Do you believe in God?

[Benny44]

Then you presumably have proof for the existence of God?

I honestly don't want to be part of this debate. These things never end well. What makes me mad is these religious people talking about basically having blind faith, and making people think God or the Bible require us to have blind faith. People should make up their own minds based on solid evidence, not what they want to hear. The Bible actually has a definiton of faith right in it, and there is certainly no mention of 'just believe'. I'm not trying to force my beliefs on anyone, but I do think everyone should look at things with an open mind, not based on what people/religion say.

 

[zzz_pt]

I honestly don't want to be part of this debate. These things never end well. What makes me mad is these religious people talking about basically having blind faith, and making people think God or the Bible require us to have blind faith. People should make up their own minds based on solid evidence, not what they want to hear. The Bible actually has a definiton of faith right in it, and there is certainly no mention of 'just believe'. I'm not trying to force my beliefs on anyone, but I do think everyone should look at things with an open mind, not based on what people/religion say.

From Hebrews 11:1, the definition of faith is worse than "just believe". Is literally wishful thinking.

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

 

[Danoff]

I honestly don't want to be part of this debate.

You misunderstood the point of this thread and the forum in general. Here we engage in interactive discussions. The point of this thread and discussion is not to drive-by post, but rather to engage in enlightening discourse where everyone can gain a better understanding.

 

[Benny44]

From Hebrews 11:1, the definition of faith is worse than "just believe". Is literally wishful thinking.

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

You highlighted 'hoped for' and 'unseen'. But it also says 'conviction' and 'assurance'. Everyone on this thread has things that are unseen that they believe in. Another translation renders the verse 'realities not yet beheld'. The verse does not say faith is something hoped for and unseen. We usually have a friend we have faith in. We have faith in them because we know them and trust them. If they are the type of person that always does what they say, and they make us a serious promise, we have assured expectation of it, even if we haven't seen it yet. And if it is something we are looking forward to, we can say we hope for it.

 

[Famine]

Everyone on this thread has things that are unseen that they believe in.

[Citation needed]

You highlighted 'hoped for' and 'unseen'. But it also says 'conviction' and 'assurance' ... Another translation renders the verse 'realities not yet beheld'. The verse does not say faith is something hoped for and unseen.

And therein lies a massive problem.

You cannot simply translate a word into a selection of words that appear synonymous. Words have implicit meanings that may render them dissimilar to each other, even if they can be used as synonyms.

Hope is not always synonymous with trust. Faith is not always synonymous with hope. Belief is not always synonymous with faith. If you have a verse of the Bible that four different versions translate the same original word to trust, hope, faith and belief, three of them are wrong. The question is which three...

 

[SlipZtrEm]

We usually have a friend we have faith in. We have faith in them because we know them and trust them. If they are the type of person that always does what they say, and they make us a serious promise, we have assured expectation of it, even if we haven't seen it yet. And if it is something we are looking forward to, we can say we hope for it.

Where this comparison falls down is that we can see these friends. Interact with them. Having faith in them doing something they said they would ties into past experiences with them.

If I told you I have an imaginary friend named Billy, and I had utmost faith that he would make sure I'd have a good life, would you believe me? More pertinently, would that constitute proof of Billy's existence?

True faith = blind faith. There's no difference.

 

[Danoff]

We usually have a friend we have faith in. We have faith in them because we know them and trust them. If they are the type of person that always does what they say, and they make us a serious promise, we have assured expectation of it, even if we haven't seen it yet.

You're conflating two different uses of the word "faith". The term "faith" as used colloquially (as you're using it) just means trust or confidence. The term "faith" as used in the religious sense means belief without evidence. It's fine in a casual setting to loosely use faith, but then accidents happen when the discussion gets concrete.

 

[Imari]

@Imari I consider myself a very rational person, and a person who 100% believes in God.

One can be rational and believe in God. It simply requires more self-honesty than most people have.

"I have no objective reason to believe in God, but it seems to work for me and that's why I keep doing it."

