When a person takes a science course, they necessarily take a great number of things on faith, both in what they are told was discovered, and in what it means, what it’s implications and extensions are, this because these are not all things the student can have experienced, directly, for themselves. Then, because so many things can be reproduced, and prove to be true, all other claims are assumed to be equally true and supplied conclusions are accepted.
The best lies, and worst mistakes however, are the ones that are 90% truth, with a critical 10% or less, that is false, but that 10% can change the entire meaning and impact of a thing. Therefore when someone supplies their own definition as selected out of a range of accepted definitions, and then supplies the meaning of that selected definition, and further, does the “logical math” for you as well, to then go on and argue that “fact” has now been supplied. - well, frankly, I become a bit dismissive, because they are simply exchanging their belief system for mine, ( however well articulated and constructed their argument may seem ) . Science is a realm where one answer tends to lead to a hundred more questions, and at the end of the day, you are left where you started, like, with all the knowledge leading to the conclusion of the “big bang” theory - you still have the question, where did THAT came from ?
My belief in God is based on all that I have been able to see, leading me to the conclusion that God is, and further examinations of faith’s as a whole, ( again so far as I have been able to see ) lead me to the conclusion that the God of the Bible is the one answer that would work, realistically, in that world and cosmos that I saw.
We could argue if any person is actually capable of 100% true “objectivity”, or if it’s even possible for a person to factually know their own level of objectivity.
For many of us our God is not science, but God himself is God. A conclusion many of us came too not because of what we were told, but because of what we saw of things, and this only after critical examination such as we were able, sometimes even from a view point of hostility toward any “God”, if one existed.
With respect @Eric10, Your pronouncements are just that, pronouncements ,based on your chosen evidence and it’s meaning as you interpret it. When someone challenges that, you become hostile and insulting, attacking someone’s command of language as your basis to dismiss them. The very statement " that you can’t be objective and have faith" is it self an opinion, and one we do not share with you. - seemingly clever arguments over the “language” used to describe a thing, does not actually change the thing being described.
I would suggest to you that a blind refusal to accept even the possibility of God, ( as your argument clearly implies that no objective arrival for the existence of God is possible, therefore God is not possible ) is it self evidence of a lack of objectivity because science clearly does not “prove” that God does not exist.
I have faith that atoms and electrons exist, but, I can not prove from my own experience that they exist as I have never seen them for my self. God however, I DO have my own experience of, and his words have proven true despite them sometimes seeming unlikely or even impossible. But that seeming impossibility was only a limited vantage point on my part. Rather than God requiring all this “blind faith” you imply, I find that God provides explanation of things, and then one sees how those explanations are supported and fit within what we see and experiences.
Scientists don’t know everything about our natural environment , and Christians don’t know everything about God, but neither ceases to exist simply because we don’t know everything about it.
Guns and Christianity do not always seem a comfortable fit, but they are clearly not mutually exclusive. That part of the question has yet to be undertaken here.