Hi grey_whiskers! I happened upon this fascinating conversation you're having with KP and A-G. Hope you don't mind if I put my two-cents-worth in here.
What is this "primarily" thing in the above italics? It seems pretty obvious to me that the Universe is an unimaginably, astronomically spectacular instance of superb engineering, AND is also a sublimely beautiful creation, as in a work of art. Why do we have to accept an "either-or proposition" here, when the Universe is (apparently) both?
You wrote: "If God did make the universe, why did he lie?" I'm not sure I'm following this. Where did God ever lie to us? Because He didn't tell us absolutely everything about the manner and details of His creation in the Holy Scriptures? Well, AFAIC, that's for Him to know and us to find out. There's nothing in the Bible that says we shouldn't try. And increasingly I find modern, state-of-the-art science is perfectly consonant with the Holy Scriptures. In other words, science does not contradict the Holy Scriptures.
As for God "lying," Francis Schaeffer put it this way: in the Holy Scriptures, "God has told us truly, but not exhaustively." That rings true in my spirit. It is also an invitation to see God in His creation. For He reveals Himself there, too, as well in the Holy Scriptures.
Thank you so much for this thought-provoking sidebar, grey_whiskers, King Prout, and A-G!
*shrugs*
the "lie" is an accusation levelled by literalists - either Genesis is 100% factual, or God Lied: Either the evidence does indeed show what science says it shows and the book is a lie, or the book is true and the evidence is an enormous lie that has led scientists astray. Either way, if they admit that the evidence does not square with Genesis 100%, then God lied. They therefore insist that the evidence MUST square with Genesis and see all natural science to be an attack on Genesis and, by proxy, against God.
It don't have to be so.
While the alternative I posted would not lend support to Genesis-literalism, it does quite adequately resolve the supposed conflict between recent divine Creation and the evidence embedded in the natural universe which points to an extensively ancient orgin. And it negates the "lie" problem: Does an author "lie" to his characters by setting the story in a well developed world? No. Of course not.
Written 2000+ years ago, nor could he(God) have explained things.. that is physical things.. So what can be missed is that explainations have been limited to the most important things.. Spiritual things.. What good is it if you are a brilliant "scientist" and are cursed with spiritual "demons" of various sorts.. Like narcissim or selfishness.. or worse.. Successful at science but a failure at human life both personal and corporate....
There are things much more important than "science".. personally and corporately.. Arrogance says, that Jesus couldn't walk on water, but a reptile could decide to grow feathers instead of scales.. or that a stew of chemicals could form a lifeform.. When science doesn't even know what life IS, really....
For a collection of writtings(bible=library) written 2000+ years ago.. it stands alone.. Literally NO other belief in some God comes close to the bible.. written by about 39 people most of whom never knew each other..
When and If we ever find out what gravity is what good would that do.. Better transportation?.. some widget?.. more and cheaper energy?..Thats assuming we as humans could even understand the framework of this Universe, the foundation of it on our best day.. Engineered Art needs a user not a critic.. A grateful user.. Primates need to remember that they are primates.. You know a little humilty..
Truly, I sped right over that assertion that God could lie because it is absurd on the face. He is not "in" space/time and thus when He says a thing, it is. The Scriptures declare that God cannot lie, that He speaks of the end from the beginning, that Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, that our names are recorded in the book of life from the foundation of the world and so on.
God cannot lie.
There is much more I'd love to say, but as you have noted - this thread is now in the backroom.