“The philosophy of science” would rule out “God”, but “Logic” is taking what we know or assume (evidence) and figure out something we do not know and that could be an intelligent designer.
It has been a while since I studied philosophy, so how is “an intelligent designer completely illogical”?
Because there is no valid pathway of logical deduction that leads to it.
Would you like to propose one?
Suppose the first moon astronauts had found a nice big Bible on the moon, would it be “logical” to assume that God most likely put it there?
That would depend on your pathway of logical deduction. Without you laying out the argument, it's hard to say.
The argument is about the Christian God’s existence and not the Bible.
The Bible is closely tied to the subject of God, given how it's advertised as a divinely-inspired text that is absolutely true. Finding errors and inconsistencies in the Bible is hence very relevant to the argument at hand. If this divinely-inspired text contains so many errors, what do you suppose that says about God?
I have told you the reason for God not reveling Himself and that is man’s need for faith.
I disagree. A considerable number of the world population lack faith, and they're getting along just fine. The obvious answer to my argument is that faith is required for spiritual, otherworldly ends, but that's simply using a baseless claim to back up another baseless claim.
Science has been looking at heavily the concept life just developing to fit the environment, but the more they learn about the needed component to the simplest form of life, the more they realize how delicate it is.
How does that mean life cannot have developed specifically so as to be able to survive in its environment? On a planet with a heavy carbon- and oxygen-based atmosphere, would you expect that life started off by trying to metabolize, say, deuterium? Of course not.
In fact, I would propose that the "delicateness" of life (as you put it) is much stronger evidence for life developing for its environment than for an all-powerful designer. If we ever find life that cannot possibly have survived its environment via any means whatsoever but still did anyway, now
that would be proof of a designer's handiwork!
Forty years ago people were suggesting there could be non organic life and/or at least non DNA life, but we pretty much thrown that out and are trying to figure out how organic DNA type life could ever get started.
That's quite irrelevant. All that's needed in the beginning is inexact self-replicators, whether living or otherwise. Evolution takes over from there.
Regarding your earlier argument that no model of abiogenesis has ever been proposed for peer review, I decided to investigate that claim. At least two are reviewed and reproduced by credible scientific journals and universities, and heavily cited by other publications: the iron-sulfur world theory and the RNA hypothesis. I don't have enough privileges to post links, but look them up on on Wikipedia or Google Scholar.
Not being concerned about God is living like there is no God.
Agreed, but as is the case with purple unicorns on Saturn, it doesn't necessarily mean any conscious decision was made.
Is your heart such that you would become a modern day Paul if Christ revealed Himself to you?
All Paul’s past sinning became a powerful part of his witness; “This is what I was and did, but through Jesus this is what I have become.”
It's hard to say. If I knew Christianity were true, however, I can safely say that I will believe and I will preach the gospel that I know to be true, pretty much like how I'm advocating what I know to be true now.
Besides, past sin is hardly a prerequisite to be a great witness. Consider the apostles. Consider Peter, who later became the rock on which Jesus built his church. There's no consensus in the Bible that you need to be of such-and-such character before you can become a useful part of God's kingdom.
Again, God does not need you to acknowledge His existence that can come later at the judgment.
No, he doesn't "need" to. He just wants us to. Yet his actions are horribly inconsistent with his wishes in that regard.
If you have “knowledge” of something you do not need to have faith in the area of that knowledge. If you know that God exist you do not need faith in the existence of God.
That seems rather contradictory. If you believed that X is true and acted as though X is true, and the results of your actions are exactly what you'd expect if X was true, and if this keeps happening over time, then you'd end up with the knowledge that X is indeed true. Faith in something that is true, leads to knowledge that that something is indeed true.
If you look on this forum, or just in this thread itself, you'll find Christians – yourself included – saying "I know God exists,",
not "I don't know if God exists, but I believe he does." If you truly believed in the latter position, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.
Again God does not “want” anything from you
In other words, God doesn't give a sh*t.
Which I think is actually a very sensible explanation, and would perfectly explain the state of things in the world today. But unfortunately, that's not what the Bible says. I wish it did, though. Christianity would make a whole lot more sense all of a sudden; we do have a supreme being, but he doesn't care.
we are not doing and really cannot do anything to “earn”,
Yes we can. As you've been arguing all along, we need to have faith in the unseen and unknowable, we need to accept Jesus, we need to have the correct "heart". You might claim that those acts are paltry and insignificant, but they're still things we need to accomplish by our own effort and ability, and they're also things that are not possible if we truly gave up on ourselves.
How could the Pharisees that got to see, hear, question, and experience Jesus not know He was from God?
Simple. As I've explained before, Jesus failed to fulfill the messianic prophecies given by Isaiah, Ezekiel, Amos, et al, and he tried to abolish God's laws (e.g. not obeying Sabbath) and set up a New Covenant where one needs to believe in him. He demonstrated miracles, but those could just as easily be from the devil rather than from God. All in all, Jesus was a pretty heretical figure, really.
I am not a better person then Adolf Hitler or Saddam Hussein, but I have accepted God’s Love.
That's curious. It would seem that you have a strange definition of "better". I'm assuming you haven't been responsible for any war crimes, genocides, ethnic cleansing, or acts of widespread terrorism, and are just a normal person. Assuming those are true, it's a simple fact that you're better than Adolf Hitler or Saddam Hussein.
You claim to be a chemist. It's also a simple, straightforward fact that you know more about chemistry than the average layperson, assuming you're any good at your profession. Does that make you feel arrogant or proud? No? Exactly. Part of humility involves recognizing and accepting these simple facts. There's no need to put on a false air of humility by pretending to be just as evil as Hitler when it's blatantly obvious that that's not the case.
As of right now, so do you “trust” believe (have faith) they will find a system or that there is a system?
No, I don't know how things will turn out. It's just that you made a definite claim stating your position on the matter, and I'm wondering what evidence do you have to back it up.
The puniness of your attack is laughable 
)
