>If it's unlikely to have happened here, why was it brought up in the first place? What's the relevance to this thread? I don't care about that. I just thought

>If it's unlikely to have happened here, why was it brought up in the first place? What's the relevance to this thread? I don't care about that. I just thought your assessment of an earlier statement as unfalsifiable was wrong and I responded to it. >Which is an even less falsifiable argument than the specific one we're debating! It seems equally falsifiable and falls under my earlier test. Again, falsifiability is a binary condition, not a spectrum. Something either has the potential to be empirically determined, and is falsifiable, or cannot.