(January 8, 2015 at 12:53 pm)robvalue Wrote: I take the point alpha male, I could have done better in my OP. The consistency part was perhaps a bit overdone, it was an attempt to stop absurd claims that make utterly no sense, or which make wild unsubstantiated assumptions. Let's focus on a testable claim. And as cat sniper pointed out, this means it must be falsifiable. Or else it's just a proclamation of truth, or presentation of the unknowable.People accept claims that aren't falsifiable all the time.
One night I woke up suddenly. I made it a point to never look at the clock when I awoke during the night. The clock was dark by default. Hitting a button lit it up for a few seconds. I've read that light can disturb your sleep, so I had the rule to never do it. But, this time I did, and I did begin to wake up. Ten minutes later the phone rang. It was my mother, calling to tell me that my father had just died.
One day I relayed this story to a coworker who to my knowledge is not at all religious. He said that he used to think those things were just coincidence, but over the years he's heard enough similar accounts that he now believes there's something to it.
So, this claim - that god gave me a little nudge when my father died - is not falsifiable, yet a non-religious, intelligent business man accepted it to some extent. Note that the other instances were presumably each unfalsifiable as well.
Also do a little research on atheists. They don't all fit the scientism norm we see on this board. A significant number are new agers (or whatever the current term is) and believe in what you would call unfalsifiable woo.
