>>10886594>>10886993>You get my point. When Popper accuses someone of holding unfalsifiable theories, what he really means is that this person is just sliiiightly too dead set in his views for Popper’s liking.
I don't think taht's the case. Let's say I claim the Christian God exists: that's an unfalsifiable claim. Because how can we show that God does not exist? Something is falsifiable that it can be shown wrong in some empirical way. If I say "all crows are black" that's a falsifiable statement. We can check each and every crow and see whether they're black or not. If we find no crow that is non-black, we can assume that every crow really is black. Of course, we remain open to the possibility of error, which means that if one day we stumble upon a white crow we will have to admit that we were wrong and not all crows are black. That's falsifiability. But when it comes to God there is no surefire way to check claims about Him since he is alleged to be trascendent so it's outside our possible experiences. We can't know nothing about Him, not even whether He exists or not.>Sad!