Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 8th Jun 2012 23:07 UTC
Hardware, Embedded Systems Two weeks ago, my grandmother passed away - the last grandparent I had left. As those of you with experience in dealing with deceased family members know, the funeral is only the start; the next part is taking care of the deceased's affairs, which includes going through all their belongings to determine what to do with them. I took care of my grandmother's extensive book collection, and while doing so, I hit something that fascinated me to no end: a six-volume Christian Encyclopaedia from 1956. In it, I found something I just had to share with OSNews.
Permalink for comment 521676
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

The statement "god exists" is not falsifiable.
The statement "god doesn't exist" is not falsifiable.

These statements strike me as too strong; rather I would suggest, "I do not know the statement 'god exists' to be falsifiable", and "I do not know the statement 'god doesn't exist' to be falsifiable".

But the statement
A: "God exists"
is not of the same quality as the statement
A': "The statement 'God exists' is not falsifiable".

This is so because A' is certainly falsifiable.
You just have to prove that A is falsifiable in order to falsify A'.

The same holds true for the statements
B: "God doesn't exist"
B': "The statement 'God doesn't exist' is not falsifiable".
B' is certainly falsifiable as it suffices to show that B is falsifiable.

Therefore, my statements (A' and B') are of scientific nature (as they are falsifiable)
while the statements A and B have to be regarded unfalsifiable, i.e. unscientific, until the day someone shows their falsifiability.

Reply Parent Score: 1