falsifying the idea of falsification

[Drich]

I don't need science as a tool to make any of the statements that I do, lol.  Here again you show that you're just bitching about science.  Your god is falsifiable.   In fact, your god is even more falsifiable than the general notion of a god that science, as a tool, has falsified.  

Your god is falsifiable..and falsified...everytime someone "A/S/Ks" and hears nothing.

That's an existential claim that you've saddled the great fairy with.  I don't need to know the first thing about science to know whether or not there are voices in my head.

-proceed with your mindless bitching about a body of facts that has demonstrably falsified your silly god.

hey slow mo.. are you even reading what people are trying to tell you?
Or are you so... 'smart' you still don't get it...

Falsifiability is a tool used to determine whether something like a theory, is testable by the scientific method. God can not be experimented on. you can not put God in a controlled environment and add stimuli to evoke a predictable response. so God or the subject of God is not a discernible topic that the scientific method can be used to conclude. This means because falsifiability is the term Popper used to vet a subject's ability to be scrutinized by the scientific method, If God was able to be experimented on he would not be God. so THAT again disqualifies basically ALL of theological subjects from the grubby hands of those trying to force the subject of theology through the very limited scope and understanding of science.

Falsifiability is used to determine whether or not a subject can be scrutinized by the scientific method.
popper came up with this philosophy which he deemed the philosophy of science which all modern scientific discovery is segregated by.

All this means is that popper narrowed the definition of science to a point where if it can not be vetted by the scientific method it is not pure science. things not pure science? history, grammer, theology, topography, music, poetry, they are their own subset/intellectual persuit.

So all falsifiability is, is a way to determine if a subject can be considered pure science. if not it does not mean the subject is not legitimate, it just means pure science is not the tool need for this discussion.

IE you are using the term wrong. You are using the definition of the word and the authority of scientific discovery as a way of testing a subject worthiness. again can't do that because poppers influence on science says this subject is not subject to the rules of a scientific discussion this is another intellectual discipline all together, science is worthless here.

---

riddle me this fudger.. do you at least understand my argument?