Ask Capracus. My guess is more than ten. Whose existence you then deny, if it's Capracus. For no reason at all. (btw: that weird gibberish language is so ordinary from these guys it can be hard to notice - one is spelling out things by drawing on already "max" features to their fullest extent? The closer one reads, the less sense that makes. And this is their posting - their normal posted prose.)
You think there are 10 different ways to interpret the claim "I know what number you're thinking of"???
There are a few serious problems with your proposal. I am just starting with the most apparent one. Introducing 1-10 offers 8 more variables than what people would usually associate with a claim to Godhead or presidency.
There are but two options: either I know which number you're thinking of, or I don't know. Two options. According to you that is a 50/50 chance. Either I know, or I don't. Either God exists, or God doesn't exist. Either Capracus' claim that he is God is correct, or it isn't. In each case there are 2 options. All 50/50 according to your way of thinking. But now, when you realise the stupidity of that thinking of yours, you start introducing the notion of variables, yet conveniently overlook the variables involved with someone claiming to be President, let alone God. And the issue remains: based on Capracus' claim, there is insufficient within that to dismiss his claim. There definitely isn't enough to uphold his claim, and I certainly never claimed there was. But the claim can not be dismissed on the basis of "at the very least, one would hope an omnimax personalty would be capable of holding their own on an online discussion forum." (to bring it all the way back to my original criticism of your dismissal). If God is capable of being someone who could be either someone who can or can not hold their own, your dismissal on the basis of not being capable has no logical grounds. As said ealier, I really am surprised that you're still debating this (even if over half the posts have been on irrelevancies). Most would have simply said "Oh, yeah, you're right - it was a throwaway comment in an effort at humour" or some such. Not you, though. Disappointing.
Then why not just say you have a choice between the numbers 1 and 2? Why do you suddenly introduce 8 more variables? Not according to your words : I saw nothing within his statement/claim to suggest one way or theother. I could not dismiss it simply on the basis of that statement/claim. If you are really seeing "nothing" in the claim "to suggest one way or another", you are limiting yourself to two options : Yes or No * . If we dare to introduce variables aside from the standard "yes/no" (I say "dare", because previously you seemed to prohibit such a thing ... although you have since gone to extra special lengths to assert that was not your intention to divorce "knowledge" from the proceedings ...), then the claim isn't contextualized by "nothing to see". Thus your lucky numbers gig is offering something different, on account of having (at least) 8 more things "to see" than what is apparantly available to what Capracus is offering to you. *(the third option of being "undecided" is not tenable when the claim also comes with a prescriptive directive ... either Capracus's " .... so worship Me mortal philistine" slant or my presidential " ... so replace your library with phrenology text books" On the contrary, I think introducing variables is the standard necessity for getting any discussion to a higher altitude than the sub-moronic. Stupidity would be not introducing variables/knowledge. According to you, there is ... nothing within his statement/claim to suggest one way or theother. Hence my original query about it being a 50/50 possibility iyho. I mean if there is "nothing" to sway a yes/no q one way or another, how could it possibly be anything different than 50/50?
Variables will not help in the absence of argument, evidence, etc. By being 90/10, inherently, and no evidence otherwise. For example.
To highlight the ridiculous notion you raised when you suggested that a claim with an answer of yes/no is effectively a 50/50 proposition. Hopefully now you realise the utter stupidity of that response of yours. My example still stands as highlighting the stupidity of your response. The internal variables do nothing to alter the situation: according to the thinking you are suggesting of me, it is a yes/no proposition in exactly the same manner as you ascribed to me - on a 50/50 basis. To see nothing that suggests yes or no is to say that there is no proof one way or the other. I.e. one can not claim something as false, or claim as true. At best it remains an unproven claim. And to dismiss on the basis of doing something that is within the remit of the claimed being remains... laughable. It is offering nothing different. I have offered no other variables other than "yes" and "no". I have been at pains to correct your misunderstanding, yes, upon which you diverted for so long and avoided the issue at hand. There remains a difference between intellectual and practical. I know you don't see it, but it is there. The "I don't know response" remains as open as it has always been, and a prescriptive directive does not close that off, no matter what you may wish. The stupidity is in trying to argue that my position would be that the veracity is 50/50. And that remains stupidity on your part. Because there is, and always will be, absent proof: "I don't know". You should try it sometime.
You are assuming Musika believes in God because somebody, or some scripture, told him personally he/it was God. I challenge you to find any theist who testifies to becoming one through being told by someone else that he/she was God. There is God, those that accept, and those that deny. There is not a “there is no God” situation outside of ones desire to live and act as though there is no God. If one accepts God, then one can move forward in that. If one rejects God, then he can move forward with that. The difference is that to reject God, is to accept the illusion of the physical body as the self, and we do not spiritually progress. Not that that matters those who deny the spiritual dimension, or create the idea of one from their personal desires. The evidence of God remains unaccessable to atheists because they want it to be. That is that biblical verse “ The fool says in his heart, there is no God”, is so powerful. It reveals this, it also tells how and why . The great thing is, once it has come to light, it becomes so obvious and transparent. Capracus, tell me about that verse, seeing as you claim to be God. Also, what was the Tarthapanishads about. Don’t try looking them up because you won’t find them online. Thanks in advance. Jan.
