RE: Creation Muesum
October 25, 2015 at 6:21 pm
(This post was last modified: October 25, 2015 at 6:53 pm by RoadRunner79.)
(October 25, 2015 at 5:50 pm)Esquilax Wrote:(October 25, 2015 at 5:44 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: It does appear that by the part that you put in bold, that we are regressing; back away from science that supports creation, to simply ruling it out by definition. What issue do you take with believing and attempting to show that God's word and God's work are not contradictory? Are you denying any science which may point to the account of creation?
Do you agree that for a conclusion to be scientifically viable, it first has to be possible?
Yes, I think I would agree with that. However I think it begs the question of how you are defining what is possible.
(October 25, 2015 at 6:06 pm)Crossless1 Wrote:(October 25, 2015 at 5:50 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Do you agree that for a conclusion to be scientifically viable, it first has to be possible?
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.
