Christian claims are unfalsifiable.

[Paul of Tarsus]

If you're familiar with Christianity at all, then you're unlikely to be told anything that you can falsify about it. Consider the following format for a claim that can be falsified:

Do A.
B should result if you do A.
If B is not the result of doing A, then you know that "B should result if you do A" has been falsified.

The Christian version on its claims takes this format:

Do A.
Supernatural event B (miracle, revelation, etc.) will result if you do A.
If B is not the result of doing A, then believe "Supernatural event B (miracle, revelation, etc.) will result if you do A" anyway. It's your own fault that B didn't happen because you are a faithless sinner and/or God has a plan that does not involve B for you.

The claim is then deemed to be true regardless of the outcome of A.

Another Christian version I've seen recently takes yet another format:

Do A which as far as you can tell has never been done or cannot be done.
Supernatural event B (miracle, revelation, etc.) will result if you do A.

Of course this claim cannot be falsified because doing A is impossible!

So why are all Christian claims unfalsifiable?

[otseng]

We don't know if the universe is full of life. Even if it was, finding that life is made difficult by the distances between stars. The distance to Alpha Centauri, the star closest to our solar system, is 25,615,494,432,000 miles. That's the least distance that any skeptic needs to travel to falsify your claim. I'd say that anybody going at least that far is about impossible. You've put 25,615,494,432,000+ miles between your claim and its falsification.

Right, we don't know the universe is full of life and given the evidence so far, there is no other life in the universe.

As far as I know, nobody has seriously proposed making physical contact with an alien outside of our solar system. The best we can do is detect a signal from them.

I like falsifiable claims. That way I can check to see if I'm being lied to. Do you prefer claims that are invulnerable to disproof? If you want to believe the Bible, I can see why you would prefer claims that cannot be falsified.

I would agree if every statement in the Bible is not falsifiable, then believing in it would just be pure faith. However, there's sufficient claims in the Bible that is subject to testing that satisfies me. I have no requirement every statement needs to be falsifiable.

So are geologists "natural men" who cannot understand the things of God?

No, but they have their own confirmation biases as does everyone else. A good example of this is the Channeled Scablands in Eastern Washington. Bretz theorized it was caused by catastrophic floods in the 1920s. Geologists immediately rejected his theory. Why? Because it smacked too close to the Biblical account.

[Paul of Tarsus]

We don't know if the universe is full of life. Even if it was, finding that life is made difficult by the distances between stars. The distance to Alpha Centauri, the star closest to our solar system, is 25,615,494,432,000 miles. That's the least distance that any skeptic needs to travel to falsify your claim. I'd say that anybody going at least that far is about impossible. You've put 25,615,494,432,000+ miles between your claim and its falsification.

Right, we don't know the universe is full of life and given the evidence so far, there is no other life in the universe.

Well, we lack evidence for life originating on other planets. I wouldn't say that the absence of such evidence is evidence of absence, though. The vastness of the cosmos paradoxically presents us with vast possibilities of life elsewhere while that same vastness bars us from actually being able to check other worlds for that life.

As far as I know, nobody has seriously proposed making physical contact with an alien outside of our solar system. The best we can do is detect a signal from them.

The late Stephen Hawking discouraged scientists from trying to contact ET fearing that they may do us harm.

I like falsifiable claims. That way I can check to see if I'm being lied to. Do you prefer claims that are invulnerable to disproof? If you want to believe the Bible, I can see why you would prefer claims that cannot be falsified.

I would agree if every statement in the Bible is not falsifiable, then believing in it would just be pure faith. However, there's sufficient claims in the Bible that is subject to testing that satisfies me. I have no requirement every statement needs to be falsifiable.

I've yet to become familiar with any Biblical claim that's falsifiable, and I haven't seen one posted after repeated inquiries on my part.

So are geologists "natural men" who cannot understand the things of God?

No, but they have their own confirmation biases as does everyone else. A good example of this is the Channeled Scablands in Eastern Washington. Bretz theorized it was caused by catastrophic floods in the 1920s. Geologists immediately rejected his theory. Why? Because it smacked too close to the Biblical account.

Here's what Wikipedia has to say on that issue:

Bretz published a paper in 1923, arguing that the Channeled Scablands in Eastern Washington were caused by massive flooding in the distant past. This was seen as arguing for a catastrophic explanation of the geology, against the prevailing view of uniformitarianism, and Bretz's views were initially discredited. However, as the nature of the Ice Age was better understood, Bretz's original research was vindicated, and by the 1950s his conclusions were also vindicated.

