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.
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.
Unfalsifiable events like the omphalos are neither true nor false, they are unfalsifiable.
To discard it out of hand is to not even consider it, its veracity doesn't exist.
To assume it to be false, now we have crossed out of the realm of unfalsifibility into the realm of empirical facts.
Why should we assume it to be false? Why should we assume it to be true?
We can't. Its unfalsifyable.
As such, to predicate anything measurable on "assuming an unfalsifyable is false" is bad logic.
You are not very good at imagining what intelligent rational people think then.
So you are 11 and are out of actual arguments?