(April 7, 2016 at 10:24 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:(April 6, 2016 at 10:41 pm)AJW333 Wrote: 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.
So, there it is. You would believe in god for all of your "feely," non-scientific reasons, no matter WHAT science has to say about complex life or the universe. So, please stop with the "I believe in a designer because of science" act, as clearly science is arbitrary to you here. You're only latch onto it where you think it somehow enhances your biased conclusion (which it does not).
This is a misrepresentation. Science is helpful in explaining the likelihood of the existence of a creator. The complexity of life shows evidence of design and a designer. That said, it is eminently possible to come to faith with no understanding of science at all.
