[billybudd]

Those are two different things really. God is not an object in the universe, so cannot be proved/disproved using a materialistic standard of proof. Because God is defined as the cause of existence, it is by the nature of existence that he is proven. In other words, God is, because existence is. Of course, this is a matter of definition. If you define God as a "being" in the universe, then you will have problems, i.e., where does this "being" live? Anyway, the traditional view of God is that God is beyond existence. But positive proof is not relevant, because nobody claims to positively define God. We simply know that God is that which or whatever it is that causes existence. Therefore, he is negatively defined, and negatively proved by virtue of existence itself.
Now, about evolution. I don't see what evolution has to do with all of this. If you're talking about physical evidence pointing to a biological process of natural selection, then of course it exists. Evolution is really the best theory we have to explain the process of creation. What I can never understand is how fundamentalists or atheists could believe that the theory of evolution is somehow in conflict with Genesis. It's utter nonsense. Genesis even hints at an evolutionary process by describing that first the form of the planet was created, then plants, then animals, and finally man. That's essentially what evolution says. The people who wrote Genesis did not have access to the scientific tools we have today, and therefore weren't able to make the kind of detailed historical analyses we can make. So, they didn't try. They simply wanted to convey the cause of creation, not its specific mechanical process.

[dubyajames]

Yeah, I agree with you in part. Genesis doesn't really conflict with natural selection, for example, but there are elements of Darwnism (especially the more Darwinism delves into philosophy rather than science) that are hard to comport with the Bible.

[tim politicus]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I take traditional Christian Theology as basically stipulating that while what they call ‘the Father’ is beyond even 'being', what they call ‘Christ’ or the ‘second person of the Trinity’ is, in fact, 'being' itself.

That is to say, they [Augustine, Aquinas, Anselm, et al.] hold that 'God' is, via the 'Trinitarian' perspective, at once the transcendent cause of 'being', and 'being' itself, and the **ultimate** effect of 'being'; so that they effectively say, if I'm understanding correctly, 'God causes Himself'.

I understand, and they sometimes make explicit, that they are opposed to any merely pantheistic view on the grounds that the are dealing with the unlimited and whole cause, and being, and effect, not merely finite causes, beings or effects.

This is also posted to any others who would favor me with a reply.