You express your concern, and quickly discover that I'm basically totally bored by this gun topic, and am eager to discuss a thousand other things instead. As we dive in to those topics, how credible will you find my reasoning powers to be?

Modern civilization has thousands of hydrogen bombs aimed down it's own throat, an ever present self extinction threat that we, even highly educated intellectual elites, rarely find interesting enough to discuss.

Upon what basis should we assume that we are intelligent enough creatures to generate useful statements about the very largest of questions??

Or, are we doing logical analysis of the God question because we enjoy logical analysis? Are we incurable nerds with a built in bias for a particular methodology which we dare not question, because then what would we have? Certainly this is the case for me, except that I am willing to question (yea! more logical analysis!!!).

Although impatience is typically not thought of us as an asset, could we perhaps use some here? Would it advance the inquiry for us to become impatient with the repetitive patterns of the God debate? Are we really going to keep doing this for the next 500 years too?

Antony Flew’s famous 1950 article

posed what came to be known as the “falsificationist challenge” to
theology. A claim is falsifiable when it is empirically testable—that is
to say, when it makes predictions about what will be observed under
such-and-such circumstances such that, if the predictions don’t pan out,
the claim is thereby shown to be false.

Wait, hang on a second. Can we stop right here for a bit before diving headlong in to a long articulate logical analysis?

Where is the proof that the rules of human reason are binding upon all of reality? Why should we unquestioningly assume this to be so? If such an enormous assumption has not been proven, why should we automatically accept human reason as a valid methodology for any and all questions no matter how large?

Instead of taking the bait and diving in to a big defense to the falsification challenge, why not instead just require the challenger to first prove that the methodology they are using is qualified to generate meaningful statements about issues the infinite scale of God claims?

Well, perhaps because to do so would collapse most of this site in to a pile of rubble? But doing so would be fair, because it would also collapse atheist challenges in to a pile of rubble too. Everybody's intricately woven clever logic dancing arguments in a big heap of chaos on the floor.

Then what?

That's the interesting question, imho.

Sorry, I will respond as soon as I can. I have been having computer issues. :(

I did find out that DNA testing was attempted on the Shroud of Turin.

Yes... Good and concrete examples.

With your background, I'm guessing you've already heard and read up on it... but in case you haven't, you might be interested in looking into Ignatian spirituality and the discernment of spirits. It does effect decision making within the RCC, especially those who are within the clergy. When I hear something akin to... "God called me to run for president of the United States..." I ask myself what discernment was used to come to that conclusion. When it comes to many big life situations like that, discerning what one believes God is calling them to do is a biggie... Many Catholic theologians would probably recommend some type of discernment such as that used within Ignatian spirituality and/or talking with a spiritual director.

Since there is no way to disprove what someone believes God is calling them to do, the only way that really can be done is if the person later on claims they misread what God was calling them to do (e.g., realizing an error in reasoning with a spiritual director) or they change their belief status (e.g., theist becoming an atheist).

Take care

Hey Ryan--Sorry for the delay as I had some commitments I had to take care of, but I wanted to make sure I got back to you.

You are getting to the very heart of philosophy right now. This is because we are beginning to assume that "scientific types of evidence, experiment, and evaluation" are rational and that logical deduction is coherent and rational. Obviously, these are philosophical questions and only philosophy can tell us whether the scientific method is itself coherent. (Yes, I believe both are rational forms of inquiry, but I don't know that via science, I know that via philosophy.)

Most people assume these two things to be true. But we must remember what happens when we assume things. Philosophy can show that these two things are coherent.

So, Theology relies on these most basic philosophical principles of reasoning and logic. So yes, theology does include deductive and inductive forms of reasoning just like any of rational inquiry of reality.

---------

In regards to an objective standard:

What you may be concerned about is that you may have perceived that there are not as "clear-cut" objective standards for theology as there is for the physical sciences. And this may be the case. This doesn't mean that there aren't standards for theology, they just aren't the same and as clear-cut. We have to be willing to dwell in the "grey area". While some wish to make everything black and white, we don't live in a black and white world. Our world is much more like a most beautiful multi-colored peacock tail.

One thing that makes theology so much harder than the physical sciences is that we are dealing with the heart of "mystery". We are dealing with realities that cannot be put under a microscope. Some want to then say that whatever can't be "put under a microscope" doesn't exist. Obviously, this is a bad conclusion. That person will then ignore much of our daily experience of reality as subjective, conceiving persons.

So though theology may make you uncomfortable, know that Christian theology is much older than the physical sciences (by about 1700 years), and has been refined by some of the best thinkers the world has seen these past 2000 years. This doesn't mean that there won't be bad theologians who are ignorant of theological history. There are. I personally don't claim to be a great theologian. In fact, I am a better philosopher than I am a theologian. Theology is hard, I'm more than comfortable admitting that.

