Stump the Christian?

[dyresand]

No.  They can't be investigated let alone refuted.  You don't get to concoct unfalsifiable premises and then treat that as 'reasonable'.

Because you can't test them does not mean they are unfalsifiable. A statement is falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false. You know they are not baseless--you are very familiar with the arguments. Again, you might not like the quality of the evidence or believe an alternate theory, but following the evidence we have is quite 'reasonable'. 

Science works with in the realms of reality not fantasy. A unfalsifiable claim would be pseudo science and pseudo science isn't science at all. 
It's like me claiming to make a scientific statement such as if you think about Orange Monkey Eagle at the same time your brain will shut down.

1. Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice which is incorrectly presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.
   

So you claim these things are unfalsifiable and they did happen you are just making incorrect statements that are in the realm of pseudo science and fantasy.

[Esquilax]

Because you can't test them does not mean they are unfalsifiable. A statement is falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false.

Do you know what it's called when one conceives of an argument or observation that disproves a statement, and then goes out to see if that argument or observation is true in reality?

A test.

[SteveII]

Because you can't test them does not mean they are unfalsifiable. A statement is falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false. You know they are not baseless--you are very familiar with the arguments. Again, you might not like the quality of the evidence or believe an alternate theory, but following the evidence we have is quite 'reasonable'. 

Science works with in the realms of reality not fantasy. A unfalsifiable claim would be pseudo science and pseudo science isn't science at all. 
It's like me claiming to make a scientific statement such as if you think about Orange Monkey Eagle at the same time your brain will shut down.

1. Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice which is incorrectly presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.
   

So you claim these things are unfalsifiable and they did happen you are just making incorrect statements that are in the realm of pseudo science and fantasy.

We are not talking about science, we are talking about historical events -- huge difference. 

[abaris]

We are not talking about science, we are talking about historical events -- huge difference. 

Interesting, since that's right up my field of expertise and science by the way. So let's hear the proven historical facts. Starting with the supernatural claims surrounding Jesus.

[SteveII]

Because you can't test them does not mean they are unfalsifiable.

Uh, yes, yes it does.  If you have no way of investigating a claim, you cannot falsify it.

A statement is  if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false.

Falsifiability requires some observation or experiment.  You cannot make observations or perform experiments on something that is untestable.  How exactly could we falsify your claims?

Further observations are possible and therefore the claims (which seek to explain the evidence we have) are falsifiable.

I can conceive that further written evidence is found that shows the NT writers to have made the whole thing up.
I can conceive that the body of Jesus (complete with tombstone) is found.
I can conceive that documents surface that there was no Jesus and he was that teacher from 100 years earlier.

By your standards, no historical information could be relied on for anything...because you can't test it??? That's ridiculous.

[Jackalope]

A theory is a model that can be tested and falsified.  Flat assertions about supernatural activity that cannot be investigated are not a theory, and it's not reasonable to believe in something whose mere possibility cannot even be determined.

Not all theories can be tested and falsified. (Big Bang, Evolution, Gravitation, and M-Theory are all such theories).

"A theory can be normative (or prescriptive),[1] meaning a postulation about what ought to be. It provides "goals, norms, and standards".[2] A theory can be a body of knowledge, which may or may not be associated with particular explanatory models. To theorize is to develop this body of knowledge.[3]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

Theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For theories in science, see scientific theory.

Emphasis added, yo.

[FatAndFaithless]

I'm talking about scientific falsifiability, dingus. Your god-claims cannot be tested. You have no way of confirming them outside of personal feelings and experiences. It's unreasonable to accept your conclusion.

[Jackalope]

I also think there are various "theories" out there which are not falsifiable (in particular the Big Bang theory or M-Theory).  But then I would classify these theories as mathematical philosophy more than anything.

M-Theory (despite the name), is currently a hypothesis, not a scientific theory.

The "Big Bang" Theory is absolutely testable and falsifiable.

Your classification system needs work.

[robvalue]

I'm glad to hear you are messing with us Anima, you're a naughty theist and I have a special cupboard for that! Get in! I was worried you were to going to follow suit with Steve.

It is a bit confusing how some scientific hypotheses get called theories, that's not ideal, such as m-theory and string theory. I'm not sure how it ended up this way and I wish it hadn't!

But yeah, Big Bang is a proper theory. You can't have a proper theory unless it can be falsified, or else it is mere speculation.

I'm gonna have to write about falsifiability on my website when I'm up to it, as this is such a common issue in theistic debates. Clearly some people don't or won't understand its importance. Shoe-horning God's interaction onto a scientific theory is then an unfalsifiable and therefor merely speculative proposition. I understand the desire to do this to continue to hold religious beliefs while respecting the science.

Evolution doesn't in any way disprove "God", nor was it ever intended to do so.

[SteveII]

I'm talking about scientific falsifiability, dingus.  Your god-claims cannot be tested.  You have no way of confirming them outside of personal feelings and experiences.  It's unreasonable to accept your conclusion.

What specific claims can't be tested? That God exists? 

From an article I just read...

While falsifiability is a useful way to evaluate a theory/belief, the merits of that theory/belief do not hang on its falsifiability.  Its merits hang on the evidence in its favor.  Theism has several lines of evidence in its favor.  That body of evidence serves as the basis for a reasonable dialogue concerning the veridicality of theism.

More to the heart of the matter, falsifiability cannot be an appropriate test for theism because it is impossible to falsify a universal negative.  And in order to falsify God’s existence, one would have to prove a universal negative: God does not exist.

https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2008/...e-so-what/