considered on its merits," then wrong ideas absolutely can be (and some should be) respected. It's in contrast to, say, flat-earth theory, which is an idea that doesn't deserve to be taken seriously because it is so self-evidently flawed
It's an untestable proposition, yes, so it cannot be taken seriously as a hypothesis. I don't agree. There must be some evidence of God before logic can be applied to the claim) (Do you usually spell his name out in full?)
-
-
I'd disagree it's an untestable hypothesis, and that there's no evidence of God - but these issues take way more characters & time than I have atm. In English, yes. "God" is the equivalent of "Hashem" as just a term to refer to the entity and no more
-
(as opposed to the Hebrew "names of God" which convey information beyond referring to the entity)
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
Once my custody trial is done, we're going to have it out in Aero, you hear?
But no, it's not a scientific question at all, since science is the study of the existent universe and ...