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:
When people say that science can't deal with the existence of God because He is transcendent, immaterial, outside of time and space, I particularly like when an atheist states something like this:
Either God is fully transcendent, or a part of Him is or manifests (like the Holy Spirit) in our physical reality.
"In Christian theology, God has shown that big flashy miracles only go so far in convincing people. They can only serve as a general confirmation of a given revelation or teaching, but are limited in changing people's hearts. The Israelites quickly turned back away from God or just demanded more and bigger miracles. The religious leaders still denied Christ in spite of his miracles and attributed them to "Beelzebub"."
Isn't your God omnipotent, all knowing, yada yada...? Then how could his miracles be so little effective at convincing HIS OWN CREATION?
"Christ refused to do "parlor tricks". He took the deaf man away from the crowd so as not to make a spectacle of him. He told hypocritical religious leaders "only one sign will be given to you" (the resurrection)."
Humanity! You only have one shot at seeing Me. Never mind you are illiterate, are only a fraction of the human population and will transmit this in one of the most ambiguous pieces of literature ever written. Most of you won't see this miracle in any way, only read it in said book, but hey, if you don't believe it, your loss...
At this point, the only thing that I see perfect in God is His complete lack of logic...
And so yet again you just dodge the issue that most of us have with you - that you had no evidence to support the existence of a deity when you decided to start doing so. That you cite predictions that will provide evidence just reaffirms this - that you can't rely on evidence that currently exists.
Widespread/cross cultural belief in deities is a function of the human predilection of for conceiving models of the human mind. Even perfectly reasonable, modern people still fall prey to this fallacy. The fact that cultural god-concepts evolve with a cultures conceptualization of the cosmos is extremely strong evidence that their god-concept is a function of their minds - it's psychological, otherwise there would be some pervasive consistency to the concept.
You've already failed miserably arguing objective morality - so why bring it up unless you are here to debunk yourself. Even I could make a better argument for it, so it's obvious you are just blowing wind there. Your 'intricate designs' are continually being explained through evolution - so you are running out of room there as well. The previous statement also applies to the mind/brain connection and perhaps you should read a little V.S. Ramachandran on that one.
Even agreeing to terms of a finite number of events in our timespace, you don't get to just say, "What happened before that? Goddidit - never a miscommunication, you can't explain that," because that is no more valid than saying, "I did it, when I dreamt the universe into existence, but then I said, 'shhh' and put my finger to my upper lip, leaving all humans with a dent there so they would be unable to speak the truth of my creation for all their ages." You can certainly postulate that, but for intellectual honesty you still then need to look for evidence of it and there isn't any - other than that dent I put in the middle of your lip. Now bow down and worship me.
So why do you think your continued assertions of these fallacies are going to make any impact at all? Don't you get tired of being proven wrong over and over and over and over again. This makes the 9th time you've dodged providing the 'evidence' that you continually claim to have.
Heather, I think you would make a fine guest on the O'Reilly Factor or The Colbert Report
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.