The Rules

[fr0d0]

It is YOUR hypothesis, it is therefore YOUR responsibility to produce both evidence to support and to define what would falsify it ... it is not now and never has been mine!

It precisely ISN'T my philosophy. I've said many times that evidence is not possible. It is you that has said you will believe given evidence.

Yet here you are unable to produce one example of what would constitute evidence.

I call FAIL

---

I believe that the universe is coherent, rational, guided by a consistent and inherently explainable set of rules, Frodo (by virtue of his belief in a god that is unexplainable and requires no evidential support) believes that I am somehow insane despite the fact that his "hypothesis" explains nothing, predicts nothing, is inherently non-falsifiable, offers no real value outside of a psychological comfort blanket and cannot be rationally distinguished from a nothing requiring the exact same amount of evidential support.

---

Wrong. I too believe that universe is coherent, rational, guided by a consistent and inherently explainable set of rules.
My hypothesis explains everything it needs to explain. Possibly even science, but then ever doesn't compete with scientific research. Inherently it requires no evidential support, thought this isn't anything internally problematic. It offers value in that it's a roadmap to a fulfilled life for those who prefer a guide rather than relying on chance and a lot of pain. And finally, it can very easily be distinguished from everything else.