No, not asking if they are false, only if they could be so. Refering back to the OP examples.

I know Lewis wasn't an Adventist. Exactly because of this, his solution could be one that many Adventist would refuse to accept.

It is quite possible that Greenies point above is the strongest one and the situation being such that theology is not a science in any sense recognised by Popper. It could also be the case that Popper is wrong?

I'm still not understanding your question. How is it possible that the FB's could not be false?

Regarding Lewis' arguments in "Mere Christianity," I don't recall any arguments an Adventist would have a problem with.

Regarding theology and science, this is why I made the point about Scripture. If you accept the Bible as an authoritative book, you can certainly make an argument for the FB's, and they could be falsifiable on the basis of not agreeing with Scripture. However, the Bible is very open to interpretation, which makes it very different to being able to observe or reproduce experiments.

As in aside, it's interesting that many consider the theory of evolution to be scientific, when the same point applies to it (not observable or reproducible by experiment).

Consider again these three short paragraphs. Is what we say about God similar to "telling the reader that if he has a bet today he might win, which remains true whether he bets or not, and if he does, whether he wins or not"? Or to take a less objectionable example, try: If you wake up this morning, it is Gods will, and if you do not wake up this morning it is also Gods will. If you have cereals for breakfast it is Gods will and if you have porridge for breakfast it is Gods will. If you get in time to work it is Gods will and if you arrive to late it is Gods will. And so on. That is, all possible optioins are covered which only amounts to a theology of "whatever we happened to observe was Gods will" which means that we can tell nothing about what God might want to will for tomorrow since we have not yet observed what happened to occur then. It just amounts to an elaborate way of saying, we dont have any idea about what God might want.. Just as an example out of many that could be made.

Now consider the example, the question is, is it fair to how we relate to our theology or is it not? Does our statements of faith contain information, ie they say that some things are true with the following implication that other things which could have been true are not true, and that these things can be examined? Or does our theology stand free from the entire question?

Regarding Lewis book, he would have defended the professors at LSU for one. Just to make one example.

Regarding God's will, I believe much of what happens, most things in fact, are not God's will.

Regarding the other things you wrote, it seems this is dealing with the issue of falsability. I think our statements of faith say things that are true with the implication that other things which could have been true are not true. For example, from Friday night to Saturday night sunset is the Sabbath. I believe one can make a reasoned argument that this is the case, given the Scripture are true. One could also make a reasoned argument that the Scriptures are true. Where I see a difference between theological arguments and scientific ones are that you don't have a criterion to establish truth or error that's accepted by an entire community, like you do with math or sciences.