General Zod wrote:It was simply pointing out how foolish it is for someone who's supposed to be all powerful to have to come up with something so inanely convoluted when they could feasibly do it with a handwave. If a system can't be straight forward or make sense, then it's worthless as a way of explaining how things work. (Which, afaik, religion tries to do, but fails at rather badly).
Ghetto Edit: Paying more careful attention to your posts, it seems you just contradicted yourself. Either I made a valid point as you claimed earlier or it was pointless. Which is it? I don't really appreciate backpedalers.[/quote]
I never meant to be attacking; I've been conceding since the
last post.
Yes, you're certainly valid in questioning why religion has omnipotent entities doing long-drawn actions just to fix things they could change with a handwave.
My only question to that question is whether it's really relevant. It depends on how you view religion. If religions were truly straightfoward, well, they would just be. Who knows how hypothetical omnipotent entities operate? Who knows how it all works? In one sense, yes, you can certainly use your question against apologetics who believe their religion is correct because of the action occurred; on the other sense, it's a bit meaningless, isn't it? Why does anything happen in one way and not another?
Also, I'm in no way trying to be an apologist. I'm trying not to get flamed.