A random Jewish preacher coming back to life, for instance, or a random Arab religious reformer casually taking a midnight flight to Jerusalem.
I mean, these claims are only falsifiable if you assume the religions are false. It’s circular reasoning. For example going “God doesn’t exist so there’s no way Muhammed could’ve went to Jerusalem” doesn’t do much to disprove that God exists. Taking this particular event as an example, you’d need to, independently from the existence of God, find evidence that Muhammed didn’t go to Jerusalem. Especially since Islam provides evidence for its claim that he did go there.
That there exists some external force or entity that is completely outside the realm of anything observable is not a falsifiable claim, because there is absolutely nothing we could ever observe that would absolutely contradict it. It is, quite simply, not a statement about the observable universe, so it’s definitionally outside the domain of science. Science will never disprove the existence of Heaven, because Heaven is by definition not observable.
That’s a very different kind of claim from “If you’d sneakily observed Jesus’ crucifixion and followed him as he was buried, you’d eventually see him come back to life, move a stone away from his tomb, and wander up into Heaven after having a few chats with friends”.
To be clear, I’m not saying that those religious claims have been absolutely proven false, only that they hypothetically could be proven false. Of course, there are other religious claims that have been proven false, like young earth creationism, but those have a funny habit of being either abandoned or significantly re-interpreted after conflicting facts come about. It’s also probably just a coincidence that the more fantastical claims all tend to be from long enough ago that gaps in the historical record provide a significant amount of fuzziness. Why God got tired of performing miracles after the invention of the camera is just one of those mysteries.
It needs to be emphasized that I am not making the absolute positive claim that Muhammad never flew to Jerusalem. What I’m saying is that someone with sufficient information could possibly make a clear determination of the truth. Muhammad himself, for instance, presumably knew the truth of the matter. It’s falsifiable in that it could be falsified given sufficient observed information, unlike the existence of Heaven, which categorically cannot be.
(It’s also worth mentioning that the Qur’an itself actually contains only the slightest and briefest mention of the Night Journey; the story is greatly expanded upon in the hadiths, which he himself did not directly write but are rather traditionally attributed to him).
Oh I see. I thought you were listing examples of claims that were falsified, like reasons one would dismiss these religions as false.
(It’s also worth mentioning that the Qur’an itself actually contains only the slightest and briefest mention of the Night Journey; the story is greatly expanded upon in the hadiths, which he himself did not directly write but are rather traditionally attributed to him).
That’s true, but Sahih Hadith can basically be taken with the same degree of trust as the Quran (aka “this is the capital T Truth” if you’re a Muslim, “Muhammed said/did this” if you’re not) so the distinction doesn’t really exist.
I mean, these claims are only falsifiable if you assume the religions are false. It’s circular reasoning. For example going “God doesn’t exist so there’s no way Muhammed could’ve went to Jerusalem” doesn’t do much to disprove that God exists. Taking this particular event as an example, you’d need to, independently from the existence of God, find evidence that Muhammed didn’t go to Jerusalem. Especially since Islam provides evidence for its claim that he did go there.
No, that’s not what I mean by ‘falsifiable’.
That there exists some external force or entity that is completely outside the realm of anything observable is not a falsifiable claim, because there is absolutely nothing we could ever observe that would absolutely contradict it. It is, quite simply, not a statement about the observable universe, so it’s definitionally outside the domain of science. Science will never disprove the existence of Heaven, because Heaven is by definition not observable.
That’s a very different kind of claim from “If you’d sneakily observed Jesus’ crucifixion and followed him as he was buried, you’d eventually see him come back to life, move a stone away from his tomb, and wander up into Heaven after having a few chats with friends”.
To be clear, I’m not saying that those religious claims have been absolutely proven false, only that they hypothetically could be proven false. Of course, there are other religious claims that have been proven false, like young earth creationism, but those have a funny habit of being either abandoned or significantly re-interpreted after conflicting facts come about. It’s also probably just a coincidence that the more fantastical claims all tend to be from long enough ago that gaps in the historical record provide a significant amount of fuzziness. Why God got tired of performing miracles after the invention of the camera is just one of those mysteries.
It needs to be emphasized that I am not making the absolute positive claim that Muhammad never flew to Jerusalem. What I’m saying is that someone with sufficient information could possibly make a clear determination of the truth. Muhammad himself, for instance, presumably knew the truth of the matter. It’s falsifiable in that it could be falsified given sufficient observed information, unlike the existence of Heaven, which categorically cannot be.
(It’s also worth mentioning that the Qur’an itself actually contains only the slightest and briefest mention of the Night Journey; the story is greatly expanded upon in the hadiths, which he himself did not directly write but are rather traditionally attributed to him).
Oh I see. I thought you were listing examples of claims that were falsified, like reasons one would dismiss these religions as false.
That’s true, but Sahih Hadith can basically be taken with the same degree of trust as the Quran (aka “this is the capital T Truth” if you’re a Muslim, “Muhammed said/did this” if you’re not) so the distinction doesn’t really exist.