Dr. Craig contradiction.

[RoadRunner79]

---

Did we move away from the falsfiability thing; can I consider that resolved?

As to the 100% thing, verses someone saying 99.9%.... I would be hesitant to make any long conclusions on the matter, unless they are specifically talking about the concerns you are raising.  I suspect a good many may be intending the same thing.  (I did notice that you did not quote Craig on this part, so I don't know the context.) 

I do agree, that we can be mistaken, that we may misunderstand or not observe what we think that we did.  I also think that we can have essentially 100% certainty in some things.  I am doubtful that solipsism is taken very seriously by any large number of scientist and even then it is a metaphysical matter any way.  Similarly I am also skeptical that simulation theory is the reason behind very many who won't state 100%  certainty.  It seems to me, that there needs to be quite a bit of certainty that observations and tests are true, in order to study science.

Your last comment is interesting as well.  I find this an curious part of the false dilemma between science and religion, which I believe is the result of atheists group think.  Something that is repeated often among the group, but not really thought about or reasoned through.  Theism does not require any such thing, nor does science make any dictations in such a manner. I have talked to advocates of evolution who are quite dogmatic, and theists who are very liberal. 

I fear that you may be trying to make quite a lot out of nothing.

---

There's not one "theism", there are many.  Wide disagreements exist of the meaning of the word "god".  Is he (or, "she") omnipotent, for instance?  But, I digress.  But, no, I have not at all changed my mind regarding my OP. [1] I think that WLC has contradicted himself, as he does often.

The conflict between science (of which, there is only really one), and religion (of which there are an infinite number of) is intractable. [2] Science makes testable predictions; religion does not; scientific claims are falsifiable, religious claims are not; [3]science is universal (or, nearly so),  religions are not; in [4] science, strangers can agree, in religion, they don't; [5] science is well-defined, religion is ill-defined, or in many cases, undefined; [6] science reaches firm conclusions, religion is always changing, always evolving, etc.

Ok.  Seems like your views are based on an idealized view of science and misunderstandings.  Now if you want to say that religion is not science, in the modern sense of the word (meaning the natural sciences) I would tend to agree.

1 - As I explained previously, you have a misconception about falsifiability which leads you to this conclusion.  The concept is not subjective, and Craig's or anyone else's confidence level, does not effect it.

2 - Religions can and have made testable and falsifiable claims... this is simply false.

3 - I have no idea what this even means.

4 - Who says who can or cannot agree?   You are really grasping at straws here!

5 - Depends on what you are talking about and at what level.   Every hear of the demarcation problem of science.  Philosophers of science have found that it is not that easy to define.   There are also areas and subjects in science which are vaguely defined.   Equivocation and varying the meaning of the term evolution is often an issue in discussion.  And in religion it is going to depend on what you are talking about as well.

6 - You previously contrasted Criag's theism to science, criticizing it for being absolute and science as always provisional and able to change.  Why is this not a contradiction now? 

You are sounding more and more like the common mischaracterizations and idealism of the scientism bunch.