going to restrict us to the empirical definition of science, then nothing about the past is scientific, end of story.

You need the lecture because you obviously don't have a clue what science actually is.

Just because you assert "end of story" does not make it so.

I don't need the lecture, I get plenty of them. I am a biology student with a chemistry minor. What is science to you? Is it observable/demonstrable/competing hypothesis/quantitative/repeatable?