Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Originally posted by D. Scarlatti ... we can see brains with magnetic resonance imaging, among other things. Or, post-mortem, we can hold them in our hands and even slice them into sections.
D. Scarlatti, we can see God in actions and miracles that happen. It's very common, too.
I have yet to see an account of a miracle that is comparable to the scientific procedures that Scarlotti mentions. Most accounts of miracles present an absence of a a natural explanation as evidence for the miracle. But absence of a naturalistic explanation is just that, it hardly counts as evidence of anything. And if you wish to use faith to fill in the gap, then we still don't have comparable phenomena here.
I have to admit I am ambivalent about Jokes like the one that started this thread. I'd like to be a good sport about it, but there's a part of me that thinks; "if anyone actually thinks this is how atheists really think, then I gotta answer it." Since my own sense of humor is fairly rough, I think it's only fair to accept a ribbing from the other side every now and then, but to the extent that such jokes are thought to provide any insight on my views, I would have to say 'no, it doesn't'
If faith destroys the concept of "science," with which i agree to a certain point, then the theory of evolution is, by definition, not a science. You still have to take it by faith, just as you have to take God by faith.
If you don't believe me, then explain scientifically how space, time, energy and matter appeared. See, it's all a belief; an ideology. Except some say that darwinism is better than Creation, and others state the opposite.
Alex. I have already commented extensively on the equivocal uses of faith in comparing various aspects of athiesm and naturalism to Christianity. My latest comments on that subject are in the Atheism is a religion thread in Apologetics. Also, I am not a natural scientist, so I can't claim to know the most advanced theories in physics. If my acceptance of such theories as tentaively true counts as faith to you, then so be it. They are in principle studyable (even if I am not the one doing the stydying), whereas faith arguments in relation to miracles are not. When faith plays a key role in the inference structure of a theory in it's most advanced form that is a flaw in the theory. This is not the same as the faith one has in others under the academic division of labor.
Finally. You offer your argument as a comment on evolution, then ask me to explain the origins of the universe. Two problems.
1) Since I don't actually claim to know how the universe started, I cannot answer your question, but that hardly proves that I am acting on faith. Rather it shows that I have an absence of an opinion on the subject, to wit, nothing to have faith in.
2) Evolution is a theory which is intended to explain speciation, not the origins of the universe. If you do not see that these are two different subjects, then I am disinclined to continue the discussion. I'm sorry, but that is really frustrating.
"And if you wish to use faith to fill in the gap, then we still don't have comparable phenomena here. "
What's really funny is when you actually look at what a mircle is. Its a mathematical impossiblity, ie an event that is highly improbable. So I think if you are an evolutionist you would love miricles, because evolution is one.
"A highly improbable event is not impossible by definition."
Yes it is by current standards I see. If there is a 1/10000000000000000 chance of something I would say it is a virtual mathematically impossibility, maybe I should have added that word "virtual". Nothing is impossible. Its possible that you could morph into a bunny right now, but its a virtual mathematical impossiblity..see my point?
We can see God. 
Linear Mode
