Re: Proof of God's existence? Why not evolution?

"Doug" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Not so quick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
> >
> > "Doug" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SortingItOut) wrote in
> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> >>
> >> > "Mark Earnest" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >> >> "Doug" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> in reply to...
> >> >>
> >> >> > >> > How about God made everything, but used natural selection
> >> >> > >> > as his tool?
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> Ok, but why would god require natural selection?
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Just as we like to use tools to make things with, so does God.
> >> >> > > Consider natural selection his artbrush.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > But why couldn't god just create all things at once.
> >> >>
> >> >> He did, but he stretched out the seven day creation into a
> >> >> continual creation over billions of years.  This is possible
> >> >> because God does not exist in time.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I can't comprehend this at all (existing outside of time).  Could
> >> > you elaborate a little?  Does that mean God has no memories of past
> >> > events (even perfect memory)?  Does God not experience something
> >> > like "a moment ago" or the predicted location of a falling object
> >> > 10 seconds in the future?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Like most theist arguments, Mark's is based on hypocrisy.
> >>
> >> It is all right for him to make wild and unsubstantiated claims about
> >> god, like existing "outside of time", but if a non-believer deduces
> >> any inconsistency their oppinon has no bearing, since god can not be
> >> understood.
> >>
> >
> > Hypocrisy means to state beliefs that you do not follow.
>
> You do not have to explain what hypocrisy is.
>
> > Mary has said that his understanding and experience of
> > his God is that God is not understandable by logical
> > thought processes. Saying that is consistent with his
> > stated belief.
>
> Perhaps you mean Mark.
>
> > Hypocrisy was probably most well known
> > as a religious concept by Jesus when he accused the
> > religious leaders of his time with judging others while
> > committing the same act themselves.
>
> If you frequent alt.religion you will find it is not only religious
> leaders.
>
> > Mary may be making
> > statements that aren't logical but he hasn't demonstrated
> > hypocrisy.
>
> Yes he has.
>
> You are not considering the overall track record, not just posts in this
> thread
>
> > If anyone has, it is you for making inaccurate
> > and illogical statements about his 'hypocrisy' when you
> > are preaching logic and scientific accuracy.
>
>
> Maybe you are new to alt.religion (if you are posting from here), but
> almost every theist starts a discussion with "god can not be understood".
> Yet they continue by making ludicrous statements that would require
> intimate knowledge of god.
>
> e.g. "God exists outside of time". You can only know this if you
understand
> god.
>
> [Saying god can not be understood, and then making declarative statements
> about god is hypocrisy].
>
> When an atheist attempts to make any conclusion about god the response is
> swift, "Your oppinon is worthless because you can not understand god".
> However theists can get away with saying anything (most of the time
> contradicting each other) because they are some how endowed with more
> knowledge about a supposedly unintelligible being, then non-believers.
>
> So, yes, mark is a hypocrite. Unless he admits that his statements about
> god are no more valid then mine.
>
> Otherwise he should not be making any conclusions about god, since he is
> supposed to be beyond human understanding.
>

Sorry, I meant Mark, not Mary.