You’re free to reject the Omphalos hypothesis based on your own philosophical grounds (there are plenty of excellent philosophical arguments against it), but you can’t prove that it isn’t true because it is unfalsifiable. We can prove the age of the universe so long as we assume the hypothesis is false. This is completely fine for many problems, since physical models depend on physics being stable.
Also, I don’t mean to present the Omphalos hypothesis as the correct solution; it is just one example of a solution to a problem that cannot be solved empirically.
We can reject the omphalos out of hand, because nothing unfalsifiable will have compelling physical evidence for it's existence.
By that definition you cannot accept anything exists without empirical evidence. That makes you a positivist. In that sense why bother attempting to make a poor argument against the divinity of the bible via ‘translation’ errors? Why not just state that God’s Word cannot exist because God cannot exist? And God cannot exist because there is no physical evidence for Him. That is the philosophical argument you are basing your own beliefs in. Shouldn’t that be enough to convince someone else?
You’re free to reject the Omphalos hypothesis based on your own philosophical grounds (there are plenty of excellent philosophical arguments against it), but you can’t prove that it isn’t true because it is unfalsifiable. We can prove the age of the universe so long as we assume the hypothesis is false. This is completely fine for many problems, since physical models depend on physics being stable.
Also, I don’t mean to present the Omphalos hypothesis as the correct solution; it is just one example of a solution to a problem that cannot be solved empirically.
You also can't prove it false or have merit in its discussion.
That's what unfalsifiable means.
You are leaning on it like some kind of shield, but the only way it defends you is by entirely detaching your point from facts.
You are the one that openly said you care about facts.
We don't have to assume an unfalsifiable is false, we can just ignore it because it's unfalsifiable.
We can reject the omphalos out of hand, because nothing unfalsifiable will have compelling physical evidence for it's existence.
To rely on the omphalos necessarily being proven false is a blatant Russel's teapot, not a rational position.
"You can't prove it false so..." Is invalid because, as you have so kindly pointed out, it's completely unfalsifiable.
With the omphalos being unfalsifible, the statement above should read:
By that definition you cannot accept anything exists without empirical evidence. That makes you a positivist. In that sense why bother attempting to make a poor argument against the divinity of the bible via ‘translation’ errors? Why not just state that God’s Word cannot exist because God cannot exist? And God cannot exist because there is no physical evidence for Him. That is the philosophical argument you are basing your own beliefs in. Shouldn’t that be enough to convince someone else?
Yes.
This is what separates facts from faith based belief.
Facts have observable empirical evidence that supports them.
This is what makes them falsifiable.
Did you bother reading the thread at all?
Because the other person was relying on the bible as fact
Its not, its as you directly admit a human creation with human translation errors and human issues.
Because this is unfalsifiable and not fact based?
This is not my argument.
I haven't made a philosophical argument about my own beliefs. I've made an argument about facts.