Dr. Craig contradiction.

[Jehanne]

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.

I understand falsifiability in terms of the definition that I provided you from the text from by Drs. Laura Kay,‎ Stacy Palen,‎ Bradford Smith and‎ George Blumenthal, which, as far as I can tell, is universal within modern science.  If you or WLC is 100% sure of god's existence, then, no, you are contradicting yourselves if you claim that the existence of god could be falsified, that is, disproven.

In short, atheism is falsifiable, theism (or, deism) is not.