Trader 666, if you're not capable of having a civil discussion where you refrain from constant references to myself as part of your argument, then we're done here.
Feel free to use that as an excuse to run away but as I said... act like a jackass and I'll treat you like one. Crying won't keep me from calling you out on your juvenile denials and other childish games. If you don't like that then put me on ignore.
You should repeat that to yourself 1000 times in front of a mirror, both for your posts here and in the options forum. Then do the same drill substituting "hypocrisy" for "arrogance."
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.
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!
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.
You can say what you wish about quantum mechanics but the top scientists are not agreeing with you. They have not been saying that for about 20 years.
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. Claim #1 is "just as much of an unfalsifiable claim" as Claim #2 but they're nowhere near "equally implausible."