If it's fake right off the bat, it's falsified.
Then prove it is false... that the FSM categorically and absolutely does not exist... that the FSM did not plant the seed of His existence into the head of Henderson, such that Henderson wrote it out as though he was merely arriving at a concept, the FSM knowing that in 2,000 years His will be the dominant religion.
Prove it.
Oh, right... you're bringing to the table evidence that actually fits in with the allowed observations of the claim (that the FSM exists), and thus not actually falsifying it.
But you know what it means for something to be falsifiable. Clearly. I mean, it's not as though you have spent the last FSM-knows how many posts in this thread demonstrating the exact opposite.
But you say you are familiar with the concept, through your work. So therefore you must be believed.
Or is that an Appeal to Authority? Oh, yes, it is. My mistake.
Let's just judge peoples' understanding on how they use it - and in that you are found woefully lacking.
It's falsified by natural evidence: it was fake.
Nope. The evidence you have so far brought to the table (i.e. that Henderson appears to have made up the concept) can only point to what Henderson thinks about the situation - not about the reality of the situation.
Henderson does not define reality.
Otherwise everything reduces to "this is so because I say it is". So as a concept...no.
No it doesn't. That is what you are insisting upon with your belief that "Henderson says it is false therefore it is false".
Henderson can not falsify the FSM - he can only say what he considers the situation to be.
It is my position that the FSM cheapens the whole discussion. Why, to this day, I can't eat spaghetti.
Irrelevant to the issue.
Falsifiability is not governed by whether it cheapens a discussion.
Ye-es, but we know empirically that it's a crock.
Nope. As above.
Look, if I dug out the Bible faker from somewhere BC (or BCE if we
absolutely must 
uke
and held him as having just invented the whole thing, then we could say that all of Abrahamism was false.
No we couldn't. Unless there are observations that actually falsify (i.e. fall outside) the results expected by the concept. Someone believing and claiming to have made it up is not outside the scope of results expected by the concept.
This would seem to be a reasonable empirical rejection; at least of that group of religions, anyway.
But this is a matter of belief and what one considers reasonable or not to believe. That is a separate issue entirely to whether a concept is, at its core, falsifiable.
You would know this if you knew what it meant for a concept / theory / claim to be falsifiable or not.
Interesting sort of slight: I've known exactly what it means throughout and my position hasn't changed. So what you're effectively saying is that I always did know.
Then your position, for as long as it has remained unchanged, is wrong. This is not a question of subjectivity. You simply do not adequately understand what it means for a concept/theory/claim to be falsifiable or not.
No - but I couldn't be sure from the way you seem to misunderstand the concept of falsifiability. So was just checking.
Look, the evidence is that the FSM was fake.
The evidence is that Henderson arrived at a concept of the FSM to argue a point.
There is simply no evidence that the FSM categorically does not exist. The same way that there is simply no evidence that any other unfalsifiable concept does not exist.
If you think otherwise, just start with what should be the relatively simple task of proving that the FSM did not plant the seed of the idea of His existence in the head of Henderson and guided his thoughts to the concept of the FSM.
Now, if you came up to me and said "Hey I have a new religion based on a being from an alternate universe that speaks to me inside my head, and he wants cash and strippers", I'd say well, maybe. I couldn't prove it either way; I'd be unlikely to alter school curriculum for him in any event, but I couldn't also say "Oh yeah? Well the deity I just made up says your deity is crap nyah nyah nyah" (which is the point of the OP question; the relative likelihood of deities). I can't speak to the reality of the deity supposedly in his head.
Nor can you speak to the reality of the deity that Henderson supposedly made up:
If the FSM does not exist we would expect Henderson to say that he made the concept up.
But ir the FSM does exist and planted the seed in Henderson's head then we might still expect Henderson to say that he made the concept up.
From this we can show that the observation of Henderson saying he made it up does NOT falsify the concept - as the same observation would be expected whether the FSM existed or not.
I.e. the FSM is an unfalsifiable concept.
Period.
Live with it.
And for the sake of everyone else here... please go and learn what it means for something to be falsifiable. Please. You keep saying you do. And I want to believe that you do. But you constantly remind everyone that you don't.
