Talk:Falsifiability of God

The Point?

I'm not sure what the point of this article is. "Falsifiability of God" refers to being able to falsify His existence, yet it reads as though the issue is the unfalsifiability of God.

Secondly, which "scientists" "often cite" this as evidence that He doesn't exist?

The article appears to be making an argument more than documenting a real phenomena, and if it's not intended as a parody, might be better off as an essay.

Philip J. Rayment 22:23, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

And it's a straw man argument at that. Granted, I don't know a lot about the scientific pursuit of God, but no scientist will say that a lack of falifiability will disprove God. As the author rightly points out in his first rebuttal, falsifiability does not disprove anything. A scientist would more likely argue that since you can not falsify the existance of God, you can not prove that God exists. To use the pork dinner example, if there is no way to disprove you had a sumptuous pork dinner, there is no way to prove you dined in porcine goodness. (Can you tell I've been eating cafeteria food for the last month? But I digress).

I'm not in any way saying that the scientists are right or wrong, but I believe the author is misrepresenting the scientists' view. HelpJazz 22:30, 20 September 2007 (EDT)