Of course I don't believe in any god at all. But my point is that being a theist it doesn't make sense to believe in a non-interventionist god, because he won't be of any more use than no god at all -- so he might as well not exist in the first place. You CAN believe in it, but what difference does that make?
The reason why I raise this question is that it would turn the problem from a scientific one (is there evidence of a god?) into a philosophical one (if there is a god and nobody's there to praise him, does he cry himself into sleep?). In short, a god that doesn't DO anything doesn't matter and may just as well be presumed not to exist because the only basis one would have to assume that he did would be faith.
Because non-interventionist gods are boring, silly and not exactly worthy of being worshipped (any more than the monster under your bed), this means the only noteworthy god we have left is the God of the Gaps: an interventionist god. And if that god actually does something or did things in the past, then that is something which should be testable and observable, scientifically.
The reason why I raise this question is that it would turn the problem from a scientific one (is there evidence of a god?) into a philosophical one (if there is a god and nobody's there to praise him, does he cry himself into sleep?). In short, a god that doesn't DO anything doesn't matter and may just as well be presumed not to exist because the only basis one would have to assume that he did would be faith.
Because non-interventionist gods are boring, silly and not exactly worthy of being worshipped (any more than the monster under your bed), this means the only noteworthy god we have left is the God of the Gaps: an interventionist god. And if that god actually does something or did things in the past, then that is something which should be testable and observable, scientifically.
