From a strict perspective there is nothing intrinsically wrong with this idea. The obvious limitations is that it would be true if and only if we were discussing our universe in isolation (which from the perspective of humans, we effectively are) and God is completely external to our universe. Thought that fact really does not help us because humans cannot evaluate God in such a manner.
If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: mathematics does not allow a part of a system (like humans) to be objective about a system (like our universe). That's where things like Bayes' theorem comes in (which interestingly, many scholars would attribute to Laplace). Just don't run too far afield with this.
Why not? Is there some reason you think we shouldn't "go look?"
You wrote: "If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: mathematics does not allow a part of a system (like humans) to be objective about a system (like our universe)."
Mathematics does not allow it, nor it seems to me does any other knowledge discipline predicated on logic. Total objectivity would be possible only if the observer could take up a vantage point outside the system -- just as you say. And we are in agreement that this a human observer never can do.
And yet you seem to sneer at "anthropocentrism" -- as if it were somehow optional.
Which is why I think Alamo-Girl is entirely correct to say that the only truly objective observer is God -- whether or not Laplace had need of "that hypothesis."
Is there any way for humans to contemplate the universe other than as if it were "in isolation?" How otherwise to formulate a concept of it? Any observer must intend an object of consciousness in order to "think about it." To intend the universe as an object of consciousness necessarily involves "isolating it."
I do not see the reason for your postulate, "and God is completely external to our universe." Do you mean to say that the only way we can get a good understanding (or any understanding at all) of the universe is to evict God from it -- which seemingly is Laplace's method?
Don't you see that IF God exists and IF He is as the Judeo-Christian tradition says the author and sustainer of the universe, then any attempt to "evict Him" would lead to a false, distorted picture of the real universe? Would you be willing to say for a certainty that He does not exist?
I much enjoyed what George Gilder had to say about God and the "hierarchical universe" in the July 17th edition of National Review:
Throughout the history of human thought, it has been convenient and inspirational to designate the summit of the hierarchy as God. While it is not necessary for science to use this term, it is important for scientists to grasp the hierarchical reality it signifies. Transcending its materialist trap, science must look up from the ever dimmer reaches of its Darwinian pit and cast its imagination toward the word and its sources: idea and meaning, mind and mystery, the will and the way. It must eschew reductionism – except as a methodological tool – and adopt an aspirational imagination. Though this new aim may seem blinding at first, it is ultimately redemptive because it is the only way that science can ever hope to solve the grand challenges before it, such as gravity, entanglement, quantum computing, time, space, mass, and mind. Accepting hierarchy, the explorer embarks on an adventure that leads to an ever deeper understanding of life and consciousness, cosmos and creation.And so some of us continue to "go look," despite the fact that we know we are limited as parts and participants of the universe, and thus as observers as well.