I thought I was quite specific about it only being pertinent with, as you say, "nothing to see either for or against" claims. How did you miss that detail? I guess the first condition in doing that would be to actually highlight something instead of just calling something stupid twice in row. What's the difference between an "internal variable" and just a plain old normal variable? If an "internal" variable has a direct influence on the liklihood of the answer coming out as a "yes or no", why not just call them "variables" like any other normal person who has no requirement to desperately grasp around to salvage a doomed specious argument? Only because you just whimsically introduced special language and invented something called "internal variables". So that means one sees no variables. That would also probably include seeing no "internal variables" that may affect the liklihood of it being a yes or no .... which spells out a clear distinction between your estimation of Capracus's cred and your lucky numbers gig. Ok lets repeat it again. The claim of Capracus's Godhood and my presidency came with a prescriptive directive. "I am X therefore do Y" X is the claim, Y is the directive. If you answer "I don't know" to the claim, you are still left with the directive. I say I am the president and demand that you dump your library in favour of phrenology textbooks. You can view my claim as president to be strong, weak, mild or green with pink poka dots. That however will still leave you with the directive. If you answer "I don't know" to my claim to the presidency, what do you do with your library (or twitter feed, if you want to rage about the the latest prescriptive directives of the president)? Your treatment of the conclusion (what you do with your library) determines your attitude to the claim (I am the president). Inaction (doing nothing with your library) becomes a type of action. Passive fence sitting (absent proof) is no longer an option. Introducing "if-then" (If I am the president, then dump your library) makes a binary response necessary. There is no third option because action (what do you do with your library) has now been parsed to knowledge (Hey, in case you forgot it buddy, I'm the president ...)
Nothing to see, as in proving neither one nor t'other. I see nothing that either proves for or against the claim. But then I see a chasm of "I don't know" where you see only "yes" or "no". I have. Repeatedly. You don't see it despite the example provided. Despite explaining it to you. If you see being more specific about where the particular variables lie as being such an attempt then you really should question whether you are here to discuss or just to argue for the sake of it. There is nothing special about the language. They are variables, are they not? They are internal - as in within the claim - are they not? You seem to be clutching at straws, Musika. Not necessarily. Just nothing that dictates either a yes or no answer. It might persuade toward one or the other, but can not be dismissed as false simply on probability. "Likelihood" is a matter of variables. Proof isn't a matter of "likelihood". Yes, I am well aware that you require all beliefs to be accompanied by practical effect but yours is not a view shared by me. What I choose to do about the directive is the necessarily binary result of a rather analogue thought process. Given that one output (e.g. not believing claim X is true) is the output one might expect from actual belief that X is not true but also from the simple "I don't know" (if one doesn't know then one does not believe claim X is true) then one can not necessarily judge one's intellectual position on their practical application. To do as such makes no claim to knowledge. But still you evade the issue: your dismissal of Capracus' claim to be God on the basis of whether or not God would be able to hold his own in an online discussion forum.
I have not said that context is never important. What I have said is that if you claim that 2 + 2 = 5, there is no need for further context in that instance. When your statement is as blatantly wrong as that, there is no context that can make it right.
Take it to a discussion about 2+2=5, and you may be relevant The irony of you recently surfacing from another thread, battered and bruised from allegations of supporting pedophilia, is obviously lost on you. The only serious q here is why are you so hypocritical.
The yes/no thing comes later. At this stage, we are just discussing variables, since you are trying to play your assessment of Capracus's claim as identical to a claim that has 8 more variables. If you have "nothing to see either for or against" it is markedly different from having "10 different things to see, either for or against", or even "5 things at odds against 5 other things" (which is another option you haven't actively pursued yet in support of your specious argument). This mad blathering explains nothing. If a variable affects the outcome of the claim, just call it a variable, like any other sane person who has no dependence on specious arguments. Claims containing variables are as remarkable as books containing pages. It's kind of standard. If the variables affect the outcome of the claim, you don't achieve anything by smothering them in this special language. If we are discussing variables surrounding the movement of a car, you could describe q's like "What colour is it?" or "What song is playing on the radio?" as superfluous. They are called as such because they don't directly influence the outcome of the claim. Proof is simply strong liklihood. Both are the same in that they arise from means of knowledge. If you are seeing no means, or as you say, nothing either for or against, it means you are seeing no variables. You are seeing nothing to support either claim. You are not even seeing likelihoods. I never said all claims. Practical effect is due to the prescriptive directive taking a hold on the issue. If you respond "I don't know" to the q of whether or not to sink or swim in a river, you just assert compliance with the former. Passivity asserts one's compliance to the dominance of the directive. Oh believe me, I totally agree! But if there is nothing either for or against, the thought process becomes quite simplified. No analogue required. I know that sounds silly, but that is the ridiculous analogue-free "deep neutrality" atheists demand in these discussions. Capracus and your antics, case in point. It can be judged. It becomes (weak) doubt. "If you are not for us, you are against us" establishes the field for judgment. We are discussing that. There is a very broad (you might even describe it as "analogue") thought process that goes into asserting or dismissing a claim of being the president ... what to speak of God. I would argue that my "process" for rejecting Capracus's claim of Godhood is remarkably similar to yours (at the very least, you didn't assail Capracus with the standard "Well if you are God, then ..." , aka, a barrage of atheist verbage/indignation/curiousity that has become the atheistic standard when the indelibility of God even vaguely threatens to surface in a discussion). Instead you play this poker faced, deep neutrality, "nothing to see here" charade supported by a host of specious arguments. Your action alone is clear evidence of your appraisal of Capracus's claims. One could say, the magnanimity of God suddenly appearing on sciforums is a directive that asserts a dominance that makes passivity (aka, the Sergeant Schultz mantra, deep neutral "I don't know" etc) untenable, even for an atheist.
