There is nothing wrong with looking at how things behave and deducing what rules they adhere to. They’re not “our” rules, they’re the rules creation abides by.
There is nothing wrong with looking at the consequences of something happening and deducing the history thereof. Of course science can investigate history: we can look at how things are, look at how things behave now, and conclude the same rules governing behavior now would, given sensible starting conditions, produce things the way they are now.
I’m an engineer. I apply science to create things. I build a machine, set it in motion, and from that starting point & rules behavior emerges. I do not build the machine “mid-flight”, filling a computer’s memory with “in-motion” bits which starts with a web browser already running and showing Free Republic, I build a starting condition from which a more elaborate configuration emerges once initiated. I have no problem with the notion that God created a starting point, configured to operate according to rules, initiated it, and it ran from there to expand into a larger functioning universe in which He could interact. This makes perfect sense, as opposed to having to lay out every photon and every subatomic particle in an in-flight configuration, each including direction & momentum, with ALL of it appearing to adhere to starting conditions that _didn’t_exist_, THEN setting it all in motion - I reject that because it’s ridiculously difficult and unnecessary vs a far simpler design that, when initiated, exhibits emergent complexity ... and exhibits a greater testimony to the brilliance of its creator.
“I’m an engineer. I apply science to create things. I build a machine, set it in motion, and from that starting point & rules behavior emerges. I do not build the machine “mid-flight”...”
You are an engineer. Maybe God is an AUTHOR.
“There is nothing wrong with looking at the consequences of something happening and deducing the history thereof. Of course science can investigate history: we can look at how things are, look at how things behave now, and conclude the same rules governing behavior now would, given sensible starting conditions, produce things the way they are now.”
You seem utterly oblivious to the point. You ASSUME a mechanical process that involves no input from God, and then make deductions based on your assumption. But the assumption that God is an engineer who built a machine and then let it run mechanically without any input from him is YOUR assumption.
You can make that assumption and proceed from there if you wish, but you cannot complain that God is a liar because He doesn’t submit to your rules.