And, I think using the format of being or not being falsifiable leaves out a lot of scientific discovery where there is sufficient evidence to indicate results, but no way to falsify the theory.
Religion, for example. I do not mean to start any discussion about the truthfulness or anything else about religion. But, there is a lot of scientific evidence that can show whether some and/or all of the doctrines of a religion are factual. The doctrines themselves are falsifiable.
And, there is evidence that can be scientifically studied regarding the social/cultural aspects of religion.
But putting the two bodies of evidence together, we somehow have decided, no conclusions can be drawn about the existence of god/s because that question is not falsifiable. I disagree. I think you can say certain criteria must be present to show evidence of a god, and certain criteria may not be present to show evidence of a god.
I don't bring this up to discuss evidence for or against a god so please don't hijack the thread. Go to
FWIS instead.
I bring this up to ask, what is it that can't be falsified? I'm not sure anything fits that category. I think, (and perhaps my ignorance of science will show here), that some questions have been avoided by science by either not looking at ways to falsify the question or because we haven't developed the criteria or science needed to falsify the question.
I think the existence of god/s fits the former category and the existence of the Universe before the BB or the existence of other universes fits the latter category.