1.0 link Rainbow Dash Network http://rainbowdash.net/ Toksyuryel (toksyuryel) http://rainbowdash.net/toksyuryel http://rainbowdash.net/notice/1348766 @<span class="vcard"><a href="http://rainbowdash.net/user/11855" class="url" title="The white void"><span class="fn nickname">hakupony</span></a></span> If you can provide a &quot;God is True if...&quot; test, then you no longer have an unfalsifiable and instead have created an experimental condition to check for. This would be a pretty big deal because no one's ever done that before. With regards to rationalism though, so long as the subject is unfalsifiable there will always exist a counter-argument. You can't accept a thing as rational unless all counter-arguments can be shown to be irrational. One could contend that arguing either for *or* against an unfalsifiable is itself irrational. Rationalism has its place but I don't think it's in proving or disproving the existence of an unfalsifiable. Rather, I believe instead we should use it to determine if faith in God is helpful. To this I argue, for some people it is helpful and to others it is harmful and both types of people ought to be able to coexist harmoniously instead of trying to convince the other that they are wrong.