So what would make a secular scientist believe in GOD?

[LittleNipper]

Presented here, so that we may have a place to start is one biochemist's (Dr, Sy Garte) journey from staunch atheist to firm believer: So, why are you a believer, or what would you need to become a believer in some Creator GOD.

[The Barbarian]

In order for a secularist to believe in God he must first repent of his sins at the urging of the Holy Spirit.

In order for a non-FSM believer to believe in the FSM, they must first eat of the spaghetti of life at the urging of the sauce monster.

My above claim makes as much sense (and has as much evidence) as yours. Remember we are in the science and religion subforum where evidence is key and blind faith statements or expectation of belief in statements from holy books are irrelevant.

Blind faith in bad science is worse than blind faith in the good God.

Blind faith in any kind of science is a laughable mistake. Science depends on evidence.

[marke]

In order for a secularist to believe in God he must first repent of his sins at the urging of the Holy Spirit.

In order for a non-FSM believer to believe in the FSM, they must first eat of the spaghetti of life at the urging of the sauce monster.

My above claim makes as much sense (and has as much evidence) as yours. Remember we are in the science and religion subforum where evidence is key and blind faith statements or expectation of belief in statements from holy books are irrelevant.

Blind faith in bad science is worse than blind faith in the good God.

Blind faith in any kind of science is a laughable mistake. Science depends on evidence.

Anyone believing in abiogenesis and hundreds of other unprovable scientific speculations must believe in the speculations by 'blind faith' because there is no observable proof those speculations are accurate.

[benchwarmer]

In order for a secularist to believe in God he must first repent of his sins at the urging of the Holy Spirit.

In order for a non-FSM believer to believe in the FSM, they must first eat of the spaghetti of life at the urging of the sauce monster.

My above claim makes as much sense (and has as much evidence) as yours. Remember we are in the science and religion subforum where evidence is key and blind faith statements or expectation of belief in statements from holy books are irrelevant.

Blind faith in bad science is worse than blind faith in the good God.

Feel free to present your evidence of 'bad science' as it relates to this discussion. Note that your personal feelings and faith position have zero bearing here. You have to show data and methodology that can be reproduced in order to refute accepted science. It's certainly possible as many scientific theories have been overturned/updated as progress continues in every field. At no point have holy books or faith positions turned over any science. They may have led to initial inquires, but hold no sway in examining any results.

[The Barbarian]

In order for a secularist to believe in God he must first repent of his sins at the urging of the Holy Spirit.

In order for a non-FSM believer to believe in the FSM, they must first eat of the spaghetti of life at the urging of the sauce monster.

My above claim makes as much sense (and has as much evidence) as yours. Remember we are in the science and religion subforum where evidence is key and blind faith statements or expectation of belief in statements from holy books are irrelevant.

Blind faith in bad science is worse than blind faith in the good God.

Blind faith in any kind of science is a laughable mistake. Science depends on evidence.

Anyone believing in abiogenesis and hundreds of other unprovable scientific speculations must believe in the speculations by 'blind faith' because there is no observable proof those speculations are accurate.

Since we now know that all the necessary molecules for life do form abiotically, the evidence very strongly supports God's assertion that nature brought forth living things. You have both evidence and God's word to support it. If you think that's just "speculation", we've located the problem.

[marke]

In order for a secularist to believe in God he must first repent of his sins at the urging of the Holy Spirit.

In order for a non-FSM believer to believe in the FSM, they must first eat of the spaghetti of life at the urging of the sauce monster.

My above claim makes as much sense (and has as much evidence) as yours. Remember we are in the science and religion subforum where evidence is key and blind faith statements or expectation of belief in statements from holy books are irrelevant.

Blind faith in bad science is worse than blind faith in the good God.

Blind faith in any kind of science is a laughable mistake. Science depends on evidence.

Anyone believing in abiogenesis and hundreds of other unprovable scientific speculations must believe in the speculations by 'blind faith' because there is no observable proof those speculations are accurate.

Since we now know that all the necessary molecules for life do form abiotically, the evidence very strongly supports God's assertion that nature brought forth living things. You have both evidence and God's word to support it. If you think that's just "speculation", we've located the problem.

Because it looks like nature might have brought forth life differently than what the Bible says is not proof that nature brought forth live apart from how the Bible describes God did it. Believing alternate theories of the formation of original life on earth must be done by blind belief, not irrefutably settled observed scientific fact.

[benchwarmer]

Believing alternate theories of the formation of original life on earth must be done by blind belief, not irrefutably settled observed scientific fact.

Well, at least you admit that blind belief is what you are doing. Solid points for that. It's ridiculous to blindly believe anything over your (what you believe to be) God given senses, but at least you are coming clean.

Imagine the conversation with God should you meet Him:

God: marke, why did you believe what some ancient humans simply wrote down over what the senses and logic I gave you show? Why didn't you use the talents and abilities I gave you to go test which was the right answer?

marke: Because blind belief is the right answer??? .....

[The Barbarian]

Since we now know that all the necessary molecules for life do form abiotically, the evidence very strongly supports God's assertion that nature brought forth living things. You have both evidence and God's word to support it. If you think that's just "speculation", we've located the problem.

Because it looks like nature might have brought forth life differently than what the Bible says is not proof that nature brought forth live apart from how the Bible describes God did it.

I just showed you that the evidence confirms that God was right in telling us that the earth brought forth living things. YE creationist beliefs about the formation of original life on earth are merely blind belief, neither supported by scripture nor observed scientific fact.

[marke]

Believing alternate theories of the formation of original life on earth must be done by blind belief, not irrefutably settled observed scientific fact.

Well, at least you admit that blind belief is what you are doing. Solid points for that. It's ridiculous to blindly believe anything over your (what you believe to be) God given senses, but at least you are coming clean.

Imagine the conversation with God should you meet Him:

God: marke, why did you believe what some ancient humans simply wrote down over what the senses and logic I gave you show? Why didn't you use the talents and abilities I gave you to go test which was the right answer?

marke: Because blind belief is the right answer??? .....

I do not blindly believe atheistic errors.

[brunumb]

I do not blindly believe atheistic errors.

I think the correct assertion is that you blindly believe theistic errors.