I saw nothing within his statement/claim to suggest one way or the other.
Brown-coloured glasses don't make, "all dogs are brown," true. They should definitely be eliminated.
Actually they do.
No they don't. It's an error in your perception.
And that, my friend, is context.
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?
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.
illuminates this:
The context of all of Musika's posts is the record left by the previous ones.
???
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.
Beyond the standard bs "if"/pivot,
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???
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.