God is not falsifiable, which is why God is outside of science. I can’t prove that a being that is omniscient and all powerful and undetectable exists. But I also can’t prove that such a being doesn’t exist, because by definition, God cannot be detected.
Whenever I present an argument, I tell people how to beat me and defeat my argument, because my arguments are falsifiable.
Harming my belief in evolutionary theory means finding a fossil that shows an anatomical structure harmful to its own species but beneficial for another species. That would be a serious problem for evolution, and if you can find such a fossil, you will have falsified my argument.
Likewise, if you can show me a Q post that could not possibly have been written by anyone other than a high level intelligence agent in the Trump administration, then my beliefs about Q will suffer a major hit. I am telling you how to beat me.
Can anyone here offer a similar strategy for falsifying Q? Is there any piece of evidence that you would have no choice but to accept harms your worldview about Q?
The answer is usually no, because Q, in my opinion, is a nonfalsifiable belief. He can’t be wrong. He can’t be disproven. “Future proves past.” His prophecies can apply anywhere in time to any number of events and may be encoded. I can’t even verify his identity and see if he would have access to the info he claims.
That’s the rub. My claims are falsifiable. I am offering the blueprints on how to beat me and prove me wrong. On the other hand, all I can do is wait for Q’s plan to either happen or not happen, because if NCSWIC, then literally the only way to falsify Q is to wait until you guys get bored of waiting.
God is not falsifiable, which is why God is outside of science.
I wish more people would realize this simple fact about science and God.
Whenever I present an argument, I tell people how to beat me and defeat my argument, because my arguments are falsifiable.
That's what I've attempted to do with my initial response to you. Surely there are more hypotheses, but those, I believe, covered most of the basic angles.
Harming my belief in evolutionary theory means finding a fossil that shows an anatomical structure harmful to its own species but beneficial for another species. That would be a serious problem for evolution, and if you can find such a fossil, you will have falsified my argument.
I don't think that "self-harm" would necessarily invalidate evolution if you think of it slightly differently. Things are certainly evolving, in the sense of change. Going from a human perspective, which animals have analogues for, we evolve in a direction that we find, for whatever reasons, desirable. Our behaviors today often aren't extremely beneficial (e.g. current physical and mental health and all sorts of other problems), but I don't see any significant threat to our continued existence as a species. Especially with fusion being only a few decades into the future.
I would guess that "survival of the fittest" should be more of a "just somehow didn't die". In that sense, evolution is precisely what anyone can observe full-time in any area of human or animal life, on any timescale and in any environment (including science, arts, music, crafts, etc, which I believe are fundamentally the same process applied to different "objects").
Is there any piece of evidence that you would have no choice but to accept harms your worldview about Q?
Obviously one could always make the argument that tHe PlAn FaiLeD, but in my view the hard time limit on validating Q is the 2024 election - and that's being extremely generous. If we see high level arrests by then it was certainly real. If we don't then at best the plan failed, which makes the larp hypothesis significantly more likely than not.
Other than that, the only hard falsification would be for Q to come out and prove that it was all a larp. But HBO certainly hasn't done that.
That said, we had zero evidence that particles exist and could help us transform reality. The only reason we found out was because people went and looked really hard. If they cut it short by just going "well, the assertion that tiny magic particles exist is unfalsifiable because there's no way we could see something so small" we wouldn't have a lot of what we have today.
Which still has me curious as to what precisely you have done to research Q and what you have seen so far.
What would you say the most potentially compelling pieces of evidence are?
Coming up with a unified theory as to why I believe Q is wrong is as difficult as coming up with a unified theory as to why I don’t believe the sun is actually a telepathic alien fetus turning us all gay.
I could spend time compiling all the reasons why I don’t believe something is true, but you’re asking me to disprove literally everything you take as evidence, because if I miss anything, then it means (from your perspective) that I don’t know what I’m talking about.
That is an exhausting way to exist. So I typically prefer just watching the evidence come through here, evaluating it, and decide whether there’s a more parsimonious explanation. To date, there always has been, as far as I can tell.
Fact is, when I have tried to have that “pin you into a corner” debunking debate with Q believers, it’s result in me being told that Q is a time traveler or a computer than can see the future and that any prophecy can apply to multiple events in multiple timelines.
And I just don’t really have a way to work with that. It’s non-falsifiable.
I am happy to provide thoughts on stuff I know about and offer a skeptical look at stuff, but when the evidence of Q is “millions of little things that seem like nothing alone but add up to the Truth”, that is an extremely tall bar for me to surpass in order to “prove” Q wrong.
