Inductive Positions

Inductive reasoning: is a kind of reasoning that allows for the possibility that the conclusion is false even where all of the premises are true.[1] The premises of an inductive logical argument indicate some degree of support (inductive probability) for the conclusion but do not entail it; i.e. they do not ensure its truth.-wiki

The classic example is the black swan example. Before black swans were discovered, it would be rational to conclude on partial information that all swans are white in the following way.

1. All of the swans we have examined so far are white.
2. Therefore, all swans are white.

This conclusion has the possibility of being false with further information and evidence. In this sense, it is falsifiable because of an inference made from the conclusion. If all swans are white, then we can make that conclusion a premise in the following syllogism, which makes it falsifiable in the following way.

1. If all swans are white, then we will not observe black swans.
2. Black swans are observed.
3. Not all swans are white. (Modus Tollens)

This shows that all inductive claims made in this way are falsifiable simply by showing a counterexample to it. This is pretty much the stance of uniformitarianism in which known observations take precedence over the unknown. This is how to distinguish between figurative and literal language in historical writings. When a writer says that it rained cats and dogs, we are reasonably assured that it is figurative language, but if we suddenly observed cats and dogs falling from the heavens, it would lend credibility to the writing's historical credibility. This principle could easily be summarized as positing the known over the unknown for historical events.

This makes positing supernatural claims unwelcome for historical purposes until they can be verified in the present by credible observation. In this sense, I am a naturalist, I don't think any supernatural claims have been established and have tentatively taken the position that all supernatural claims that have been investigated are false, therefore all supernatural claims are false. To falsify this conclusion, all one needs to do is demonstrate one observation of the supernatural. A similar explanation could be made for the atheist position. These positions are not held to a standard of absolute certainty, they are tentative, for they have the possibility to be falsified, but that does not discount their ability to account for the processes of reality.