First off, I have to start with situations that are more likely to be agreed on to challenge what is presented as a rule. If it is a rule it must apply to all situations. If it doesn’t then more investigation needs to take place. I can’t start with God or even ghosts. If the rule has a problem with one situation, then more discussion is possible and the rule is problematic.
Or not. We both know that it such unfalsifiable situation are ones we encounter all the time in our lives. Sure if I can hire a team to investigate one friend’s accusation against another, I might be able to give some evidence. But generally we are not in such a position. Such a claim is unfalsifiable. And if we find no sexist or violent musings in his hacked accounts we have not falsified our friend’s story.
Actually there is. You could engage in the practices of the religion and see if you have experiences that lead you, you as an individual, come to believe the same thing. Often in these discussions both Christian theists and non.theists (given the dominance of certain Christian models and ideas like ‘leap of faith’ and the idea of faith in general) seem to think theism is non-empirical. But this is very Western and non-indigneous and even in those traditions only one kind of theisms. Most theism have empirical components, and some center themselves on that.
And I get it, those experiences, those empirical facets, are not good evidence for non-experiencers. PRECISELY. We cannot falisfy them, but then, an agnostic cannot possibly rule out that those experiences and the beliefs built from them are not useful.
Of course engaging in the practices might require decades of work. I am not trying to convince you that you should. But there are direct parallels to what one could with my over heard mutterer sitution. Neither process of investigation need provide proof that a court or Nature Journal would accept as scientific. And yet, the beliefs and experiences might be useful, despite a lack of falsifiabity.
Your argument does not attack my example on falsifiability grounds. It may be useful and unfalsifiable.