Once it becomes apparent that Atheism is philosophically and scientifically in a better position than Christianity I will give up my faith, until then I hold it  Oh and I only just found your comment where you granted that science cannot discover everything. Nice to hear you concede that. The emergence of life plays an extremely minor part in the evidence supporting my belief in God although it does provide evidence for it. It is for the same reasons that Anthony Flew (one of the most intelligent and informed Atheists of the last century) turned to theism that I continue to hold my belief in God. Maybe you should read his book 'There is a God' you might get enlightened.

Atheistic scientists don't like the implications big bang cosmology, therefore they seek to change it, and fail. In Dawkins book 'The God Delusion' he even expresses his faith in Atheism being proved true by advances in physics, this is because at this time they point towards a creator, and a designer.

You're still assuming that because I work off of current science I am therefore just filling the gaps of what science can't explain yet with God. Have you ever considered that it cannot be explained naturalistically because it may have been a supernatural event? It is certain possible and probable at the time being. More importantly can't your argument that my argument is just an argument from ignorance be used on all parties involved in the debate? When it comes to arguments from the findings of physics it is Atheists who argue from ignorance. "We will find another explanation" they say, heaping theory upon theory to explain things like the anthropic principle and the big bang without God. When we move to the realm of Physics the evidence becomes very compelling and that's why we get idiotic new hypotheses like the many worlds hypotheses.

"But thank you for admitting -- albeit admitting -- that your belief in god relies on an argument from ignorance; although I already pointed that out to you" Current science labels the emergence of the first cell as a 'miracle' and shows us the likelihood of this occurring by chance and you think this is an argument from ignorance? It can be reasonably posited that a supernatural explanation is most probable at the time being, I am open to the findings of science it just does not seem a naturalistic explanation comes close atm.
"Do you mean to say you will actually stop being a "Christian" if science produces an explanation for the origin of life or the cell?" No that is not what I mean to say. Of course not, this is a tiny nothing in why I believe Christianity to be true. I will lay down my belief in a supernatural event as the beginning of life on our planet (all though I think God could easily do it through preordained naturalistic means).

ps evidentialist epistemology is philosophically bankrupt anyway Alvin Platinga demonstrates this very well. PPS I think your materialist creed has damaged your ability to philosophise

I am highly sceptical of Benny Hinn and his healing hands (and jacket apparently) though I have never met him or been to his crusades or interviewed people who say they have been healed by him. I have no data about his miracles and therefore I see them as possible but not probable. My belief in miracles is due to having been present and praying for the person who was healed as well as testimony from others. A guy I met became a Christian because he was healed of a broken back, yes an actual broken back, he got prayed for at a Pentecostal church and even has the x rays, one week broken back next no broken back I met him 2 months after this happened. However i continue to be skeptical of healing unless I meet the person and see it as a best explanation fo the evidence

"There simply is no verifiable evidence for the supernatural. " Duh, the supernatural transcends the natural it can only be known by inference from the natural or by revelation. I assume that by verifiable you mean empirically verifiable. Asking to put the supernatural under a microscope won't work! Firstly because of my former point and secondly because a miracle is a deviation from the norm, it transcends the norm.

2. My problem is not with the statement that with most phenomena a natural explanation is more likely (not reasonable) since this is what we know from observation. It is with your assumption from this likelihood that 'all' phenomena can be naturalistically explained. There is no evidence for this. You are simply applying a likelihood of naturalistic explanation as a universal rule, this does not follow logically. You argue
1. Evidence shows that in most situations it is more likely that a natural explanation is the correct explanation than a supernatural one.
2. Therefore evidence shows that naturalistic explanations are always right and can explain every phenomenon.
Do you see the massive faith gap between these 2 statements? If you do not then I suggest you look at them again (hopefully you can lay your insane bias down for a minute).

"It is not at all an assumption that a natural explanation is more reasonable than a supernatural one: it is a demonstrated fact." 1. I would agree that for most phenomenons a natural explanation should be sought unless a supernatural explanation best fits the evidence. I do not suggest positing that every phenomenon is supernatural (other than in its primary origins in God as prime mover) but rather allowing for supernatural explanations as the best explanation of the evidence. I don't even see a problem with the emergence of the first cell by some natural means, seems like God could easily do that to me. I wouldn't even bother including the emergence of life in evidence for God's existence. Although it is currently valid there are better arguments.

It is much more reasonable to work with the scientific data that we already have. If that seems to demonstrate that God is the only viable hypothesis that explains things like the fine tuning of the universe, creation, human conscieceness, and the emergence of life on our planet than you need to accept that it does. Once you get into philosophy it becomes even more clear that our current reasoning leads us to God. I mean come on, only the Christian faith is systematically consistent no other world view is. All science seems to have been able to do, rather than take God out of the picture, is to show how he created.