Quote:
Originally Posted by renderator  No it is not influence. The Deist God could be the cause of Bing Bang for example, but He could not change smth inside Universe like theist's God. |
I think the problem here may be semantics. Is the word your looking for "interfere"? Because a Deist God is believed to not physically interfere with the events of this world, but its'
influence is apparent in a different sense; not that it controls events, but that it created them. Say, you're a woman who has a child, but gives the child away. You had influence (however little) on that childs life. The Deist God is the same, a deadbeat.
Why do you think so?
Our school gets foreign exchange students all of the time and a "Russians are badass" is a steroptype perpetuated by them. But, it's just that; a sterotype. Quote:
Yes, of course.
"After experimentation they will observe if their hypothesis is correct" - it's impossible if God exists.
How can you be sure that it is the vaccine that kills pathogens and your hypothesis is correct? It may be God killing all pathogens, not the vaccine. Can you prove me that it is not God, who kills them? No you can't because God is unfalsifiable. So you can't prove that it's vaccine that is the cause.
|
I accept this. I guess it's not all that different from that witches making you sick, huh?
Quote:
|
In fact any natural science becomes invalid if God exists, because any prediction/law becomes meaningless, everything becomes God's will.
|
Nah, you have in mind the concept of a God that gives a hoot about humans.
Quote:
|
Yes, It is an irrelevant hypothesis to a science.
|
Glad we're agreeing more and more.
For the reason Romansh has said. You can never know if God exists or not, so it there is consequently
no substantial evidence to bolster your claim.
So why then do you make a claim without evidence?