People who pretend that there are objective reasons for believing in God appear to not be rational, as none of them are actually able to provide said reasons. People who believe in God simply because they find that it makes them happy, or their life better, or whatever, may be rational.

But any kind of blind faith does not fit in with the definition of faith at all. True faith is backed up by facts - always.

Really? You might want to share what your definition of faith is, because I suspect that it's probably different from that of many other people. Like myself, for example.

For me, knowledge is backed up with facts. Faith is backed up with wishful thinking. If you have facts, you don't need faith.

I don't need to have faith that my cat exists. I can believe that she doesn't until I'm blue in the face, and she'll still come and jump on my face in the morning until I feed her.

People should make up their own minds based on solid evidence, not what they want to hear.

This is the opposite of religion.

I'm not trying to force my beliefs on anyone, but I do think everyone should look at things with an open mind, not based on what people/religion say.

Why be part of a religion at all if you're not going to believe anything it says, and are simply going to make up your own mind?

You highlighted 'hoped for' and 'unseen'. But it also says 'conviction' and 'assurance'.

Let's be honest here, it's pretty relevant what you have conviction and assurance in. If it said "faith is the conviction in things that are pink and fluffy", you'd dismiss it as gibberish.

You can't take half the sentence and say "look, conviction is a strong word". You've got to look at the whole thing, and it says "conviction in that which is not seen".

Everyone on this thread has things that are unseen that they believe in.

I see you're another believer that can't accept the idea that some people do not operate on your system of belief.

Another translation renders the verse 'realities not yet beheld'.

Same thing. Faith is something that you do not currently have evidence for.

We usually have a friend we have faith in. We have faith in them because we know them and trust them. If they are the type of person that always does what they say, and they make us a serious promise, we have assured expectation of it, even if we haven't seen it yet. And if it is something we are looking forward to, we can say we hope for it.

And yet we don't tell people about what our friend is going to do as if it had already happened. We're aware that even though someone can be reliable and have all the good will in the world to do what they said they're going to do, sometimes 🤬 happens.

Your wife always comes to pick you up after work and you have faith that she will today, but the car caught fire when she went to start it and so she doesn't. Not her fault and she did her best, but your faith was proven to be unfounded.

Hell, see Gran Turismo 6 and the ongoing saga of the course maker. That's a prime example of people having faith in an entity doing something, in this case Polyphony, and for whatever reason they haven't followed through. Maybe it's force majeure, but sometimes these things just happen.

Which is why we have different language for stuff that may happen in the future, and stuff that has happened or is happening. If someone promising something was enough to ensure that it happened, there would be little use for the concept of "the future". We'd know everything already.

This is the disconnect. You're accepting what you believe as reality even though you don't have evidence. You're accepting that your wife will pick you up, even though she might not. You're accepting that God exists, even though he might not.

Some of us prefer to withhold judgement until actual evidence turns up. If it does not, we will continue to withhold judgement.

 

[Touring Mars]

I met some nice folks at the pool last night - it turns out they were a Christian brotherhood on a 'BBQ by the pool' social, where they "hang out, relax, chat about Jesus Christ, pray..." I should have realised when I noticed that none of them were drinking that they were not just a bunch of locals having a party! I must admit that I was desperately trying to think of a polite way to say that I am an atheist should anyone ask, but fortunately it didn't come up. That said, I think the guy I spoke to figured out that I wasn't a Christian from my reaction to his introduction - i.e. I didn't say anything to identify myself as a fellow Christian. I was quite relieved that my religion (or complete lack of it) didn't come into the conversation, and instead the chap asked me about the work I was doing in California. I told him that I was a tad nervous because I was giving a presentation to the boss/group today, and he said that he and his brothers would pray for me, which was nice of him. Anyway, he invited me to join their BBQ and eat with them, but I had just eaten so I politely declined. That said, I was tempted to see how it might go being introduced to the whole crowd and how long it would take for me to get myself into conversational trouble! I did overhear at least one guy talking about 'the creation' and so I figured I was probably best not to get into a conversation about that over a BBQ'd chicken leg.