Bretz encountered resistance to his theories from the geology establishment of the day. The geology establishment was resistant to such a sweeping theory for the origin of a broad landscape for a variety of reasons, including lack of familiarity with the remote areas of the interior Pacific Northwest where the research was based, and the lack of status and reputation of Bretz in the eyes of the largely Ivy League-based geology elites. Furthermore, his theory implied the potential possibilities of a Biblical flood, which the scientific community strongly rejected.

So you appear to be correct about the opposition to Bretz's theory coming from the geologists of his day. That opposition may have been founded in geologists knowing the prevalence of many poor geological hypotheses being based in Bible stories. Note that Wikipedia also states that there were several reasons for that opposition, and Bretz's hypothesis was vindicated by the 1950s. What that tells me is that even if geologists and other scientists may have a bias against the Bible, if the evidence is strong enough, they eventually accept hypotheses that are apparently consistent with the Bible. As it turned out, however, Bretz's theory really didn't support the Noachian Flood.

I do agree that we all have biases, and I'm not sure if it's a problem that can be completely overcome. But coming full circle, avoiding making unfalsifiable claims is a step in the right direction away from bias and toward truth.

[otseng]

The vastness of the cosmos paradoxically presents us with vast possibilities of life elsewhere while that same vastness bars us from actually being able to check other worlds for that life.

The late Stephen Hawking discouraged scientists from trying to contact ET fearing that they may do us harm.

Then, according to your logic, belief in ET is unfalsifiable as well. And Hawking himself believes in it though it is unfalsifiable.

I've yet to become familiar with any Biblical claim that's falsifiable, and I haven't seen one posted after repeated inquiries on my part.

Well, I've already mentioned three (life only exists on Earth, resurrection of Jesus, and the global flood). You are free not to accept them, but that doesn't mean they have not been posted.

As it turned out, however, Bretz's theory really didn't support the Noachian Flood.

Actually, I believe it does, but that's for another debate.

But coming full circle, avoiding making unfalsifiable claims is a step in the right direction away from bias and toward truth.

I agree, but with the caveat that not everything can be falsifiable. There will always be a ratio between the two and it's a subjective decision on what ratio is sufficient for someone to accept something as truthful.

[Paul of Tarsus]

The vastness of the cosmos paradoxically presents us with vast possibilities of life elsewhere while that same vastness bars us from actually being able to check other worlds for that life.

The late Stephen Hawking discouraged scientists from trying to contact ET fearing that they may do us harm.

Then, according to your logic, belief in ET is unfalsifiable as well.

For practical purposes, yes, the claim that ET exists is essentially unfalsifiable.

And Hawking himself believes in it though it is unfalsifiable.

I'm not sure what Hawking believed about the existence of ET, but I think he was saying that we should not try to contact ET just in case dangerous ETs do exist.

I've yet to become familiar with any Biblical claim that's falsifiable, and I haven't seen one posted after repeated inquiries on my part.

Well, I've already mentioned three (life only exists on Earth, resurrection of Jesus, and the global flood). You are free not to accept them, but that doesn't mean they have not been posted.

I've rebutted all examples of supposedly falsifiable Biblical claims.

But coming full circle, avoiding making unfalsifiable claims is a step in the right direction away from bias and toward truth.

I agree, but with the caveat that not everything can be falsifiable. There will always be a ratio between the two and it's a subjective decision on what ratio is sufficient for someone to accept something as truthful.

I didn't mean to say that all claims must be falsifiable to be true, of course. I can tell you my true age, for example, and you probably could not falsify that information. If I could prove to you my true age, then the whole issue of falsification becomes moot. So what I'm getting at is that if an important claim is not proved true, then we should see if we can at least falsify that claim. If an unproved claim is not falsifiable either, then to believe the claim or not becomes quite arbitrary and subjective. I'd classify almost all Bible stories and doctrines that way. You may have noticed how Bible scholars and theologians come up with diametrically opposed conclusions using the same evidence and methods. Something is terribly wrong there.

[Avoice]

[Replying to Paul of Tarsus in post #1]

Because that's the best they can do.
Christianity can only be perceived as true as long as its truth is based in lies, mistranslations, omissions for alteration of the Hebrew texts. It has to cheat. Some religion!

All the so-called prophecies Jesus fulfilled are ones that lack evidence. They don't claim he brought world peace. That's because we would know he didn't. They only claim things we can prove were done or not done. Or, like riding into Jerusalem on an ass, was fine by hundreds of people. Or two asses according to the writer of Mathew. What an ass. He gets caught lying ! He misreads the Hebrew Scriptures then concocts a story based on his misunderstanding of the text and says it is a fulfilled prophecy. Caught lying!!