Why Would God Hide?

[orangebox21]

I would prefer literal proofs, yes, but only because I've exhausted looking at the Abrahamic religions through the "metaphorical" eyes, and even Sikhism, Buddhism, and Taoism, for instance. In the end, it comes down to three types of metaphorical proof: prophecies, holy texts, and mystical experiences. Since I never had mystical experiences, it came down to prophecies that were all too vague to be useful and holy texts that laid on appeals to authority from multiple different self-proclaimed prophets or authors, that seemed, to me, to have little basis in fact (for instance, the claim in the Bible that 500 witnesses saw Jesus rise based on hearsay).

Given that all historical accounts are by definition hearsay, why would you accept the hearsay of some historical accounts but not others?

I think that I am a very logically and scientifically oriented person now, after coming from a Catholic faith where I had to accept a LOT of appeals to authority or "mysteries of faith," so I for instance think that the laws of physics as we understand them are valid across the universe because of multiple different and independent observations confirming this to be true. I haven't seen the same with religion- usually adherents one of one religion make some claims using internal logic and claims of infallibility that are easily malleable in case an escape hatch is needed.

You've asserted the following argument:
1. Things that are universal are true.
2. The laws of physics are universal
3. Religions are not universal
.:/ God is not true

I agree with you that the laws of science are universal (that they are consistent throughout time and space) and that makes them trustworthy. I also agree that there is no universal religion and therefore religion is not universal. Two things to consider here:

First, the argument as written is not valid. If we assume premises 1,2, and 3 are true and the conclusion is false, we have a situation where all premises are true and the conclusion is false (an invalid argument). This happens because it equivocates 'religion' and 'God'. You've argued that religion is not universal to conclude that God is not true. There are two ways to make a valid argument here. First, you could change your conclusion to argue that religion is not true. Or you could change premise #3 to read 'God is not universal.' If you were to somehow prove that 'God' was not universal (that His being is not consistent throughout time and space) then you could logically argue that God is not true.

Secondly, there is an error in your deduction from the observation that: because there are different religions making contradictory claims about God they are not universal and therefore not true. I agree that as a whole, the sum total of all the claims of every religion ever is not universal and therefore not true. This does not however necessitate that no single religion's claim couldn't be true and all the other false. Given you are scientifically minded let me offer an analogy to clarify.

Let's assume two things: First, religion is a theory (explanation) of God, and second time exists. Your logic asserts that multiple religions are evidence that God is not true. In other words, multiple theories of God invalidate the truth of God. Is this good logic? Well, there is the A-series theory of time and the B-series theory of time. If we apply this logic we would have to conclude that because there are multiple theories of time, it [time] is not true. Certainly we wouldn't come to this conclusion. In fact when faced with competing, and even contradictory theories we generally believe one to be true and one to be false even if we're unsure which is which.

Basically, I'm trying to make an appeal that you evaluate your definition of hearsay, that you don't apply a criticism to religion that you wouldn't apply to any other area of your belief system, and that you consider the logic of your argument.