 

[LeMansAid]

You highlighted 'hoped for' and 'unseen'. But it also says 'conviction' and 'assurance'.

I read it as a suggestion to be steadfast in faith, and not at all about having a factual basis for faith. "Show conviction", "Be assured" - both of those things can be done without any need for facts. There are people all around the world right now that are extremely assured that they themselves are Jesus Christ, son of God...... I'm thinking they're not though.

 

[ApexDrift123]

Some aspects of God I do believe some I don't . I believe we all evolve from somewhere but do not believe he created it in 7 days .

 

[Benny44]

Some aspects of God I do believe some I don't . I believe we all evolve from somewhere but do not believe he created it in 7 days .

The Bible doesn't actually say how long it took God to create the earth. A day in God's eyes is like a thousand years to us, according to other verses. It would make sense, because if God created everything, there wouldn't even have been days as we know them since he would have created the sun and moon. Science clearly shows the earth is older than God creating it in 7 literal days and then putting Adam and Eve on it.
As a side note, earlier @Famine asked about believing things we can't literally see or touch. I was thinking of things like radio waves and the wind. We see the effects, but we don't physically see these things

 

[CodeRedR51]

The Bible doesn't actually say how long it took God to create the earth. A day in God's eyes is like a thousand years to us, according to other verses. It would make sense, because if God created everything, there wouldn't even have been days as we know them since he would have created the sun and moon. Science clearly shows the earth is older than God creating it in 7 literal days and then putting Adam and Eve on it.
As a side note, earlier @Famine asked about believing things we can't literally see or touch. I was thinking of things like radio waves and the wind. We see the effects, but we don't physically see these things

You can feel and hear the wind though.

 

[Famine]

As a side note, earlier @Famine asked about believing things we can't literally see or touch. I was thinking of things like radio waves and the wind. We see the effects, but we don't physically see these things

Actually I wasn't asking for a citation on whether there were things we can't see, I was asking for a citation on why everyone believes in them.

The two important things there are "believes" and "everyone".

What things are unseen that everyone believes in?

 

[niky]

You can build a device to detect radio waves.

If two people of different cultural backgrounds built devices to detect radio waves, both devices would measure the same radio waves. Which is why broadcast radio is a thing.

There are no devices to detect God. And people of different cultural background often cannot agree on the properties, singularity/plurality, gender, species or political/philosophical bent of God.

 

[huskeR32]

Science clearly shows the earth is older than God creating it in 7 literal days and then putting Adam and Eve on it

Right. And the only logical conclusion to draw from that is that God had nothing to do with creating Earth.

In literally no other situation do humans so eagerly flock to a more complicated and contrived idea (well, you see a "day" isn't really a "day"...), when a much simpler and more rational one is available (God didn't create the Earth). Why in this one case do we so happily toss aside reason?

 

[Danoff]

Right. And the only logical conclusion to draw from that is that God had nothing to do with creating Earth.

In literally no other situation do humans so eagerly flock to a more complicated and contrived idea (well, you see a "day" isn't really a "day"...), when a much simpler and more rational one is available (God didn't create the Earth). Why in this one case do we so happily toss aside reason?

Well you see, to God, a day is like a thousand years. Except that God exists in all time and space, and so a day to god is really a human contrivance, but he thinks it's a thousand years to us, or just forgot, or something. So when he said "day" to the person he was dictating to for writing Genesis, he was really just trying to use OUR notion of the passage of time. But he got it wrong because he doesn't perceive time as passing. So he screwed up, except... he's perfect. So actually we have to adopt his notion of the passage of time that he doesn't experience. So to us, a day SHOULD be thousands of years. We're using it wrong, since God defined it differently.

Perhaps when he was dictating he said "a thousand years" and the person he was dictating to didn't know what that meant and said "I'll just put you down for a day". And later, when adam ate of the tree of knowledge God dictated "aaaaaaaaarrrrrgggg".

