Inconsistencies within atheistic evolution

grace2uI have to ask you to justify your statement here.
"In the same you you are pre-supposing that God doesn't exist, I am presupposing He does. This presupposition is based on suficient evidence. I could start listing them, but I think you already know most of them. (concept of evil, the created order, impossibility of the contrary{atheism}, the list goes on..)."1How does the presuppositon of God's existence show evidence through the concept of evil?
2The created order implies a prior suppositon to the existence of God since you obviously have the concept of a creation as evidence to back up your contention that there is a God.
3How do you arrive at a impossibility of atheism which is simply a point of view taken by certain people and since that is a subjective thing I do not see how you consider this tyo be evidence.To be honest I don't think you are very rigorous in your evidence are you?

I have a question I wish to direct at Philip and grace2u.Without using reference to a bible please state for me the nature of God i.e. what are his attributes?Now I want you to tell us the evidence you have that leads you to believe there is a God with these attributes.Since it seems neither of you are adverse to science please try to explain it in relation to known science.And then I am going to see if we can see where the errors occur.------------------
"Nature uses only the longest threads to weave her patterns, so that each small piece of her fabric reveals the organization of the entire tapestry."[This message has been edited by sidelined, 11-12-2003]

grace2u"I will gladly provide a rigorous definition of any term I have used, all you have to do is ask."Provide a rigorous definition of; 1 God. 2 universe 3 logicTake your time[This message has been edited by sidelined, 11-14-2003]

MilagrosJust wanted to point out something you said in your post that I found incomplete."Geometry says that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. You can't break that logic no matter what you try, it's pretty self evident"On the surface of a sphere the shortest distance between two points is not a straight line. Nitpicking,aren't I?

grace2uIam just bumping here to see if you are working on the definitions I asked for in post #54? I can see you are busy and I thought I caught a hint of you working on something in one of your posts.If so I will try to be more patient.

grace2u I am assuming revealed theology means the Bible. That is hardly rigorous since we have difficulty determining an unambiguous interpretation.By rigorous I would have expected a reasoned step by step approach that could have explanatory power.Oh well. We have no understanding of what constitutes non-material since there is no manifestation of such in the world around us.The same goes for the metaphysical.What you offer is only opinion not substance.Ok as for the logic I would like to know how you have established any sequential formal arguement that supports the premises you make.[This message has been edited by sidelined, 11-17-2003][This message has been edited by sidelined, 11-17-2003]

grace2uPlease tell me this is a typo. Rigorous this is not.