Is the claim that there is no such thing as a god falsifiable ?
If it is fasifiable, how?
If it isn’t falsifiable, why is it more reasonable to assume there is no god than that there is?
The falsifiability of the claim depends on the definition of “god”, which tends to vary.
My focus is on the justification for atheism, not any paticular religion or paranormal claims.
Yes, by proving that a god (of some definition) exists.
Reasonable? No. But faith is belief without (or despite) reason. So a theist can have faith that there is a god acknowledging all-the-while they have no rational basis for doing so.
Of course, not all atheists make the claim that there is no god.
You asked whether the claim “God exists” is falsifiable. I can’t answer that question without a definition of “God”.
I guess the burden of proof should be on those who claim there is a God since it can’t be directly observed. That said, we need to agree on a definition of atheist.
Doesn’t it follow then that claims for a god are falsifiable by proving that a god doesn’t exist ?
Either way, neither scenario appears even remotely possible.
Yes.
The god could appear before us, proving that he exists.
But most modern theists define God in such a way that it’s impossible to prove that he doesn’t exist.
“God does not exist.” – Falsifiable. All any God has to do is manifest himself.
“God does exist.” – Not falsifiable for some definitions of God. Some versions of God are indistinguishable from a godless universe.
Claims for a specific sufficiently developed definition of god may be falsifiable in this way. But you haven’t perfectly reversed your premise. Because a certain god is falsifiable doesn’t mean that all gods are falsifiable. The generic claims that there is or is not a god are not falsifiable.
I may be missing your point, but if you’re saying it doesn’t appear remotely possible to prove the either the existence or non-existence of god, then I agree with you.
I’m sorry, but the two positions aren’t symmetrical. “There is no God.” is most definitely a falsifiable statement.
As pointed out, it’s easy to falsify atheism; produce a god. Not even the Christian God - any god.
Because by the standard that people apply to everything but religion in their life, it is more reasonable. There is no evidence that an invisible orc is behind you about to attack, or that such a thing is even possible, therefore the reasonable position is that there is no such orc. There is no evidence that there is a God, or that one is even possible, therefore the reasonable position is that there is no God.
Religious people who use your argument are simply holding atheism to a higher standard than they hold their own beliefs, or nearly any other sort of belief.
I goofed there. The generic claim that there isn’t a god is falsifiable. The generic claim that there is a god is not falsifiable.
If it is fasifiable, how?
[/quote]
By God showing himself.
Because there is no demonstrated necessity for it. Occam’s razor. Just because you can imagine a magical entity doesn’t mean that it automatically requires a default assumption of “reasonability” which must be overcome in order to justify disbelieving it. The IPU is applicable here.
Doesn’t it follow then that claims for a god are falsifiable by proving that a god doesn’t exist ?
[/quote]
No, because there is no theoretical way to prove God does NOT exist.
Someone should probably make the obligatory point here that atheism is not technically an assertion that gods do not exist but a lack of positive belief that they do. Strong atheism is a subset of atheism but not all atheists are strong atheists (in fact, most probably are not).
In any case, in the absence of either evidence or (more importantly) necessity, it’s no more unreasonable to disbelieve in gods than it is to disbelieve in fairy godmothers.
God is a comfort idea. It makes people feel a little better.
For me when so many societies believed in many gods and as science progressed the gods became silly. Like Apollo driving the sun across the sky daily. They were removed one at a time until one was left.
Can this one be scientifically removed ? I do not know. But I can see no reason to believe in a race of creatures capable of creating everything and being invisible.
The world is here and that is enough for me. Creating a god to say created it solves nothing. It simply gives more and bigger problems to comprehend.
Furthermore I’d like to point out that, on a personal level, I (and I think most atheists) totally embrace the falsifiability of our personal beliefs. If I were to walk outside tonight and see that the stars had arranged themselves to spell "Dear human beings, I am real. Sincerely, God", I would consider atheism falsified and immediately become a theist.
(Well, maybe not immediately. I’d want to make sure I wasn’t drugged or hallucinating first. But relatively quickly.)
How many theists are willing to abandon their faith at the drop of a hat like that?
Is that really true, though? Assuming that some magical creature appears before you in a puff of smoke, I don’t think you would have any way of verifying that this being is omnipresent or eternal, being neither of those things yourself. Sure, he could be by far the most powerful being you have ever seen, but you don’t know if he’s omnipotent, or if he just attained that power 10 minutes ago, or if he’s just some local demigod, or an infinite number of other possibilities.
Back to the OP, it’s more reasonable to assume there is no god, for the same reason that it’s reasonable to live your life under the assumption that a hippopotamus is not going to materialize in the sky above your head and crush you to death.
An interesting question, but I’m not sure what kind of comparable situation could exist that would demonstrate so clearly that a god or gods did not exist. However, I believe that my faith in a supernatural being and science go hand-in-hand, so if science was able to somehow prove the non-existence of God or gods, then so be it. I’d be very depressed, though. 
However, I imagine that most theists would insist that the “proof” was either the work of the devil or some trick by those atheists determine to destroy faith. There are many who would never accept any evidence that disputed their beliefs.
Love it.
Yeah, but if its entrance and appearance were sufficiently impressive, this puny atheist would readily agree to call it God/a god without quibbling over whether it might have a bigger sibling…