Darwin’s Rottweiler

[geauxtohell]

What do you mean? Certain non-deistic concepts can be shown impossible by definition (such as by proving one or more claim{s} about the deity to be false), and thereby proven to not exist.

I don't think I know what your meant.

My point: if you can falsify it, it ain't science.

 

[Setarcos]

What do you mean? Certain non-deistic concepts can be shown impossible by definition (such as by proving one or more claim{s} about the deity to be false), and thereby proven to not exist.

I don't think I know what your meant.

My point: if you can falsify it, it ain't science.

Falsifiability is a necessary but not a sufficient condition to be science.

 

[geauxtohell]

What do you mean? Certain non-deistic concepts can be shown impossible by definition (such as by proving one or more claim{s} about the deity to be false), and thereby proven to not exist.

I don't think I know what your meant.

My point: if you can falsify it, it ain't science.

Falsifiability is a necessary but not a sufficient condition to be science.

No, it's just one criteria. I am trying to dumb this down since when it comes to the supernatural, falsifiability is the major problem.

You could make a claim that we "observe God" in the natural world. That's what the I.D. people claim.

However, you can't falsify the existence of God, so theology is not a scientific venture.

 

[Setarcos]

However, you can't falsify the existence of God, so theology is not a scientific venture.

Your conclusion is valid, but not your reasoning.

The existence of any deity would be falsified if a mutually exclusive deity were proven (eg: YHWH and Thor). It's not scientific (or valid or meaningful) because it's not testable, as it's defined as "outside the realms of science"

 

[geauxtohell]

However, you can't falsify the existence of God, so theology is not a scientific venture.

Your conclusion is valid, but not your reasoning.

The existence of any deity would be falsified if a mutually exclusive deity were proven (eg: YHWH and Thor). It's not scientific (or valid or meaningful) because it's not testable, as it's defined as "outside the realms of science"

Okay.