40 days and 40 nights actually translates to roughly 100 billion years. It also took Jesus MUCH longer than people think to resurrect.

 

[BobK]

Right. And the only logical conclusion to draw from that is that God had nothing to do with creating Earth.

Actually, it's possible that God (or some other super-entity) figuratively snapped his fingers one day (or one millennium ) and kicked off the Big Bang with the foreknowledge that this would result in the eventual creation of Earth, where life would develop and evolve, giving rise to the human race. So in that sense, yes, God may have created the Earth.

From where I sit that's as good a hypothesis as any other. But let's be clear that it is just a hypothesis.

 

[huskeR32]

Actually, it's possible that God (or some other super-entity) figuratively snapped his fingers one day (or one millennium ) and kicked off the Big Bang with the foreknowledge that this would result in the eventual creation of Earth, where life would develop and evolve, giving rise to the human race. So in that sense, yes, God may have created the Earth.

None of that addresses the specific idea that I was responding to; namely that the seven day creation story is true because a day doesn't actually equal what we puny humans think of as a day.

From where I sit that's as good a hypothesis as any other.

All it takes is applying something as simple as Occam's Razor and, right off, it's already a worse hypothesis than others.

 

[TenEightyOne]

All it takes is applying something as simple as Occam's Razor and, right off, it's already a worse hypothesis than others.

I don't think you're quite applying it correctly... the hypotheses that you're choosing between are very different in output, it's not just a case of pure parsimony.

 

[Imari]

Actually, it's possible that God (or some other super-entity) figuratively snapped his fingers one day (or one millennium ) and kicked off the Big Bang with the foreknowledge that this would result in the eventual creation of Earth, where life would develop and evolve, giving rise to the human race. So in that sense, yes, God may have created the Earth.

From where I sit that's as good a hypothesis as any other. But let's be clear that it is just a hypothesis.

Not really.

If the Big Bang is what we think it is, it's fundamentally an acausal boundary. There's no meaningful way to link something before the Big Bang (God creates) with something afterwards (the universe). You're thinking in normal causal terms, and they simply don't apply, even if there happened to be any such thing as a "before" when there was no time at all to be. Remember that the Big Bang is imagined to have created space and time.

If the Big Bang isn't what we think it is, then it's a whole different kettle of fish and should be approached completely differently. But you can't shoehorn God or a god into the current concept of what the Big Bang is. Not like that, anyway.

It was a decent try though. It's seriously hard for humans to get their minds around acausality, because it's totally foreign to absolutely everything that we ever experience at the macro scale.

 

[Spurgy 777]

Not really.

If the Big Bang is what we think it is, it's fundamentally an acausal boundary. There's no meaningful way to link something before the Big Bang (God creates) with something afterwards (the universe). You're thinking in normal causal terms, and they simply don't apply, even if there happened to be any such thing as a "before" when there was no time at all to be. Remember that the Big Bang is imagined to have created space and time.

If the Big Bang isn't what we think it is, then it's a whole different kettle of fish and should be approached completely differently. But you can't shoehorn God or a god into the current concept of what the Big Bang is. Not like that, anyway.

It was a decent try though. It's seriously hard for humans to get their minds around acausality, because it's totally foreign to absolutely everything that we ever experience at the macro scale.

Doesn't the Big Bang theory just describe what happened after space and time was "created", not how it was "created". Either way, even if it is possible that some being "created" the universe, it's pretty meaningless to say so.

 

[Danoff]

So Joseph Smith was given tablets by God, and he alone could read them, and then they disappeared. Moses was given tablets by God, and then he destroyed them.

Why is one of these more widely ridiculed than the other?

 

[Imari]

Doesn't the Big Bang theory just describe what happened after space and time was "created", not how it was "created".

Yes and no. It doesn't say anything about how it was created, whether it was created or whether it always existed. The Big Bang happened is all that the theory says because without being able to see the "before" state it's impossible to say whether something was created or just transmuted.

