# Can God be a useful "scientific" hypothesis? Yes

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/can-god-be-a-useful-scientific-hypothesis-yes/13699>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Tags:** Science, Design\
**Created:** [May 9, 2021, 10:15pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/can-god-be-a-useful-scientific-hypothesis-yes/13699 "2021-05-09T22:15:33Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 103

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tim](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/tim/32/9381_2.png) [@Tim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Tim)\
**Post date:** [May 24, 2021, 4:37pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/can-god-be-a-useful-scientific-hypothesis-yes/13699/103 "2021-05-24T16:37:44Z")

</div>

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> I explained logically how and why God must be consistent with his nature based on the laws of logic. Do you want me to copy and paste this again?

No. Because it is **beside the point**.

Just because it is _at times_ consistent with God’s nature to do something (because of particular circumstances), **does not** mean that it is consistent with God’s nature to _always_ do it (no matter what the circumstances).

The fact that it was (apparently) consistent with God’s nature to kill nearly everybody in a flood, does not mean that it is consistent with God’s nature to kill nearly everybody with a flood _at every opportunity._

You have _neither_ done a good job of demonstrating that God mimics humanity (at times) _nor_ have you demonstrated (at all, as far as I can see) that it is in God’s nature to _always_ do so.

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> I already explained how all three observations COMBINED gives us reason to infer that it is probably personal like us.

No. You _did not_ “explain” _how_ these observations “gives us reason to infer that it is probably personal like us.” You merely baldly asserted that they did.

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> You have yet to explain why those observations do not show it.

Yes I did:

> [@Tim](#):
>
> They are simply a _non sequitor_ .

I.e. these observations are _unrelated_ to the conclusion, in the same way as the following:

1. Roses are red.

2. Violets are blue.

3. Therefore I love peanut and jelly sandwiches.

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> > [@Tim](#):
> >
> > I offered the article as a _refutation_ of your claim that theodicy was unrelated to the animal kingdom, **not** because I accepted its claims.
> 
> No, this was not my argument. I merely responded to your assertion that our inability to comprehend, understand, and predict God’s actions applies to both nature and humanity. It has nothing to with Theodicy …

Balderdash:

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> > [@Tim](#):
> >
> > I would point out that there’s a whole body of theology: [Theodicy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy), Divine Ineffability, etc, that largely eliminate these purported constraints. If ‘God moves in mysterious way’, how can we tell if the hypothesis is disproven, or if God is just being mysterious again?
> 
> That is in regards to God’s relationship with mankind NOT with his relationship with nature and the animal kingdom.

It was _you_ who explicitly brought up “the animal kingdom” in response to an objection that explicitly included theodicy.

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> …and even if it does, I already addressed it by explaining the Benevolent design hypothesis.

Yes, and as I pointed out that “large screed of blather [is] utterly and egregiously irrelevant to the question of whether the theology involved is ‘NOT [related to God’s] relationship with nature and the animal kingdom.’”

For a more detailed dissection of your purported ‘hypothesis’, I direct you to @Mercer’s [comment](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/can-god-be-a-useful-scientific-hypothesis-yes/13699/94).

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/can-god-be-a-useful-scientific-hypothesis-yes/13699)._