Evolution debunked in 1 paragraph.
- Thread starter peilthetraveler
- Start date
So... First, one is NOT just as much of an unfalsifiable claim .....because you say so ..... and even if it was, the relative reasons for their same implausibility, does not necessarily mean anything in particular, for instance, that they are equally implausible....because you say so.
Lol.
Brilliant. That ought to do it. Well done Socrates.
How God creates a new species of animal:
LOL. You're such a STUpid lying troll 
You're the one who's not given a reason for one being "just as much of an unfalsifiable claim" as the other, except for saying God is mythical which makes your "reasoning" circular.
You've also not explained why unfalsifiability means implausibility. But then again, it's self-evident that's nonsense which is probably why it's beyond your grasp.
But troll on anyway!
You're the one who's not given a reason for one being "just as much of an unfalsifiable claim" as the other, except for saying God is mythical which makes your "reasoning" circular.
You've also not explained why unfalsifiability means implausibility. But then again, it's self-evident that's nonsense which is probably why it's beyond your grasp.
But troll on anyway!
The problem is I have given more than one reason on a number of occasions. But here's just one of them for you to get all confused about again.
God cannot be tested for. The Teapot cannot be tested for.
There's your reason why . Reason why one is just as much of an unfalsifiable claim as the other.
I haven't said it does. You seem to think it does.
Teapots exist in such a profound way God has never managed to accomplish. So which is more implausible?
Now characterize a Teapot and a God both - so as they are unfalsifiable. Which is more plausible or implausible ?
(hint .....it isn't the Teapot and it isn't God ....sheesh).
Simply because God is just as much of an unfalsifiable claim as is the Teapot , they're equally implausible . That is not a statement that says unfalsifiability means implausibility.
One thing ultimately unfalsifiable but with some falsifiable features, would not leave it necessarily as equally implausible as another thing. But in this case, both things, God and The Teapot, are equally unfalsifiable and so equally implausible.
Now if you want, start arbitrarily and contradictorily adding attributes to God , like Pascal did for instance. They can of course then likewise be arbitrarily added to the Teapot or vice versa.
God and The Teapot, The Teapot and God , each equally implausible.
Except for one thing. Teapots are known to exist, which it could be said, takes away from God somewhat.
Sorry but I doubt I can help you any further if you can't follow that.
It's not my fault God is so absurd that even Teapots become ridiculous when put in the same terms.
Thanks for the comic relief.
God is NOT "just as much of an unfalsifiable claim" as the Teapot for reasons I've already given and others I haven't. But let's put that aside for now.
Here are two claims that "cannot be tested for" where one really is "just as much of an unfalsifiable claim as the other."
Claim #1 -- Had Joe become a surgeon instead of a biology teacher, he'd be a millionaire today.
Claim #2 -- Had Joe become an Elite Trader instead of a biology teacher, he'd be a billionaire today.
God is NOT "just as much of an unfalsifiable claim" as the Teapot for reasons I've already given and others I haven't. But let's put that aside for now.
Here are two claims that "cannot be tested for" where one really is "just as much of an unfalsifiable claim as the other."
Claim #1 -- Had Joe become a surgeon instead of a biology teacher, he'd be a millionaire today.
Claim #2 -- Had Joe become an Elite Trader instead of a biology teacher, he'd be a billionaire today.
Claim #1 is "just as much of an unfalsifiable claim" as Claim #2 but they're nowhere near "equally implausible."