When the Hindu claims that a certain mountain range in India is actually a huge snake under the surface, science can falsify that. If the revealed portion of their religion demands that the snake hypothesis is true, then that "revelation" is false and the Hindu is in a dilemma if he wants to keep his view.
The Christian example of a 6,000-year universe is a case wherein the revealed portion of the religion does not demand a "young earth" view. Since the Hebrew language in Genesis allows (and seems to indicate in places) an old universe, the Christian can embrace that view in keeping with the evidence.
If tomorrow we discovered indisputably that the universe is only 6 to 10 - thousand years old (that ain't gonna happen), I would shrug my shoulders and say I guess the young-earth view was correct! It's not an essential of the Christian Faith but is a peripheral issue.
But in what way could the science you're talking about detect God himself? If God exists, he is immaterial, timeless, and spaceless, etc. Science is therefore limited to investigating vestiges or indications of God predicted by theism or the revealed portion of the religion(s), but then any speculations as to what can be inferred by scientific studies moves out of the realm of science per se, and into the realm of philosophy.
So what are some things that Christian Theism would affirm or predict according to both Natural Theology and Revealed Theology that science could investigate? Examples would be:
Secondly, even if certain scientific discoveries lead to considerations that God exists, it requires further philosophical/theological speculation as to which of the World Religions has the best candidate for God.
Finally, as a Christian Theist, I think scientific discovery will progressively confirm the following predictions:
The historical discussions are similar to these contemporary posts:
God is generally considered to be both omnipotent and omniscient. Let’s say he created the universe. At the time of creation he knows how everything is going to play out. Doesn’t that limit his options to intervene in the future? In order to maintain his omniscience, he can’t intervene in a way that he didn’t know he was going to do beforehand. And if his actions are limited by this constraint, can he be omnipotent?
If he knows all (which means he knows the future) he is powerless to change it. If he can change the future, then he didn't know about it fully.
It is impossible to have an omnipotent, (all powerful) omniscient (all knowing) god.
If your god is omniscient, then he knows everything that has happened and that ever will happen. But if he knows what will happen then he cannot change it, therefore he cannot be omnipotent.
But if he decides to change some future event, then he cannot be omniscient because he did not know the new future before he changed it.
Informed philosophers for centuries have pointed out that omni-attributes only extend to what is actually logically possible. For example, all the power in the world cannot make a square circle or a married bachelor. These are contradictions or absurdities.
So if God knows that X will happen that means X will happen. And to change it means X will not happen. It is contradictory to assert that something will happen and will not happen at the same time and in the same sense.
Your post serves to clarify the definitions of the omni-attributes and point out logical absurdities with inadequate definitions.
Of course, you can create loopholes to avoid the obvious here- the definitions seem to be inadequate only for those who can't seem to accept the obvious- which is fine and makes for some good debate- but we can mentally masturbate this ad nauseum - conceptually, to me, it is as straight forward as it appears- omniscience and omnipotence, in the sense of the words as intended, are mutually exclusive- throw in omnibenevolent for a menage a trois of semantic fun.
I'm thinking he likes to regale his fellow parishioners each Sunday after morning service with narratives of how he is raising doubts in Atheist minds with his deeply philosophical posts. He may even take printouts of his posts and the other skypilots ooh and aah at them with their brainwashed minds thinking surely those questions must be impossible for Atheists, ha ha ha
All of this sort of makes me feel like going to church. If he can come here, why can't we go there, and then stand around in the lobby afterward posing unanswerable paradoxes for skypilots? Can they legally throw us out if we don't believe in their invisible man? Wouldn't that be discrimination?
Was I not clear enough? If Christian Theism is true, that means the universe had a beginning. Therefore, one can predict that scientific discovery will continue in the direction of an absolute beginning. (That will continue to lead to philosophical speculations as to what began it).
If Christianity is true, then no archeological evidence will ever overturn it, i.e. if it is conclusively discovered that Christ did not exist. Such discoveries would falsify Christianity.
Therefore, one can posit what one thinks is the best view then make predictions about future discoveries in various areas. A view that can make no predictions is not a very good view.
"Intuitions are worthless when it comes to understanding the deep rules and structures of existences."
You just offered an intuition concerning X that intuitions concerning X are worthless! That is self-refuting. The results of studies in physics and QM, etc. lead to speculation and intuitive reflection.
Silly season again for the "science cannot detect God" argument, by a religious theist no less.
Every major religion out there claims there was empirical evidence for the existence of their God. Abraham had an angel stop him from slaughtering his kid. Moses saw a burning bush. Several people saw Jesus killed by crucifixion, but saw him alive a bit later. Catholics have seen apparitions of the Virgin Mary. An angel showed golden tablets to Joseph Smith. And on and on and on.
If any of this stuff happened, why can't you scientifically prove any of it? Why would God reveal clear evidence of herself to only a few select chosen folks but deny the great majority of humans any evidence of existence at all? Well, the most obvious answer are that those few select chosen folks are liars, insane, or really stupid.