I actually didn’t read the thread. I skimmed through it because it didn’t interest me, but I happened to see that you said the bible was originally written in Latin, so I felt compelled to correct you.
You said unequivocally that an unfalsifiable would have to be proven false in order for something falsifiable to be proven true.
I never said that. And in the quote I literally state, ‘You don’t need to disprove ... any unfalsifiable premise’. Where do I state ‘an unfalsifiable statement would have to be proven false’? The only language I use in the context of predicating on something being unfalsifiable is ‘assume’ which does not mean ‘prove‘ at all. You are grossly misrepresenting my words to try to show that I am making a logical error, but I never said what you are directly accusing me of stating.
If we have to assume the omphalos is false we have to assume every single unfalsifiable thing is false as well, thats not how science work. We can just disregard unfalsifiable things out of hand.
Explain to me how disregarding unfalsifiable things ‘out of hand’ is different from assuming unfalsifiable things are false.
Hypothesis: an explanation for someone phenomenon proposed to be true.
Disregard: to ignore.
Disregard hypothesis: to ignore something proposed to be true, i.e. to assume something is false.
From my point of view, and I think from the point of view of most intelligent, rational people, they mean exactly the same thing, and thus you have conceded that my point is correct. Therefore there is nothing further to discuss. I have won the argument, and you have lost. Good day.
Fictional books written by humans for the purposes of passing religious morals down through history.
You know what also isn't fact?
Unfalsifiable ideas like the omphalos.
Its amazing that you think seizing onto a pedantic distinction, that by your own explicit demonstration is completely trivial, some how gives you a petty victory here.
Are you aware how thoroughly ignorant you have demonstrated yourself to be in this thread?
You aren't are you? You don't even know how crazy the things you are arguing are.
I actually didn’t read the thread. I skimmed through it because it didn’t interest me, but I happened to see that you said the bible was originally written in Latin, so I felt compelled to correct you.
I know lol.
It's been pretty obvious from your replies.
I never said that. And in the quote I literally state, ‘You don’t need to disprove ... any unfalsifiable premise’. Where do I state ‘an unfalsifiable statement would have to be proven false’? The only language I use in the context of predicating on something being unfalsifiable is ‘assume’ which does not mean ‘prove‘ at all. You are grossly misrepresenting my words to try to show that I am making a logical error, but I never said what you are directly accusing me of stating.
I only directly quoted you with a permalink to the comment honey.
Explain to me how disregarding unfalsifiable things ‘out of hand’ is different from assuming unfalsifiable things are false.
Hypothesis: an explanation for someone phenomenon proposed to be true.
Disregard: to ignore.
Disregard hypothesis: to ignore something proposed to be true, i.e. to assume something is false.
From my point of view, and I think from the point of view of most intelligent, rational people, they mean exactly the same thing, and thus you have conceded that my point is correct. Therefore there is nothing further to discuss. I have won the argument, and you have lost. Good day.
No you didn’t.
Again, where do I state ‘an unfalsifiable statement would have to be proven false’?
Facts are facts. It’s not like there’s any context I missed that makes your ‘original church Latin’ remark any less stupid.
Yes, like the age of the universe. That's a fact.
You know what isnt a fact?
Fictional books written by humans for the purposes of passing religious morals down through history.
You know what also isn't fact?
Unfalsifiable ideas like the omphalos.
Its amazing that you think seizing onto a pedantic distinction, that by your own explicit demonstration is completely trivial, some how gives you a petty victory here.
Are you aware how thoroughly ignorant you have demonstrated yourself to be in this thread?
You aren't are you? You don't even know how crazy the things you are arguing are.
This is you, arguing that you have to disprove the omphalos in order to be able to rely on the observable fact that is the age of the universe.
and you still think you are in any kind of position to lecture people on "stupid".
I didn’t state any incorrect facts though.