Evidence for God

St. Widge said
Sure, if you claim it's a random collection of matter you do need to prove it.

That seems duplicitous. If someone says that God did it, they have to prove it. If you say that it's a random action that organisms began and evolved into humans, you don't have to prove it?

andregurov said
Purely as an aside, it appears you have as much faith in your position as others do in theirs. You simply prefer to call it science.

What he said.

St. Widge said
How do you define "faith"?

Faith from dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith

faith   [feyth]
–noun
...
2.
belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
...
4.
belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.

You just said you don't have to prove what you believe. That sure sounds like number 2 to me. In fact the example is in a hypothesis that is not substantiated.

St. Widge said
So, no, science won't allow for "faith" to be the answer. It requires "proof". Faith does not cut it for science.

Exactly, so that's why you cannot say "I believe we are here from random accident" and say that it's not a faith in something you can't prove.

We had to come from somewhere. Either we came from random electrons, nuetrons and protons forming DNA to become an organism, or we were created by SOME intelligent design (doesn't have to be a singular creator God). Neither has been proven by the brightest minds, so belief in either one requires FAITH. Otherwise you have to just say "I don't know where we came from and don't fall on either side". That is a position you don't have to have faith for at this point.