I figure none of this will be satisfactory, and that's okay. It is simply an invite to open yourself to the mystery of reality that lies at the center of each one of our own hearts. Ultimately, the best theologians are the little old ladies who sit in the back of church yet experience God in most profound ways. Though they could never put those things into words, they know much more than the most studied "intellectual" theologian. That is why Thomas Aquinas could say after having a mystical experience of God towards the end of his life that, "All I have written to this point is as straw compared to what has been revealed to me." And Aquinas is still one of the premier theologians in Catholic theology to this day!

I am not sure people are using the concept of falsifiability correctly. If Kasich said it was God's will that he run for president, and then later he says it is God's will for him to drop out of the race because of insufficient voter support, it is very simple to come up with any number of reasons for God's alleged will. Maybe it was God's plan for Kasich to run and lose. Maybe it was to teach Kasich a lesson about humility. Maybe it was to get Kasich's message out without him becoming the nominee....

But this has nothing to do will falsifiability. It is correct to say that Kasich losing the nomination does not mean that he was wrong to believe this was God´s calling, it could have been for the many reasons you provided. However, even if he wasn´t being honest with himself, this does not mean that the claim is unfalsifiable. At the most, it means that he will do everythingt to not falsify it but that is on him, not on the claim itself or on the steps that should be taken to actually falsify that claim. Conspiracy theorists do this all the time. Just because, in practice, they treat the claim ¨Man has not landed on the moon¨ as unfalsifiable does not mean that the claim in unfalsifiable.

For those who believe there is no God, or even that there may be no God, it hardly makes sense to argue that Kasich's claim that he is following God's will is falsifiable.

I don´t think this is true. I could reject science and still acknowledge that within a scientific frameworks, a specific scientific claim is falsifiable. Similarly, I can reject God and religion but acklowdge that within a specific religious framework, claims about following God´s will can be falsified.

The whole point of the article (to the extent that I understood it) is that theological claims don't need to be falsifiable. I suppose, very loosely speaking, Kasich's claims that God willed him to run and also willed him to stop running are "theological." So why try to argue that they are falsifiable?

I didn´t read that at all. It seems to me that the point of the article is to show that religious claims don´t need to be empirically falsifiable. But even if it is true that religious claims don´t need to be falsifiable it does not follow that all religious claims are therefore unfalsifiable. It can still be the case that most, or some religious claims, such as claims regarding the will of God, can be falsified.

Even the argument that someone's claim that God wills her to have an abortion is "falsifiable" is true only to those who hold that abortion is always against God's will. There is no absolute guarantee that is the case.

Even if abortion is not always against God´s will, it does not follow from this that a claim that God wills a person to have an abortion is unfalsifiable. Either God willed someone to have an abortion or he didn´t and within a specific religious framework, it is definetly possible to falsify that claim.

This has caused me to remember a weekend party at a neighbor's house when I was in high school. All the girls were very upset and crying and had closed themselves off in a room away from the boys. Finally one of the guys finally convinced his girlfriend to tell him what was wrong. The girls had got it into their heads that God was calling them to become nuns, and they did not want to be nuns!

This is what you get for hoping God would turn the water into wine when he showed up.

I am not sure people are using the concept of falsifiability correctly. If Kasich said it was God's will that he run for president, and then later he says it is God's will for him to drop out of the race because of insufficient voter support, it is very simple to come up with any number of reasons for God's alleged will. Maybe it was God's plan for Kasich to run and lose. Maybe it was to teach Kasich a lesson about humility. Maybe it was to get Kasich's message out without him becoming the nominee. Maybe it was to position Kasich for a cabinet position in the Trump administration. Maybe it was to prepare Kasich to run in 2020. When you have sayings like, "God writes straight with crooked lines," it is very easy to come up with reasons why Kasich was following God's will to both enter and exit the race for president.

For those who believe there is no God, or even that there may be no God, it hardly makes sense to argue that Kasich's claim that he is following God's will is falsifiable.

The whole point of the article (to the extent that I understood it) is that theological claims don't need to be falsifiable. I suppose, very loosely speaking, Kasich's claims that God willed him to run and also willed him to stop running are "theological." So why try to argue that they are falsifiable?

Even the argument that someone's claim that God wills her to have an abortion is "falsifiable" is true only to those who hold that abortion is always against God's will. There is no absolute guarantee that is the case.

