Dr. Craig contradiction.

[RoadRunner79]

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!

And you still do not understand falsfiability in this sense.  Whether Craig is 100% confident and you are less than 100% or 0% confident, does not effect if it is falsifiable.  It is not a subjective thing that changes from person to person.  Either there is a the potential to be shown false, or there is not. 

You cannot both say that there is reason to believe it is false, and that it is unfalsifiable.  This unlike the OP would be a contradiction.

Also, perhaps I steered in the wrong direction, talking about Poppers and the demarcation issue.  But  scientific test is not the only reason to believe something, and the only way to falsify it.   But I seem to recall hammy and others recently complaining that saying so was a strawman though... so I must be misunderstanding.