fate

well actually it did interfere with cause and effect in your example.. and/but to me that would have been the fate (even if god did intervine) that would be part of the whole picture fate process.. but i dont think you should use that example because so many people we consider innocent die all the time everyday.. coinsidences or errors like gun jamming are bound to happen..plus that was just a movie.. but yea and obviusly happensin real life..

but anyway whatever happens (including gun jammed wether caused by god (probly not) or not = fate.. so fate doestn intervine cause whatever happens is fate no? is that a stuopid assumpotion?

"no quote until i copyright it.."

No - it did not interfer with cause and effect because God's higher powers and related actions became the new over-riding cause.

exaclty! i was just saying that you made it seem that he interfered witrh the casue n effect laws kind of independent from his actions, until he stopped it.. but so yea we agree if there was a god who did something that weould be part of evrything which woiuld be the fate! i forgot what im arguing afainst f i am but i think i was saying that anmything thats happens is fate no? even if god blocked someithing.. anything at all that happes is fate cause it oculdnt of happened any other way .. and its that simple..

"no quote until i copyright it.."

" i was saying that anmything thats happens is fate no? even if god blocked someithing.. anything at all that happes is fate cause it oculdnt of happened any other way .. and its that simple.."

No because that is not the definition of fate. Fate proposes the imposition of a supernatural action. Some things are just merely natural cause and effect.