That's exactly "right".  Your top paragraph describes what I am talking about.  When I have discussions like this I try not to take a relative perspective, but also yield that at least in some way I must be since I am human.  The point I was making is that "repeatability" in respect to either an infinite universe or infinite "non-existence" "outside" of existence is absolutely worthless.  If I asked you will there be gravity tomorrow, you would almost certainly say that there would, but in fact you have no absolute basis for this, only relative observation of your tiny (again, in respect to the universe, time, non-existence) life span.  And, even if we made it a closed set, it would still require proof that your observations in the past were correct.  So, yes, it is a prediction, but in respect to any absolute it is absolutely worthless and unproven.

So it doesn't just apply to future, but current and past as well.  If I ask you right now if there is gravity, how do you know that there is?  The only response any person has to this is either demonstration or simply saying, "because there is".  It also doesn't break only in respect to an absolute, it also breaks in respect to any perspective other than your own.  If we are at a table, and you see an apple on the table, is the apple there?  I say it isn't, and you cannot prove yourself to be right nor can you prove me to be wrong.  This is the problem with man's reasoning.

So, yes, this is "impractical", but "impractical" is a nice little word man made to escape from these situations.  We do it with everything we cannot really understand or would make us think too much such as "infinite", "nothing", "always", "never", etc.

I think what humans need to do is better define certain words, because maybe science is "rational", but it certainly isn't logical.  The deduction with a closed set of data is logical, but the basis and means of obtaining the data are unfounded.  It is exactly the same as saying, "There is a god" or "There isn't a god".  No proof, and it is beyond us to prove it.  "True == not false", "a == a", etc.  These are the grounds for most human reasoning, and they are completely unproven.

I believe what you were saying in your post is that this kind of reasoning is sort of pointless, and in some ways it is.  I bring it up in discussions of religion and science to point out that from a scientific perspective, it is pointless, but why would it be pointless?  Because this reasoning specifically destroys any foundation for science, and therefore it is scientifically "pointless".

From a "rational", "practical" perspective, it serves no purpose.  From a "philosophical" perspective (I don't like that word, but for lack of a better one...) it is very, very important for people to think about.  I'm not saying people should think this way all of their waking moments, but just at least once in a while stop and think.  And when you think the absurdities of this mess of human reasoning, your mind opens more to other possibilities.  I'm not really directing this at you, Pho, or anyone I have in mind, just to the people of the world who aren't even reading this

I like your discussion on rules, and I used something similar several years ago when I was discussing things with a few atheists.

We we are the chess pieces on the board, we do not make the rules, we are bound by them.  Now, that isn't a very good metaphor, but loosely sums up a few hours of discussion.  Humans like to understand things, and we do not like to be in a free fall (from an absolute perspective, the zero amount of data humans have could literally result in not even knowing whether there was ground beneath your feet).  We are built the way we are to exist and to function as best as we can.  We are built in a way that we have to work hard to discover the inner workings of the universe, but as you said, how can we think that our pathetic understanding of anything is correct or would apply to anything else.

This is a rudimentary counter to any attempt to prove there is no god or disprove his existence:
If we assume that we know EVERYTHING in existence, every bit of data, and
If we are not gods,
Then how can we even begin to attempt to try to disprove a being who "exist" outside of existence in ways we cannot even begin to grasp.

Now there are gods that didn't create existence, didn't create time, that weren't always in existence, but I am talking about trying to disprove gods that always were.  So in debating with people, I could actually say god doesn't "exist" because he doesn't "exist" as some "creature" of this universe.  Does it mean that he doesn't have an absolute power over what he created?

If we are playing chess, we reach our hands to the pieces and move them as we will, but we setup rules for how the game works, rules which we choose to obey.  I could easily just grab the opposing player's king, and he could just say, "the king is pointless, you have to take my queen", and run away with it.

Now, I believe we have freewill.  So the chess board metaphor has flaws in it, but it gives you the gist of the idea.  We have freewill because we have choices, but I believe there is at least one absolute -- whether it be that the universe, or time, or nonexistence, or any other infinite (nonexistence is infinitely "nothing").  So our lives are done already, but our choices were made.  You can put everything in past tense, and it allows there to still be freewill within a life that is already known in respect to an absolute.

The disproof of anything lies in it.  It is a big mess.  As you said, man likes to apply his rules and his arrogance in attempting to refute something.  Even from existence, you can say that there may be existence other than that which we can perceive.  What if there existed a being, just like you and me, not a god, but he existed in another dimension of existence, one which we cannot perceive.  Does he exist or not?  One may argue that he doesn't exist to us, but how do our rules affect him?  He still exists, and we may not exist to him (depending on whether he can perceive or act in our realm of existence).

It is just so stupid, and it really baffles me how dumb people can be.  They cannot see the tiny, minuscule box they are cramming themselves into then trying to force everyone and everything into that box.  Why do we do this?  Man likes to understand things.  And instead of opening our minds to things which we will never understand, we'd rather dismiss it.  We like to understand things, we like to learn, but we outright refuse to "allow" into existence anything that we cannot understand.  We can see the effects, but we will never know the causes, so we dismiss it.  Idiots.

I ramble a lot