I'm happy to agree to disagree about questions like "Does God exist?" I'm not so happy to agree to disagree about questions like "Is there something that could happen which would change Andy's beliefs about God (that is, is *my* belief falsifiable)", or "If a prophecy did come true, would Andy automatically claim it was a trivial prophecy" (which it certainly seemed to me that you're claiming, since otherwise why is the fact that I *could* make such a ridiculous assertion relevant to the discussion?).
You have something backwards. The question "is the non-existence of God falsifiable" is the question "is there something that would falsify this belief, that is, establish that God exists", so I think I spoke to the quesstion of whether the non-existence of God is falsifiable.
Since we were talking about the beliefs of atheists, not of your beliefs, I thought you meant "atheists have an unfalsifiable belief in the non-existence of God", that is, "nothing could happen that could convince them that their belief is incorrect, and God actually exists". But you seem to be claiming instead that the proper standard is "nothing could happen that could convince *you* that the belief is incorrect". This seems an odd definition of religious belief. To say my belief is religious if there's no observation that could convince me it's wrong seems like a somewhat reasonable definition. But to say that *my* belief is religious if there's nothing that could occur that would convince *you* that it's false seems very odd to me.
no subject
You have something backwards. The question "is the non-existence of God falsifiable" is the question "is there something that would falsify this belief, that is, establish that God exists", so I think I spoke to the quesstion of whether the non-existence of God is falsifiable.
Since we were talking about the beliefs of atheists, not of your beliefs, I thought you meant "atheists have an unfalsifiable belief in the non-existence of God", that is, "nothing could happen that could convince them that their belief is incorrect, and God actually exists". But you seem to be claiming instead that the proper standard is "nothing could happen that could convince *you* that the belief is incorrect". This seems an odd definition of religious belief. To say my belief is religious if there's no observation that could convince me it's wrong seems like a somewhat reasonable definition. But to say that *my* belief is religious if there's nothing that could occur that would convince *you* that it's false seems very odd to me.