Like I said, time is doing the heavy lifting here. There is no chance I can disprove Q before Q disproves himself over time.
Like I said, time is doing the heavy lifting here. There is no chance I can disprove Q before Q disproves himself over time.
I think most are playing the waiting game here. With >4000 posts and dozens possible angles there are going to be very few with the time and ability to formulate, let alone verify, various hypotheses.
it’s result in me being told that Q is a time traveler or a computer than can see the future and that any prophecy can apply to multiple events in multiple timelines.
Those are hypotheses I consider almost 100% certain entertaining larps. Sure, there's a nonzero off-chance that reality is just complete incoherent nonsense. Given how close we are to VR and the fact that experiments have shown that memories can be planted, erased and activated/deactivated externally it's likely not impossible that aNyThInG goEs. But that's just not something that anyone can work with, so there's little point in considering it seriously until we find repeating patterns or usable mechanisms.
Fact is, when I have tried to have that “pin you into a corner” debunking debate with Q believers,
I'm not interested in a pin-to-the-wall de/bunking, because
And I just don’t really have a way to work with that. It’s non-falsifiable.
Actual proof, one way or another, is fundamentally impossible without Q himself anyways. Even if something, or nothing, happens one can always make up new nonsense without being able to validate.
But at the very least on the surface you seem sensible enough in your approach, which makes me curious as to what you've seen, done and considered.
What would you say are the most compelling pieces of evidence and arguments that you have seen so far?
I didn’t want to say it directly because it sounds rude, but if I found compelling evidence for Q, I’d be a Q believer. So I haven’t seen anything compelling. If I saw something compelling, then I’d be compelled to believe in Q.
I’ve seen stuff I can’t immediately disprove, but that’s not really the same thing, because of falsifiability.
Fact is that the purpose of science and logic is to predict the future. I learn about ballistic physics because I want my particle to go where I want it, or at least to predict where it will go.
If I learn psychology, it’s because I want to predict the behavior of people. If I learn medicine, it’s to predict the course of disease.
Q offers a lot of predictions, but nothing that has been useful for me to predict the real world.
You can hope that Q’s prediction that Patriots are in control is true, but those predictions have not been useful to anyone yet. You can predict that something will happen somewhere on the 70% of the planet that is water at some time in the future, but again, it hasn’t helped me predict anything about reality.
Q is hoping that reality will eventually reflect what Q says will happen without any of it apparently happening. “Future proves Past.”
Well, until Present proves Future, Q has not been useful scientifically or logically. I haven’t been able to predict anything about the world using Q’s posts. A lot to squinting a lot of maybes and a lot of encoded implications, but nothing that a scientist considers scientifically indisputable proof, which is what I need to reinvent my life in Q’s worldview.
Honestly, it comes down to nonfalsifiability.
God is not falsifiable, which is why God is outside of science. I can’t prove that a being that is omniscient and all powerful and undetectable exists. But I also can’t prove that such a being doesn’t exist, because by definition, God cannot be detected.
Whenever I present an argument, I tell people how to beat me and defeat my argument, because my arguments are falsifiable.
Harming my belief in evolutionary theory means finding a fossil that shows an anatomical structure harmful to its own species but beneficial for another species. That would be a serious problem for evolution, and if you can find such a fossil, you will have falsified my argument.
Likewise, if you can show me a Q post that could not possibly have been written by anyone other than a high level intelligence agent in the Trump administration, then my beliefs about Q will suffer a major hit. I am telling you how to beat me.
Can anyone here offer a similar strategy for falsifying Q? Is there any piece of evidence that you would have no choice but to accept harms your worldview about Q?
The answer is usually no, because Q, in my opinion, is a nonfalsifiable belief. He can’t be wrong. He can’t be disproven. “Future proves past.” His prophecies can apply anywhere in time to any number of events and may be encoded. I can’t even verify his identity and see if he would have access to the info he claims.
That’s the rub. My claims are falsifiable. I am offering the blueprints on how to beat me and prove me wrong. On the other hand, all I can do is wait for Q’s plan to either happen or not happen, because if NCSWIC, then literally the only way to falsify Q is to wait until you guys get bored of waiting.
I wish more people would realize this simple fact about science and God.
That's what I've attempted to do with my initial response to you. Surely there are more hypotheses, but those, I believe, covered most of the basic angles.
I don't think that "self-harm" would necessarily invalidate evolution if you think of it slightly differently. Things are certainly evolving, in the sense of change. Going from a human perspective, which animals have analogues for, we evolve in a direction that we find, for whatever reasons, desirable. Our behaviors today often aren't extremely beneficial (e.g. current physical and mental health and all sorts of other problems), but I don't see any significant threat to our continued existence as a species. Especially with fusion being only a few decades into the future.
