God is completely inadequate to explain anything whatsoever

[Drich]

In the article "Brains Wide Shut" published in a collection of them appearing in the book The Brain, Patricia Churchland disparages Daniel Dennet's book Consciousness Explained for adequately explaining nothing about consciousness.  She argues there are four criteria for pronouncing a theory of consciousness as adequate.  Such a theory must explain the main properties in sufficient detail to satisfy four conditions:

1)  we understand how macro events emerge from the properties and the organization of the micro events;

2)  novel phenomena can be predicted;

3)  the system can be manipulated;

4)  and it is clear at what level of brain organization the phenomenon resides.

So it occurred to me that of all the things God has been alleged to explain, I wonder how nearly adequate Churchland would find any such explanation.  Regarding the creation of the cosmos, what level of God's properties and organization are thought to account for it?  Regarding supernatural manipulation reported in miracles, can this God theory predict when new instances will occur?  Regarding the vouchsafing of objective moral values, what aspect precisely of God's organization explains such a thing?

The irony...

You do understand that science in it's completely understanding of the literal macro verse (the cosmos/universe/dimensonal theory) none of it jives or rather the same rules in the macro-verse do not apply in the micro verse. Meaning the rules governing the physics of planetary alignment and even the big bang are completely wrong when applied to micro bodies and phenoma. in otherwords the laws and throeys governing the big stuff, does not work when descrbing stuff on a micro level.

Now given 'science' in ability to reconcile change on it's very own macro level in relation to event changes on a micro level I ask you the same question. Why turn to science when looking for the solution for the "hard problem?"

Consciousness has the reputation of being the "hard problem", but compared to Christian god theory it is simple.  Leastwise the way forward to an adequate theory is not problematic.  Neuroscience will simply continue to unravel the brains complexity until something satisfying emerges.

So science will keep guessing and at some point in eternity future you faith tells you science will get it right.

Riddle me this. how is faith in that science will at some point find it's way, but the Same faith in God is pointless?

No pathway toward an adequate God theory seems possible where its advocates start out assuming the ways of God are beyond their powers.

Glob..
Just because in the beginning God's ways are beyond your ways why oh why would you assume that you would never be able to understand anything more than what you do now? Oh. that's right because 'science' feigns absolute knowledge right now. (meaning until the next throey comes along)

 In place of theory, Christians just advocate compliance with the organizing principles of religion.

Certain sects may do this, but in general we have been called/required to learn as much as we can about God. we do this by A/S/K. Petitioning the Holy SPirit for knowledge and wisdom, we seek for answers and truth in the bible and we repeat this till God grants us what we want.

 But then the ends of religion never were to explain origins or morality or the supernatural.  The ends of religion have always been appeasement.

Religion may not explain these thing but the bible does indeed go into depth.