3 ms·
Well, I think we can all agree that the FSM is not demonstrably false - to be demonstrably false is to be falsifiable, and unless they made a mistake somewhere
by whatshisface 5y ago
Well, I think we can all agree that the FSM is not demonstrably false - to be demonstrably false is to be falsifiable, and unless they made a mistake somewhere in coming up with their parody canon there's no reason why it should have to be. In fact I think the entire point of the FSM is to illustrate that creation myths are not falsifiable.
- nobody9999 5y agoI didn't say that the hypothesis of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent creator was falsifiable, I said that some of the claims made by those who believe that hypothesis (Abrahamic religions) are demonstrably false. I then contrasted that with the simulation hypothesis, that doesn't make such claims. That doesn't make the core hypothesis of either one falsifiable. Rather, it (at least to me) makes me less likely to entertain the (non-falsifiable) hypotheses that surround themselves with demonstrably false claims than those that don't.
- whatshisface 5y agoI understand what you're saying, I'm just not sure what the falsifiable claims are. If you're saying that creationism is wrong because many creationists are wrong, that sounds like some kind of fallacy.
- nobody9999 5y ago>If you're saying that creationism is wrong because many creationists are wrong, that sounds like some kind of fallacy. That's doesn't even bear a resemblance to what I said. Apparently, my communication skills are quite poor, so I will cease to attempt to use them in this context[0]. [0] Or you're being deliberately obtuse. But I don't claim that as I try to assume good faith.
- whatshisface 5y ago>some of the claims made by those who believe that hypothesis (Abrahamic religions) are demonstrably false. What would be an example of one of those claims? We tried Creationism but it turns out one can't really demonstrate that it's false.