I saw nothing within his statement/claim to suggest one way or the other. I could not dismiss it simply on the basis of that statement/claim, and certainly not on the basis that "one would hope an omnimax personalty would be capable of holding their own on an online discussion forum", as previously explained. But it is good to see that you're finally beginning to drop the irrelevancies and actually discuss the matter at hand.
You mean to say there was, iyho, a 50% chance God is actually present on sciforums, operating under the handle of Capracus?
You have it backwards. It's about removing extraneous context. Remove the coloured glasses and you'll see the true colours. Remove the connection to somebody else's posts and you'll see the true stupidity of what you're saying.
So what is it? Context is extraneous? Except when you are on the brink of being banned for endorsing paedophilia? In which case you are literally begging for it (begging to have your comments endorsed by an ulterior context, of course) www.sciforums.com/threads/you-be-the-judge-sexual-assault.161205/page-21
When you claim that all dogs are brown, yes, context is extraneous. If you claim that 2 + 2 = 5, context is extraneous. You're wrong. No amount of context can turn black into white. And no amount of blather can turn nonsense into sense.
I would add that wearing brown colored glasses does not make all dogs brown. The act of you wearing the glasses does not change the color of the dog. It makes everything appear brown. It alters your perception of colors, because, you are filtering the light. Perception is not the same as perspective, which applies to equations. Wearing glasses and color of dogs does not equate.
This typical oA theist's post here: illuminates this: The context of all of Musika's posts is the record left by the previous ones.
??? Do you honestly think that if a statement can not be shown to be true or false that its veracity is therefore considered to be 50%?
If a statement being either true or false is the sole reason one is giving for accepting it as il/legitimate, why would one consider the matter otherwise?
This says nothing about why you were desperately appealing to context when you were facing allegations of paedophilia in the before mentioned thread. http://www.sciforums.com/threads/you-be-the-judge-sexual-assault.161205/page-21 If you want to advocate that there is no need to examine what posts a comment is made in relation to, the simple methid is showing how you display compliance to this notion. Since it's obvious you haven't, can't and won't abide by such nonsense, the real question here is why are you being hypocritical?
Beyond the standard bs "if"/pivot, notice the language - that particular weird fog of not-quite-the-right-word meaninglessness. It's a field mark. It's the strangest damn thing - none of these guys make sense when they post, and the more carefully one reads them the less sense they make. They've normalized innuendo via gibberish.
So if I tell you that when you think of one number out of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10 that I will guess correctly which it is, but offer no proof one way or the other, you think that it is 50/50 that my claim is correct??? After all, it can be only true or false. If you, for some reason, don't think it is 50/50, then ask yourself why not.
There are 1 to 10 different ways to interpret the claim "I am an omnimax God?" Or "I am the president of the USA?"
#238 http://www.sciforums.com/threads/prove-that-i-am-not-god.161251/page-12#post-3547623 omnimax is bastardised latin to mean the greatest of all things. defining the existance of an omnimax god by default creates minor gods.
Its an abbreviated form referring to the 3 omni's : omni- (-scient/-potent/-present). "Max", in the sense that drawing on all these three things to the fullest extent spells out a completely independent and all-powerful entity.
