> There’s a difference between mere agnosticism on
> the question and claiming that one explanation is
> as good as another—but, as we see, you’re not
> claiming this, are you?
> You’re claiming 95% confidence that one
> particular theory is wrong.
> I really don’t see how this could be, sans
> positive evidence that something else was in those
> boxes. If you had such evidence, you would surely
> present it and not (as you have done) affect
> agnosticism. I see no coherent position here.
> Which leaves the agnosticism less than convincing
> and looking rather more like a way of avoiding
> admitting that “tomb” is the front-runner
All else being equal your points would all be valid.
But all else isn't equal. The builders said in no uncertain terms that these weren't tombs. Where Egyptology simply dismisses the builders as superstitious bumpkins I believe everything they said was meant literally and it was literally accurate. I believe the builders had no beliefs at all and beliefs couldn't even be expressed in ancient language; it would break rules of grammar.
There are other considerations as well like the physical evidence that all agrees with what the builders said.
It's a shame they apparently never mentioned in the PT what was in the "sarcophagus". This might mean it was of little importance and it could even mean that it was so obvious that it didn't need to be stated. It's not impossible that it even held the ashes of the dead king. But this wouldn't mean that this was the reason for building the pyramid ands doesn't mean the pyramid was a tomb. It just means everything has to be somewhere and they might have put the ashes here. I don't think this is the case though because there would almost certainly be a ritual involved with the ceremony and most of these are already identified.
Of course I can be wrong but my theory fits the evidence and makes predictions. Egyptological assumptions fail both of these tests.