Pivoting from bullshit to personal disparagement, with any thread or discussion topic either absent or mere pretext, is the bulk of the posting from overt Abrahamic theists on a science forum. Thousands of posts from them display that pattern here. The agenda of the overt Abrahamic theist on a science forum is disparagement of reason and those who answer to it.
The motive behind this obvious falsehood is the only interesting aspect of it. It's trolling, of course, but why? Note that the silly provocation, if taken seriously as a claim, throws away the entire thread and the one it was split off: the attempt to get some overt Abrahamic theist to state in public some cause of their belief in, or rejection of, some God. So that would bring it into the standard oA theist post pattern - vandalize the thread and prevent discussion of its topic, simultaneously disparaging any sciencey leaning or reason reliant forum member handy. There is Capracus, those who accept, and those who deny. Got it. The theists who deny, however, have presented no reasons - no evidence, no argument, nothing but the statement of denial itself. As long as you continue to refuse to post any, that remains an empty claim - and given its perfect fit within the pattern of dishonesty displayed in your posting, and its perfect fit within your visible agenda here, a most unlikely one.
And I have explained that, whether you consider it specious or not, not that I give two hoots what you think of it. Furthermore, your claim of being the President has rather a few more variables than 8. Just because you don't like an explanation does not make it "mad blathering". It also explains everything you had issue about it. Your continuing attempt to make issue of the wording I used really does you no favours. So what are you considering superfluous within the example I gave? Or are you really just spouting words for post count, 'cos that's the only relevance I can see in this issue. No, proof is proof. It is distinct from a strong likelihood. It is said that science does not work on proof but on strong probability (e.g. 5-sigma) - precisely because they are different. You really see them as the same??? No, as explained, and as you seem to willfully ignore, if I see nothing for or against then I am saying there is nothing in there that proves either claim. If you can't accept that then say so and we can stop right here, because it's not going to get any better for you. So an example of a belief that is not followed by practical application, in your view? Sure, in some cases it is fairly obvious that one has the necessity of a practical route that forces a binary intellectual position. You think saying "I don't know" to the question of you being President is to assert one's compliance to the dominance of the directive you issue??? No, it really doesn't, unless you wilfully disregard previous explanations. "Deep neutrality"? You mean you consider "I don't know" to be "deep neutrality"??? Why? If you deal in false dichotomies, sure. And being judged still doesn't make it a claim to knowledge. As said many times previously now, you have misunderstood, seemingly from the outset, the issue I raised. And you have thus gone on many pages of rather irrelevant matters since then. Do I believe Capracus is God? No, of course not. Do I believe he is not God? Yes. My issue, from the outset, as previously explained many times, was with your dismissal of Capracus' claim on the basis of not displaying certain behaviour when God (at leat your concept of), if he was Capracus, could display the behaviour Capracus was displaying. Even by your own admission, your concept of God could display that behaviour (of not being able to hold their own in an online discussion forum). Your dismissal was, and remains, fallacious. The rest of this 13-page red-herring is due to a further misunderstanding on your part, but hey, let me take a bit of responsibility for that for the initial wording of it, although the rest is you for wilfully ignoring the subsequent clarifications when identified as needed. Now, I'm done on this. Nothing you have said explains away your fallacious dismissal of Capracus' claim. As said previously, had you just said "this was a throwaway comment only, not intended as an actual argument, and I dismiss his claim on the basis of..." then everyone could have been saved the subsequent 12+ pages of your irrelevancies.
The biological unit Capracus has never denied the existence of God, he simply has not seen evidence of such presented by those claiming to know it. As God, I can tell you that your universe is teaming with lesser entities that are capable of meeting any expectation of God you or anyone else could imagine, so sensing God in your heart is by no means a reliable way to know me. How many times does your nose have to be rubbed in this fact, the actions of an omnimax god are not testable by human beings. Even if a statement by such a god could be shown to be irrational or untrue, it can't be be used as evidence to disprove its identity.When you postulate a god that can do anything, you have to assume the possibility that such a god will do anything. As a bilogical unit, your statements are testable, and can be check for there veracity, thus making your presidential claims incomparable. The most tenable perspective any human being can assert regarding any claim associated with God would be the actual iconic Sergeant Schultz line, “I know nothing.”