As you go further and further back towards the Big Bang, the density of the universe gets higher and higher, to the point where all known laws of physics break down. Including time, so at the very least there's a break there.

But if we're being honest, the fact that the theory predicts that there's a singularity of infinite density is a major sign that it's not right. Nobody seriously believes that's the whole explanation, as there's a strong tendency for things that calculate out as infinity in physics to be wrong. See stuff like the ultraviolet catastrophe.

Basically, the Big Bang theory gives a decent idea of what happened in the early universe. But the further back you extend it the more screwy it gets, to the point where it's just extrapolation based on known data because there's no better answer. But the results that you get by doing so are highly unlikely to be correct. There is much more that we don't know about before we can hope to understand what really went on.

But this is why I say that God isn't compatible with the current understanding of the Big Bang, and that if the Big Bang/beginning of the universe isn't what we think it is (which it almost certainly true) then the conjunction of that new theory and God needs to be approached completely independently.

Either way, even if it is possible that some being "created" the universe, it's pretty meaningless to say so.

It raises more questions than it answers. Without actual reason to think that there's a being that created the universe it's not a preferred hypothesis, for the simple reason that a hypothesis should never be more complex than needed to describe known observations.

There's no known observations that requires a Creator to explain them. Speculating an unobservable Creator is a lot more complex than speculating based on derivations of known mechanisms.

 

[sammy neuman]

Meh. By your definition if someone asked me the time I could reply "potato salad" and that would be an answer. In some very literal ways I suppose it is, but I doubt that most people would feel that they'd received an answer.
It just doesn't seem like a very useful definition, especially when we're on a discussion forum attempting to have a conversation. I find it much more useful to call an answer something that actually addresses the question, instead of any event that is initiated in response to the question regardless of it's relevance.

It wasn't intended to be useful. The statement that set it off was "that's not an answer." Well, yes it was...

That way we can actually call people out for trying to pull a fast one with non-responsive answers that seem at first glance to be useful. You know, like politicians do all the time. We have better conversations that way, because it allows us to get to the meat of the problem instead of dancing around talking about how science isn't any good because science is no good.

No disagreement. I didn't say it was a good answer, I said it was an exact answer. Nor did I consider it unintelligible because I understood it. However, to anyone not familiar with orthodox Christian doctrine, it would certainly be an incomprehensible answer.

Then you see how the mode of thinking which you practise every day, which sounds like it's probably quite important if lives and property are at risk, may not be entirely suited to the problems that you're attempting to address in this thread?

When you have one chance to be right, you make the best call that you can and carry it out to the best of your ability. Because that's the right thing to do, and anything else would be being a horrible human being.

When you have as many chances as you like with no repercussions, you attempt to be as wrong as you can. Because you learn more.

Agreed.

Interesting that you feel that you understand what SCJ meant, and yet you can't explain it any better than he could. I wouldn't worry about it too much though, while many people appear to share that opinion with you and SCJ, I'm yet to see anyone actually explain it coherently.

My apologies. I didn't realize that you wanted me to explain it. For the record I will point out that this will have no meaning to anyone not familiar with orthodox Christian doctrine.
For starters: God exists, and can do whatever He pleases. This is of course, non-falsifiable, but it is also comprehensive.
Because it pleased Him to create humans with Free Will, He chooses to keep his existence un-verifiable by objective methods, thereby not forcing anyone not so inclined to acknowledge His existence, or conform to His standards. Note that in the book of Revelations, atheists get their wish. Jesus (and God) do reveal themselves, and every knee will bow, etc...
There is a substantial body of subjective experiential evidence that God exists. But being subjective, one can believe it, or not believe it.
Beyond this, it's been so long since I've been concerned about doctrine that I would have to read up on it myself.

 

[Imari]

It wasn't intended to be useful. The statement that set it off was "that's not an answer." Well, yes it was...

In the most rudimentary technical sense, nothing more, just as my answer of "potato salad" to the question of "what's the time" was.

