RE: Creation Muesum
October 26, 2015 at 10:19 am
(This post was last modified: October 26, 2015 at 10:21 am by Crossless2.0.)
(October 25, 2015 at 6:21 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:(October 25, 2015 at 6:06 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: My question is different than Esquilax's: Do you agree that for a conclusion to be scientifically viable, it first has to be falsifiable?
If so, how is a "god hypothesis" falsifiable?
I agree, to an extent. There is some debate within the philosophy of science on this and I could find myself leaning towards some arguments against falsifiability . But generally yes I would agree.
I do believe that there are scientific claims which are consistent with the Bible are falsifiable. However I find this is often confused with some claims based on the bible, which are historical and revelationary in nature. Not everything in the bible is falsifiable. I would also add, that science is not the only method for truth.
I also think that this is an interesting question, on a forum filled with people who believe that the "god hypothesis" is false.
I appreciate the response and am curious to know, in a nutshell if you wish, which arguments against falsifiability you lean toward. Ordinarily, this would represent something of a derail of this thread, but considering that it's devolved into another of Huggy's grandstanding attempts to avoid admitting he could be wrong about anything, I don't consider it much of a loss.
I agree that science is not the only way to attain truth. As for my remark about whether the "god hypothesis" on questions relating to science and its purview is falsifiable, my position isn't that it's false; my position is that it's completely beside the point and has no place in a serious discussion concerning scientific matters.