(November 10, 2017 at 3:49 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:(November 10, 2017 at 3:38 pm)Jehanne Wrote: I think it is a "beyond a reasonable doubt"-type fact, but, still, I do admit that I could be wrong. To be more precise, it is "very, very improbable" that Jesus rose from the dead just as it is "very, very improbable" that humans were planted in volcanoes 50 million years ago by space aliens. And, so, it is still a falsifiable claim either way. I admit that I am not 100% convinced either way, just 99.99% convinced in the negative ("did not happen") sense.
So, do you now think now that you where a bit hasty to say that religions do not make falsifiable claims?
Also as I said, unless they are making a specific point of making a difference between saying 99.9% and 100% I would generally give most people the benefit of the doubt in that they mean the same thing. I don't think that you have shown that Craig was contradictory in this way. However hopefully you have retracted your previously contradictory statement that Religion does not make falsifiable claims.
In order for a claim to be falsifiable, it must be testable, and, so, no, religions do not make falsifiable claims that we can test, if naturalistic materialism is, in fact, true. On the other hand, if supernaturalism is, indeed, true, then, yes, falsifiability could be extended to that realm, also, but since I see no reason to believe in supernaturalism, I would assert that religious claims are not falsifiable, but, I do admit that I could be wrong!
But, my OP was with respect WLC's claim that "god" could be falsified, and if WLC truly believes that, then he must admit that he is not 100% certain of God's existence. As an atheist, I am not 100% certain of God's non-existence!