But this is a discussion board, where we attempt to have discussions. Therefore, the implication in any question or answer is that there's information shared to attempt to advance the discussion. If not, the person answering is simply wasting everyone's time.

This is why it wasn't an answer. It's a response to the question, but it's not a response that helps the discussion continue, and it's not an answer the furthers anyone's understanding of the problems that led to the question being asked.

Why does someone ask a question?
Because they want someone to make noises at them?
Because they want more black squiggles on their nice white screen?
Or because they're seeking information?

I think you're getting lost in the technicality of anything being acceptable as an answer, and missing the point that we were all trying to make, that the answer that SCJ gave did absolutely nothing to enlighten anyone that asked the question.

My apologies. I didn't realize that you wanted me to explain it. For the record I will point out that this will have no meaning to anyone not familiar with orthodox Christian doctrine.
For starters: God exists, and can do whatever He pleases. This is of course, non-falsifiable, but it is also comprehensive.
Because it pleased Him to create humans with Free Will, He chooses to keep his existence un-verifiable by objective methods, thereby not forcing anyone not so inclined to acknowledge His existence, or conform to His standards. Note that in the book of Revelations, atheists get their wish. Jesus (and God) do reveal themselves, and every knee will bow, etc...
There is a substantial body of subjective experiential evidence that God exists. But being subjective, one can believe it, or not believe it.
Beyond this, it's been so long since I've been concerned about doctrine that I would have to read up on it myself.

See, it could be the case that God remains inscrutable. But if we're accepting God as true, then we're accepting the Bible as true as well, presumably.

The Bible contains numerous objective acts of God that were witnessed by many people. There's a lot of stuff that could be subjective and open to interpretation like healing of wounds and such. But then there's things like the Flood or the parting of the Red Sea. Such objective acts certainly could be examined by the scientific method.

You can argue that God then went back and removed all evidence of such things having ever occurred. But at that point you're very, very close to a brain-in-a-jar scenario where your entire reality is externally created and therefore you can never tell if anything is real. While this idea may be correct, it's of no value in attempting to explain the universe. See Last Thursdayism to understand why.

So if God has removed all evidence of Himself from the universe, then there's no need for God in order to explain anything at all. There's no reason to have a concept of God at all, as it's of no use.

On the other hand, if God occasionally interacts with the universe, as seems to be the case if you believe the Bible, and has not totally removed all evidence of Himself from the universe, then there will be things that can only be explained by invoking the concept of God. Such things can be examined by the scientific method.

Do you start to see the problem? You have two options.

1. God plays no role in the universe or covers his own tracks so well that everything is explained by some non-God phenomenon.
2. God interacts in a meaningful way with the universe in such a fashion that some things that he does can only be explained by the concept of God.

In the first, there's no need for any sort of examination as there's nothing that needs explaining. Whether God exists in such a scenario is irrelevant. In the second, the scientific method will be of use in examining the evidence.

Either the scientific method is of use, or we have no need to do anything at all. There is no third option that I can see where there is something to be learned but we can't learn about it using logic, repetition and elimination.

If you can describe that third option clearly then please do so, but I think I've outlined so far why your scenario above is not that option. If you don't understand let me know and I'll try and do better.

 

[niky]

No disagreement. I didn't say it was a good answer, I said it was an exact answer. Nor did I consider it unintelligible because I understood it. However, to anyone not familiar with orthodox Christian doctrine, it would certainly be an incomprehensible answer.

It's not that the answer is incomprehensible to non-Christians. I was raised as a Catholic, though I've long since outgrown the faith. It's that the answer simply is not a meaningful answer in any rational or scientific sense.

Any other issues I have with this reasoning, Imari covered quite masterfully and completely above.[/QUOTE]

 

[sammy neuman]

In the most rudimentary technical sense, nothing more, just as my answer of "potato salad" to the question of "what's the time" was.

I agree.

