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.
Except we don't have to assume an unfalsifiable is false to prove the age of the universe.
That's wrong on the very face of it.
You are predicating something we can measure on "well you haven't disproven this unfalsifiable".
You’re being disingenuous. I never used the word ‘disprove’. You can’t call that direct even if my words somehow led to that implication.
The assumption being false is implied. If there is no explicit statement, it must be assumed true or false. It is a Boolean. There is no other possibility.
Assuming something is false, implicitly or explicitly, is not the same thing as disproving it.
You’re being disingenuous. I never used the word ‘disprove’. You can’t call that direct even if my words somehow led to that implication.
No.
You said, unequivocally:
We can prove the age of the universe so long as we assume the hypothesis is false.
"The Hypothesis" here is explicitly
You’re free to reject the Omphalos hypothesis
Your words.
You have directly predicated a falsifiable (the age of the universe) on an unfalsifiable (the Omphalos).
This isn't how facts work and you know it.
You don't have to assume an unfalsifiable is false to prove a falsifiable or you would have to prove every unfalsifiable false.
You know this.
In fact, ignoring the rules of logic like this is the very definition of disingenuous.
Assuming something is false, implicitly or explicitly, is not the same thing as disproving it.
Yes it is.
You can't assume an unfalsifiable is false and still be discussing facts you absolute dingus. That's called faith.
You’re an idiot.
You keep saying stuff like this, but you have thoroughly demonstrated that the only thing I'm "wrong" about is bible trivia, while you have fundamental flaws in your reasoning.
What happened to "I'm here for facts"?
Cause it looks like you are here for trivia and faith.
No you didn’t.
Again, where do I state ‘an unfalsifiable statement would have to be proven false’?
Again, directly here.
Your exact words:
Except we don't have to assume an unfalsifiable is false to prove the age of the universe.
That's wrong on the very face of it.
You are predicating something we can measure on "well you haven't disproven this unfalsifiable".
That's not how facts work honey.
You’re being disingenuous. I never used the word ‘disprove’. You can’t call that direct even if my words somehow led to that implication.
The assumption being false is implied. If there is no explicit statement, it must be assumed true or false. It is a Boolean. There is no other possibility.
Assuming something is false, implicitly or explicitly, is not the same thing as disproving it.
You’re an idiot.
No.
You said, unequivocally:
"The Hypothesis" here is explicitly
Your words.
You have directly predicated a falsifiable (the age of the universe) on an unfalsifiable (the Omphalos).
This isn't how facts work and you know it.
You don't have to assume an unfalsifiable is false to prove a falsifiable or you would have to prove every unfalsifiable false.
You know this.
In fact, ignoring the rules of logic like this is the very definition of disingenuous.
Yes it is.
You can't assume an unfalsifiable is false and still be discussing facts you absolute dingus. That's called faith.
You keep saying stuff like this, but you have thoroughly demonstrated that the only thing I'm "wrong" about is bible trivia, while you have fundamental flaws in your reasoning.
What happened to "I'm here for facts"?
Cause it looks like you are here for trivia and faith.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assume
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disprove
The more you flail, the more water you take on.