Falsification symposium - please help meee

Falsifaction only deals with the meaningfulness of statements, rather than the truth. Ie if you want to assert something, you need to deny its negative
Now technically, to say God exists is meaningful, if you go there is evidence that would make me think the contrary.

Flew, (who has since chanegd his mind on God) would argue that the way Religous beleivers use their language, to say God exists is still meaningless (and he implies is wrong), because instead of accepting contrary evidence (evil/suffering), they choose not to accept any contrary evidence, each time adapting their definition of God until their beleif 'dies the death of a thousand qualifications'. He uses the parable of the invisible Garnder to demonstate this.
Therefore for Flew, the way believers use their language, it is meaningless, and it no longer makes sense to say God exists.

Hare says this, certain bliks (unfalsifiable beliefs) may be meaningless, yet make a big impact on your life, if a student thinks that their teachers are going to kill them it will affect how they behave and act, therefore even unfalfsiable beleifs do hold some meaningful impact on your life.

Basil Mitchell takes this and says, it is OK to believe in something in the face of contrary evidence, using his partisan example