I would guess that "survival of the fittest" should be more of a "just somehow didn't die". In that sense, evolution is precisely what anyone can observe full-time in any area of human or animal life, on any timescale and in any environment (including science, arts, music, crafts, etc, which I believe are fundamentally the same process applied to different "objects").
Obviously one could always make the argument that tHe PlAn FaiLeD, but in my view the hard time limit on validating Q is the 2024 election - and that's being extremely generous. If we see high level arrests by then it was certainly real. If we don't then at best the plan failed, which makes the larp hypothesis significantly more likely than not.
Other than that, the only hard falsification would be for Q to come out and prove that it was all a larp. But HBO certainly hasn't done that.
That said, we had zero evidence that particles exist and could help us transform reality. The only reason we found out was because people went and looked really hard. If they cut it short by just going "well, the assertion that tiny magic particles exist is unfalsifiable because there's no way we could see something so small" we wouldn't have a lot of what we have today.
Which still has me curious as to what precisely you have done to research Q and what you have seen so far.
What would you say the most potentially compelling pieces of evidence are?
Coming up with a unified theory as to why I believe Q is wrong is as difficult as coming up with a unified theory as to why I don’t believe the sun is actually a telepathic alien fetus turning us all gay.
I could spend time compiling all the reasons why I don’t believe something is true, but you’re asking me to disprove literally everything you take as evidence, because if I miss anything, then it means (from your perspective) that I don’t know what I’m talking about.
That is an exhausting way to exist. So I typically prefer just watching the evidence come through here, evaluating it, and decide whether there’s a more parsimonious explanation. To date, there always has been, as far as I can tell.
Fact is, when I have tried to have that “pin you into a corner” debunking debate with Q believers, it’s result in me being told that Q is a time traveler or a computer than can see the future and that any prophecy can apply to multiple events in multiple timelines.
And I just don’t really have a way to work with that. It’s non-falsifiable.
I am happy to provide thoughts on stuff I know about and offer a skeptical look at stuff, but when the evidence of Q is “millions of little things that seem like nothing alone but add up to the Truth”, that is an extremely tall bar for me to surpass in order to “prove” Q wrong.
Like I said, time is doing the heavy lifting here. There is no chance I can disprove Q before Q disproves himself over time.
I think most are playing the waiting game here. With >4000 posts and dozens possible angles there are going to be very few with the time and ability to formulate, let alone verify, various hypotheses.
Those are hypotheses I consider almost 100% certain entertaining larps. Sure, there's a nonzero off-chance that reality is just complete incoherent nonsense. Given how close we are to VR and the fact that experiments have shown that memories can be planted, erased and activated/deactivated externally it's likely not impossible that aNyThInG goEs. But that's just not something that anyone can work with, so there's little point in considering it seriously until we find repeating patterns or usable mechanisms.
I'm not interested in a pin-to-the-wall de/bunking, because
Actual proof, one way or another, is fundamentally impossible without Q himself anyways. Even if something, or nothing, happens one can always make up new nonsense without being able to validate.
But at the very least on the surface you seem sensible enough in your approach, which makes me curious as to what you've seen, done and considered.
What would you say are the most compelling pieces of evidence and arguments that you have seen so far?
I didn’t want to say it directly because it sounds rude, but if I found compelling evidence for Q, I’d be a Q believer. So I haven’t seen anything compelling. If I saw something compelling, then I’d be compelled to believe in Q.
I’ve seen stuff I can’t immediately disprove, but that’s not really the same thing, because of falsifiability.
Fact is that the purpose of science and logic is to predict the future. I learn about ballistic physics because I want my particle to go where I want it, or at least to predict where it will go.
If I learn psychology, it’s because I want to predict the behavior of people. If I learn medicine, it’s to predict the course of disease.
Q offers a lot of predictions, but nothing that has been useful for me to predict the real world.
You can hope that Q’s prediction that Patriots are in control is true, but those predictions have not been useful to anyone yet. You can predict that something will happen somewhere on the 70% of the planet that is water at some time in the future, but again, it hasn’t helped me predict anything about reality.
Q is hoping that reality will eventually reflect what Q says will happen without any of it apparently happening. “Future proves Past.”
Well, until Present proves Future, Q has not been useful scientifically or logically. I haven’t been able to predict anything about the world using Q’s posts. A lot to squinting a lot of maybes and a lot of encoded implications, but nothing that a scientist considers scientifically indisputable proof, which is what I need to reinvent my life in Q’s worldview.