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.

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 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.