Whenever people set out to describe God it sounds to me like a bunch of nonsense--often a perfect description of nothing. A God who is outside of time or linear time, whatever that goofy concept amounts to, sounds about like nothing to me.
Because we mortal humans think only in terms of linear time, the idea of the. Fall being applied to the future and the past seems strange. But, is this tactic strange to God who is not limited by time (see Alma 40:8)?
There's nothing strange in applying the fall to the future and past. If it happened and there's a God who cares about it, then it happened and the God who cares applies it. There are no spooky thoughts inherent here. But that's not the explanation of the fall in the word of God. Of course trying to explain the inconsistency as described in scripture by using some mental gymnastics about "it could be" doesn't give much reason to accept the notion. It's only a slimey way to escape the incongruity and thus pretend it's not there. Was death introduced as a result of the fall or not? "Well yes, but you see, since death came before the fall that just means God is outside time and the fall applies before it happened, because God isn't stuck in linear time...or something".
Are you sure? Why twist it if you can't even know?
He exclaims:
What physical observation indicates or could indicate that God was the Creator? would that observation need to show something that could not be explained by natural means? That seems to be the assumption of creationists, atheist evolutionists, and Intelligent Designers. is that premise legitimate? Why could God not apply natural means to create the world? That would still take great skill and knowledge!
I don't understand why arguing that GOd is an unfalsifiable concept helps the case. The issue is not can God hide from everyone and we'll never be able to find him unless, of course, we assume our "spiritual experience" somehow is more important and informative than everything else? This puts God exactly nowhere but in the imaginations of believers. We can't know otherwise. Why is that rational, which was the point he was trying to argue for the whole time.
I think he's mischaracterizing what an atheist position would be. Its not that God couldn't hide himself from us tricking us in every way possible along the way, unless of course we somehow assume there's a spirit world. It is simply that the proposal of God as an explanation for everything is for one, not an explanation at all; and for two, is simply adding an extremely complex unnecessary idea to the whole equation, which I'd argue is more complex than anything ever and so complex it's basically incoherent. There's nothing rational there.
“Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos