falsifying the idea of falsification

[Drich]

I will not be debating the philosophy of science as that is a matter of your ignorance or belief in modern science, and i will not be arguing how this term was intended verse your personal use. again that is a ignorance based on your belief in modern science.

-Oh, just that.  

Whole bunch of bullshit and time to get the op title completely wrong.

if you think the title is wrong the primis went over your head. I am proving wrong the idea for the need of falsification.

  This isn't about falsifying the idea of falsification.  You haven't done that.  It isn't about philosophy in general or the philosophy of science.  You won't be discussing that. 

kinda have, and if you understood the nature of the subject you would also understand the reason i won't be discussing those reason is because the nature of the philosophy of science would not allow for it. (I would be on your side of the discussion if you understood the purpose) which again falsifies this need to vet everything through a scientific process. rather the whole process is designed to dismiss subject not with in the scope of science.

IE you can't have a discussion on the falsification process if you understand it because it disqualifies subjects and theory as not being with in the wheel house of science. there for nothing to discuss under the rule of falsification as a point philosophy of science.

You're just complaining about your beliefs being subjected to any such criterion.  Who knows why.  If your god's existence represents a true existential claim, some other existential claim or circumstance must be false.  At least one, who knows how many in total.  You already believe this. 

again this is not how scientific falsification process works in conjunction with poppers philosophy of science. Falsification is simply a question to determine a subject scientific viability. popper was trying to narrow the scope and field of science. the primary idea was to ask if a theory or principle could be evaluated by the scientific method. if not then the subject was dismissed from further 'scientific' review. that is all this process is. it says science has not the tools to make a judgement here.

You already believe and would refer to such claims, and this is what falsification is.  So..yes, ofc it can be applied to theology.

no you are completely outside the understanding of the poppler philosophy of science and the call for falsifiability. the mere mention of theology would be deemed outside the scope and field of scientific review. the actual element of study the process of theology could be discussed or arranged scientifically, but the subject mater is not scientifically compatible.

You apply it as well.  Consider your attempts to rehabilitate god with biology.  The theological assertion is that a tinkergod played with mud in a magic garden.  God's claim..in this....simply cannot be true if the relevant facts are false.  It's not a scientific issue at all, Popper criticized logical positivism.  His idea was that any possible claim about anything might find at least one set of data that at least appears to support the premise of it's truth.   

Like your idea that falsification can't be applied to theology, for example.  I'm sure you have at least one point of nonsensical data rattling around your empty skull that leads you to believe that this is true.  You spam the forums with videos entirely premised on them.  Let's apply some falsification to that idea, though.  For it to be true..you would have to have gotten any relevant fact in your op right.  

You didn't...but ofc, you won't be discussing any of that, now will you. 

none of this shows you understand the nature of the topic. Only if there was a short video you could watch maybe not yelling at the screen so you can hear what is being said. if only someone took the time to make and record this point so you could hear it rather than 1/2 read and then fill in the blanks with your own thoughts... maybe the words would tell you what you think and what is being said are not the same thing.