Agreed, up to a certain point. Also see the piece about creation: even if science says the world is older than 6000yrs, doesn't mean that it really is. It's just undetectable.
And if it's undetectable, it's irrelevant. It doesn't matter if the entire universe was actually created 6000 years ago, all that matters is that all the correlations line up to say that it started thirteen and a half billion years ago (give or take). So long as
everything coincides with that, then the 'reality' is utterly irrelevant.
There's a saying "Perception is Reality", and it's absolutely true. It does not matter what the 'truth' so to speak, really is,
all that matters is what you percieve. If you cannot percieve something or it's effects upon something else, then it does not matter.
True. But the Christian God is. And it's apart from nature, but able to interact with it.
What on earth gives you that idea.
The Christian God is the start, he is where nature
begins. He creates the Universe and thus becomes a part of it, you could say that the Christian God is the 'pinnacle' of nature.
However, because it is not part, we cannot research it using the scientific method. "Acts of God" are not predictable.
Of course they are; all you need to do to be able to predict Acts of God is to have a chat with God.
On the scale of difficulty to predict, Acts of God are one of the easier ones, assuming of course that they are actually Acts of God.
If they're Acts of Reality then it's a bit harder.
The danger that I think Bauglir is trying to describe is to attribute natural events to "Acts of God", which merely lessens our understanding of the Universe. As far as I'm concerned there hasn't been an Act of God since the beginning of the Universe (which was the first and only Act she did).
So what happens if it turns out that The Universe is infinite and cyclical in nature?