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).
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.
This mad blathering explains nothing.
Just because you don't like an explanation does not make it "mad blathering".
It also explains everything you had issue about it.
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.
Your continuing attempt to make issue of the wording I used really does you no favours.
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.
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.
Proof is simply strong liklihood. Both are the same in that they arise from means of knowledge.
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???
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.
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?
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.
Sure, in some cases it is fairly obvious that one has the necessity of a practical route that forces a binary intellectual position.
Passivity asserts one's compliance to the dominance of the directive.
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???
Oh believe me, I totally agree!
But if there is nothing either for or against, the thought process becomes quite simplified.
No, it really doesn't, unless you wilfully disregard previous explanations.
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.
"Deep neutrality"?
You mean you consider "I don't know" to be "deep neutrality"???
Why?
It can be judged.
It becomes (weak) doubt.
"If you are not for us, you are against us" establishes the field for judgment.
If you deal in false dichotomies, sure.
And being judged still doesn't make it a claim to knowledge.
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.
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.