But this is a discussion board, where we attempt to have discussions. Therefore, the implication in any question or answer is that there's information shared to attempt to advance the discussion. If not, the person answering is simply wasting everyone's time.

This is why it wasn't an answer. It's a response to the question, but it's not a response that helps the discussion continue, and it's not an answer the furthers anyone's understanding of the problems that led to the question being asked.

Why does someone ask a question?
Because they want someone to make noises at them?
Because they want more black squiggles on their nice white screen?
Or because they're seeking information?

I think you're getting lost in the technicality of anything being acceptable as an answer, and missing the point that we were all trying to make, that the answer that SCJ gave did absolutely nothing to enlighten anyone that asked the question.

I'm not lost in anything, nor have I missed your point. My response was addressed directly to the question as it was worded, and also included the information that SCJ's response was a doctrinally correct answer to the question as it was worded. I suggest if you continue to tell me why it wasn't an answer, you use a modifier such as 'acceptable' answer. Otherwise I might get the mistaken impression that you are trying to limit the definition of 'answer'. It took this long for anyone to grudgingly admit that I am correct "in a rudimentary technical sense", and that is the only sense I intended it to be taken in, which I mistakenly thought would be obvious.

See, it could be the case that God remains inscrutable. But if we're accepting God as true, then we're accepting the Bible as true as well, presumably.

Not exactly. Some take it as literal truth. I am aware of the 'natural history' of the Bible, and apply some subjective 'mental-filters' when deciding what is important to believe and what is not. I know this stops short, but not right now.

The Bible contains numerous objective acts of God that were witnessed by many people. There's a lot of stuff that could be subjective and open to interpretation like healing of wounds and such. But then there's things like the Flood or the parting of the Red Sea. Such objective acts certainly could be examined by the scientific method.

I agree. However, the parting of the Red (or Reed) Sea is a miracle, occurring in violation of the laws of nature. It is reported that an Egyptian army was destroyed, so there could be archeological evidence somewhere. The Flood? Unless our dating techniques are very wrong (not impossible) the Flood did not happen.

You can argue that God then went back and removed all evidence of such things having ever occurred. But at that point you're very, very close to a brain-in-a-jar scenario where your entire reality is externally created and therefore you can never tell if anything is real. While this idea may be correct, it's of no value in attempting to explain the universe. See Last Thursdayism to understand why.

I would argue no such thing.

So if God has removed all evidence of Himself from the universe, then there's no need for God in order to explain anything at all. There's no reason to have a concept of God at all, as it's of no use.

On the other hand, if God occasionally interacts with the universe, as seems to be the case if you believe the Bible, and has not totally removed all evidence of Himself from the universe, then there will be things that can only be explained by invoking the concept of God. Such things can be examined by the scientific method.

Do you start to see the problem? You have two options.

1. God plays no role in the universe or covers his own tracks so well that everything is explained by some non-God phenomenon.
2. God interacts in a meaningful way with the universe in such a fashion that some things that he does can only be explained by the concept of God.

In the first, there's no need for any sort of examination as there's nothing that needs explaining. Whether God exists in such a scenario is irrelevant. In the second, the scientific method will be of use in examining the evidence.

Either the scientific method is of use, or we have no need to do anything at all. There is no third option that I can see where there is something to be learned but we can't learn about it using logic, repetition and elimination.

If you can describe that third option clearly then please do so, but I think I've outlined so far why your scenario above is not that option. If you don't understand let me know and I'll try and do better.

Not undetectable. Unverifiable. God does interact in a meaningful way with the universe. In my own experience that I related earlier in this thread, there certainly seemed to be physical effects that could have been measured, had instrumentation been on hand. But the interpretation of that information would still be debatable. In different words; there is always another explanation.

 

[Imari]

In different words; there is always another explanation.

So what purpose does the concept of God serve in a world where all phenomena are explained by other systems?

 

[BobK]

So what purpose does the concept of God serve in a world where all phenomena are explained by other systems?

It makes some people feel good who wouldn't otherwise.