Can God be a useful "scientific" hypothesis? Yes

[Tim]

@Meerkat_SK5

I explained logically how and why God must be consistent with his nature based on the laws of logic. Do you want me to copy and paste this again?

No. Because it is beside the point.

Just because it is at times consistent with God’s nature to do something (because of particular circumstances), does not mean that it is consistent with God’s nature to always do it (no matter what the circumstances).

The fact that it was (apparently) consistent with God’s nature to kill nearly everybody in a flood, does not mean that it is consistent with God’s nature to kill nearly everybody with a flood at every opportunity.

You have neither done a good job of demonstrating that God mimics humanity (at times) nor have you demonstrated (at all, as far as I can see) that it is in God’s nature to always do so.

@Meerkat_SK5

I already explained how all three observations COMBINED gives us reason to infer that it is probably personal like us.

No. You did not “explain” how these observations “gives us reason to infer that it is probably personal like us.” You merely baldly asserted that they did.

@Meerkat_SK5

You have yet to explain why those observations do not show it.

Yes I did:

@Tim

They are simply a non sequitor .

I.e. these observations are unrelated to the conclusion, in the same way as the following:

1. Roses are red.

2. Violets are blue.

3. Therefore I love peanut and jelly sandwiches.

@Meerkat_SK5

@Tim

I offered the article as a refutation of your claim that theodicy was unrelated to the animal kingdom, not because I accepted its claims.

No, this was not my argument. I merely responded to your assertion that our inability to comprehend, understand, and predict God’s actions applies to both nature and humanity. It has nothing to with Theodicy …

Balderdash:

@Meerkat_SK5

@Tim

I would point out that there’s a whole body of theology: Theodicy, Divine Ineffability, etc, that largely eliminate these purported constraints. If ‘God moves in mysterious way’, how can we tell if the hypothesis is disproven, or if God is just being mysterious again?

That is in regards to God’s relationship with mankind NOT with his relationship with nature and the animal kingdom.

It was you who explicitly brought up “the animal kingdom” in response to an objection that explicitly included theodicy.

@Meerkat_SK5

…and even if it does, I already addressed it by explaining the Benevolent design hypothesis.

Yes, and as I pointed out that “large screed of blather [is] utterly and egregiously irrelevant to the question of whether the theology involved is ‘NOT [related to God’s] relationship with nature and the animal kingdom.’”

For a more detailed dissection of your purported ‘hypothesis’, I direct you to @Mercer’s comment.