Complex Systems
Taken from my response to BCJ, just I took out the size tags.
The fact we don't know something 100% doesn't leave the
chance of knowledge. The way
a lot of god(s) are enumerated makes them strictly unfalsifiable, that is, even with the extension of technology a being that doesn't exist in the material realm is unfalsifiable.
Bold text is the key word here. Not to mention the fact that there are many people who believe their God has "extensions" or "reach" into the material, which, if true, should be testable.
Complex Systems
Being able to test something implies it exists in the material realm, which would be a contradiction.I'm going to stick with the christian god here, since according to Genesis "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." implies that god existed before "stuff" existed. Thus, is outside of "stuff." Any amount of material evidence proving this god doesn't exist among all the "stuff" would never be sufficient to disprove a claim that the god exists outside of it, citing Gen 1:1. This makes claims about the christian god unfalsifiable as we can neither prove nor disprove any claims sufficiently.
First off, only focusing on Yahweh is narrowing your argument significantly and doesn't really help you in a debate against anyone that is not Christian, Jewish, or Muslim. Secondly, simply because it is claimed that Yahweh did at one time exist outside of "stuff" does NOT preclude that deity from moving into "stuff" at a later time. That's all not to mention that you're narrowing yourself even further by focusing on just ONE verse of thousands in the Old Testament and not taking into account the New Testament which claims God DID, in fact, descent into the material.
Complex Systems
The only things we can know with 100% accuracy and fact are mathematical and logical truths, so we need to find other ways to accumulate legitimate knowledge about the world around us.
No, we don't. There could always be exceptions to any mathematical or logical "truth." Nothing is 100% from a scientific perspective. We could always be wrong, even if it is only in very specific circumstances.
Complex Systems
You're right, some god(s) may be able to be falsified, just not all of them. Many of them will remain unfalsifiable or provable under most accepted logical systems.
I disagree, I think that most ARE in fact falsifiable. Religions wouldn't last long if their deities weren't expressed in nature to SOME degree. If an ancient people couldn't point out instances of their deity's actions they were pretty much s**t out of luck in terms of spreading their beliefs, which means they generally died out.
Complex Systems
We can make claims about things we can
know, under a variety of different epistemologies. However, things that are strictly not-testable are unknowable. How can we make valid claims about things we cannot know? Scientists can at least say, "according to this outline, we came to these results," and people can test and try to duplicate those results. I'm currently working on two economics papers for my job where I probably spend 1/5th of the time outlining my methodology, data, and rationale for doing certain things. I'm trying to be as open as possible for people to double check my work.
Same thing can be said for most religious beliefs if you apply a scientific approach.
As a worst case scenario: Supposing religious beliefs ARE, in truth, un-testable, its always possible to apply spiritual meaning to things science cannot currently explain AND be logical about it. There will ALWAYS be things that human sciences cannot fully explain.