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.
Says the Christian who came into a thread to nitpick trivia,
consistently proved me right,
claimed to be speaking about facts,
insists we have to assume an unfalsifiable is false to consider something demonstrable as fact
and now is appealing to a pedantic distinction.
Ok honey.
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
We don't have to assume the Omphalos is false, because its unfalsifiable.
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.
That's a given when talking about facts. I.e. Things that are falsifiable.
If you consider messing up trivia about the bible to be "simply wrong" you are well past "egregious error" at this point buddy.
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.
Says the Christian who came into a thread to nitpick trivia,
consistently proved me right,
claimed to be speaking about facts,
insists we have to assume an unfalsifiable is false to consider something demonstrable as fact
and now is appealing to a pedantic distinction.
Ok honey.
We don't have to assume the Omphalos is false, because its unfalsifiable.
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.
That's a given when talking about facts. I.e. Things that are falsifiable.
If you consider messing up trivia about the bible to be "simply wrong" you are well past "egregious error" at this point buddy.