[quote="Darth Crater"]Yeah, I can't even bother to formulate responses anymore. Homestar seems to not be reading my posts, just picking out scattered words and constructing incoherent and irrelevant arguments based on those. Panama, though - you haven't contributed much so far, but I'll give you a chance.
"God can do anything" is an unsupported and extraordinary claim, and I don't see any extraordinary evidence from you. As far as I know there's no evidence of God being detected doing
anything. What is your source for this claim? The Bible has already been established as circular. That's not even the main problem, though. By saying "God can do anything", you're saying "the laws of physics are false", "history is false", and "anything could happen at any time". Basically, you give up all ability to understand or predict the universe. With a scientific and logical mindset, on the other hand, you
can understand and predict things. You can then use these things to build the world we have today.
However - suppose a God did in fact magically create and then remove water. That still leaves the countless other things that would appear as a
result of the flood, which we've listed. None of those have appeared. Could an omnipotent being have undone them? Sure. The problem is that those things we don't have evidence for include "civilizations being flooded" and "animal/plant/marine life dying off." If you undo these things such that we could not detect them today, you undo the stated purpose and effects of the flood. If the flood wiped out most of the animals and people ~5000 years ago, the world could not look like it does today. (By the way - The Grand Canyon's depth is not a result of volume of water. It's a result of
time.)
You are attempting to "rationalize" (I really hate that word; there's nothing "rational" about the process) the lack of evidence for a God by saying "If he existed, this is why there'd be no evidence". The problem is this: I'm sure that if you got direct evidence for a God, you'd believe it was more likely he existed and less likely he did not. Thus,
not seeing evidence should cause you to believe it's less likely a God exists and more likely he does not. I'm not sure how well I explained this, so if you feel up to more technical language, you can check out this article:
Absence of Evidence Is Evidence of Absence.
Finally, Panama - you seem to believe we have souls. Could I get your input on them? Specifically, what exactly you think one
is, and what it does? Do you have any response to my post at the start of page 85, or is there anything that seems flawed there?
@Crater, you're not sucking me into this madness...sorry. I stated what I believe in. That's it....pure and simple. You want quotes, links, references....for what? So you can shoot them down? So you can feel superior by having "all this evidence" while I have none? Theres a reason why I stayed out of this.....this is crazy. No one here is an "expert" in Theology, psychology, sociaology, physics, the human condition, and I could go on and on. All I see is a few dudes that know how to find links to their "evidence" (which is a joke, because is not evidence until you yourself witnessed it or experienced it. You have "faith" the "evidence" you "read" is true, but you never did the testing yourself). So...no thanks Crater, I will not join your circus.
PS. I do believe in souls, and by your standard of "evidence" (no, I wont post a link,find it yourself if you're so interested), I've read that tests have been done to determine if there is such thing as a soul. I can not recall if this was done by scientists or doctors, but they found out that a person, at the time of death, lost weight the second they passed. Ok Crater, now Google me to death.