This has caused me to remember a weekend party at a neighbor's house when I was in high school. All the girls were very upset and crying and had closed themselves off in a room away from the boys. Finally one of the guys finally convinced his girlfriend to tell him what was wrong. The girls had got it into their heads that God was calling them to become nuns, and they did not want to be nuns!

It is about the claim itself. If the claim is unfalsifiable, there is no way to test the claim with science or any means.

The claim is falsifiable and this is a topic that has been written about extensively throughout the history of the Catholic Church. There is no reason to expect that it can be falsified by science since this is not a scientific question. But most importantly, your claim that it is not falsifiable stems from your complete rejection of the way to falsify it. If I reject science, then every scientific claim will be unfalsifiable. If I reject religion, then every religious claim will be unfalsifiable but this is on you, not on the claim itself.

I highly recommend the books The Jesuit Guide to Almost Everything by James Martin as an introduction to how these claims are falsified and Walter Ciszek's He Leadeth Me as a real world example of how this is applied.

Now that we are on the topic of the Jesuits, just about every single person that tries to become a Jesuit priest (or a priest of any other religious order) believes that this is what God truly wants him to do. The first part of this process is to confirm that this is truly what God is calling this person to do and it is not at all uncommon for aspiring novitiates to be turned away or delayed because of a lack of confirmation. I think you would be shocked to know that Ignatius himself outlined the process of decision making, discernment and confirmation almost as a step by step checklist that could definitely lead to falsifying initial beliefs regarding the will of God.

In practice, religious people falsify these beliefs all the time. I'll give you a very general personal example (without going in depth) of how I came to falsify such a belief. Several years ago I was offered a job in another city that included a substantial pay rise. I was absolutely sure that this was part of God's will and that I should accept the opportunity to give my family a better life. On further reflection I realize that I wasn't facing this decision with complete indifference which resulted in overlooking and undervaluing other consequences of this decision. For example, this job would require me to travel a lot more which would take time away from my family. This was something that I undervalued because of the significant financial benefit of taking the job. After making the decision not to take the job I proceeded to confirming it or what Ignatius calls the "rightness of chioce".

There are other claims regarding the will of God that are more straight forward to falsify. If you believe that it is God's will to abort your unborn child, then it is not that hard to falsify this claim. If you believe that part of God's will is to make a choice that will lead you to be unfaithful to your wife or reject your responsibility as a parent, then this also easy to falsify.

Regarding Kasich, the unfalsifiable claim that you attribute to him would, at the most, show that he has not taken the appropriate steps to confirm that this is truly God's will. I fail to see how this shows that his belief in unfalsifiable. Just like someone not attempting to falsify the claim that the moon is made of cheese does not make that claim unfalsifiable, someone not attempting to falsify a claim regarding God's plan does not make such claims unfalsifiable.

No, scientism says that we can have no knowledge unless it is a scientific conclusion.

That's only the strongest form of scientism. A weaker form says that the best knowledge is scientific knowledge. Any other knowledge would be 'pre-scientific'.

I will say it again, scientism is not my position, I do not require scientific proof of god to believe.

Ok, then let's return to an earlier claim of yours, which provoked me to launch in the hypothetical scenario with Vulcans:

BGA: [...] if the claim is that God's plan involves prayers being answered in some way that is distinguishable from a control, we should be able to detect it.

Your talk of 'control' made me immediately think of 'scientific study', but perhaps you did not mean to entail this. What would be an example of doing the above that isn't "scientific proof"? Are you really just saying that something pre-scientific would be acceptable, but that ultimately, it would be the kind of thing which could be turned into science? Contrast this to the understanding of what will cause the Vulcans to release their next tech to us, which is something I think I've established science cannot deal with because of the very nature of science.

What are you talking about? What instrument am I refusing to build?

As far as I can tell, an instrument which can detect God. (We are the instruments with which we explore reality.) It is arguably the case that we can only become conscious of patterns on our perceptual neurons when they sufficiently well-match patterns which already exist on our non-perceptual neurons; see Grossberg 1999 The Link between Brain Learning, Attention, and Consciousness (partial tutorial). And so, if we do not curate our imaginations of what could be and be careful to not rule out what we ought not rule out, we are in danger of being blind to some of what is.

Again you are welcome to define what you mean by God and exist, and provide arguments for this position that "god" exists. Or, I can give you some definitions that I have heard and give you arguments for why such an entity is not likely to exist. Or, you are welcome to ask what basis I have for my metaphysical perspective and I can do so.

I simply don't have any confidence that this would go anywhere before we establish a metaphysic which can support the knowability of 'rationality', or even the knowability of 'logic'. You'll say that your instrument can detect God, while I'll say that an instrument which doesn't support rationality ain't gonna detect God.