Ben Goren wrote:
Dutch wrote:

Much exists that is not objectively verifiable. Good character
exists, interest in certain topics, affection, sense of humor,
compassion, courage, just to name a few.

I think you'll find that, once you provide cogent definitions
of those terms, every one of them will be objectively
verifiable -- in theory, at least, and, for the most part, in
practice.

Tough job.

If I define god as that force which energizes living things, I
can verify it's existence.

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 10:43:23 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

"Ben Goren" <ben@trumpetpower.com> wrote in message
news:1209438312_909@isp.n...
Dutch wrote:

Much exists that is not objectively verifiable. Good character
exists, interest in certain topics, affection, sense of humor,
compassion, courage, just to name a few.

I think you'll find that, once you provide cogent definitions of
those terms, every one of them will be objectively verifiable --
in theory, at least, and, for the most part, in practice.

Tough job.

If I define god as that force which energizes living things, I can verify
it's existence.

That would be dishonest.

Dutch wrote:

Ben Goren wrote:
Dutch wrote:

Much exists that is not objectively verifiable. Good character
exists, interest in certain topics, affection, sense of humor,
compassion, courage, just to name a few.

I think you'll find that, once you provide cogent definitions
of those terms, every one of them will be objectively
verifiable -- in theory, at least, and, for the most part, in
practice.

Tough job.

If I define god as that force which energizes living things, I
can verify it's existence.

You worship ATP?

"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:041e149bdqeg16cungf2c4iqnd46gmtip0@4ax.com...
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 10:43:23 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

"Ben Goren" <ben@trumpetpower.com> wrote in message
news:1209438312_909@isp.n...
Dutch wrote:

Much exists that is not objectively verifiable. Good character
exists, interest in certain topics, affection, sense of humor,
compassion, courage, just to name a few.

I think you'll find that, once you provide cogent definitions of
those terms, every one of them will be objectively verifiable --
in theory, at least, and, for the most part, in practice.

Tough job.

If I define god as that force which energizes living things, I can verify
it's existence.

That would be dishonest.

Why is that?

Ben Goren wrote:
Dutch wrote:
Ben Goren wrote:
Dutch wrote:

Much exists that is not objectively verifiable. Good
character exists, interest in certain topics, affection,
sense of humor, compassion, courage, just to name a few.

I think you'll find that, once you provide cogent definitions
of those terms, every one of them will be objectively
verifiable -- in theory, at least, and, for the most part, in
practice.

Tough job.

If I define god as that force which energizes living things, I
can verify it's existence.

You worship ATP?

The tennis tour? No

DanielSan wrote:
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
"Michael Scheltgen" <mikesc@iname.com> wrote in message
news:ySyRj.100666$Cj7.57013@pd7urf2no...
Kadaitcha Man wrote:

Definition 1: God = Metaphysical X.
Definition 2: Metaphysical = Without physical form or substance.

Theorem: Necessarily, God exists.
KM, Not that I disagree with you,

Playing safe, huh? :)

but what you wrote above appears tautologous.

One would not reasonably expect tautological logic from Kurt Gödel.

"One of the most significant logicians of all time, Gödel's work has had
immense impact upon scientific and philosophical thinking in the 20th
century..." - wiki.

I'd be interested in seeing a proof of the theorem.

No problem at all. But first, there is fun to be had with a
BAAAWAAAAAAHWAAAAH Knight of atheism.

Oh, bugger it. Here:

Definition 1: God = Metaphysical X.

Definition 2: Metaphysical = Without physical form or substance.

Definition 3: x is God-like iff x has as essential properties those and
only those properties which are positive.

Definition 4: A is an essence of x iff for every property B, x has B
necessarily iff A entails B.

Definition 5: x necessarily exists iff every essence of x is necessarily
exemplified.

Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive.

Axiom 2: Any property entailed by a positive property is positive.

Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive.

Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive.

Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive.

Axiom 6: For any property P, if P is positive, then being necessarily P
is
positive.

Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e.,
possibly exemplified.

Corollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent.

Theorem 2: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like
is an essence of that thing.

Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified.

Corollary 2: Necessarily, God exists.

After I've had my disguting way with the BAAAWAAAAAAHWAAAAH Knight of
atheism's unwilling body I'll show you precisely where the killer twist
of the logic knife is, assuming you don't spot it first, of course.


Let's redo your "logic" with another imaginary character:

Definition 1: Albus Dumbledore = Metaphysical X.

Definition 2: Metaphysical = Without physical form or substance.

Definition 3: x is Dumbledore-like iff x has as essential properties
those and only those properties which are positive.

Definition 4: A is an essence of x iff for every property B, x has B
necessarily iff A entails B.

Definition 5: x necessarily exists iff every essence of x is necessarily
exemplified.

Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive.

Axiom 2: Any property entailed by a positive property is positive.

Axiom 3: The property of being Dumbledore-like is positive.

Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive.

Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive.

Axiom 6: For any property P, if P is positive, then being necessarily P
is
positive.

Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e.,
possibly exemplified.

Corollary 1: The property of being Dumbledore-like is consistent.

Theorem 2: If something is Dumbledore-like, then the property of being
Dumbledore-like is an essence of that thing.

Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being Dumbledore-like is
exemplified.

Corollary 2: Necessarily, Dumbledore exists.

So, now, let me know where Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry is.
(By the way, if you don't know, you're committing the classic "begging
the question" fallacy.)

By the way, if you strip out the diversionary tactics within the "logic"
provided, you get to the following:

Existence is positive.
God is positive.
Therefore, God must exist.

Existence is positive.
Dumbledore is positive.
Therefore, Dumbledore must exist.

See the fallacy, KM?

Kadaitcha Man wrote:

Definition 1: God = Metaphysical X.

Definition 2: Metaphysical = Without physical form or substance.

Definition 3: x is God-like iff x has as essential properties
those and only those properties which are positive.

Definition 4: A is an essence of x iff for every property B, x
has B necessarily iff A entails B.

Definition 5: x necessarily exists iff every essence of x is
necessarily exemplified.

Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not
positive.

Axiom 2: Any property entailed by a positive property is
positive.

Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive.

Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily
positive.

Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive.

Axiom 6: For any property P, if P is positive, then being
necessarily P is positive.

Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent,
i.e., possibly exemplified.

Corollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent.

Theorem 2: If something is God-like, then the property of being
God-like is an essence of that thing.

Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is
exemplified.

Corollary 2: Necessarily, God exists.

golf clap

Very nice, skippy.

Now, before we continue, let's see if you're even tall enough to
enter the gate.

Whose ``proof'' did you qu<BITCHSLAP

ote above?

Did he or she ever publish it? Why or why not?

The person who authored the ``proof'' is much better known for
certain other works of logic. Care to mention the most famous
of them? Also, other logicians worked on some very well-known
variations on the same basic them. Care to mention any of them?

The ``proof'' is, essentially, a formalization of a well-known
argument for the existence of the modern Western theological god
named, ``God.'' Who was the first to propose this argument, and
what is the argument typically called?

If you can make it past that, then it might actually be worth the
time to see if you can spot where the ``proof'' goes worng.

Kadaitcha Man wrote:

You need to get your delusions seen to, loser. I am more than
beyond your sub-standard little league.

snork

Dude, you're just barely ready to graduate from T-ball.

But since you've finally stopped dodging and weaving, I'll go
ahead and toss you a couple easy pitches. But let's try to
consolidate this thread, mkay?

You'll have your response to the other post soon.

Whose ``proof'' did you qu<BITCHSLAP

That was made clear, you dense cunt.

Kadaitcha Man wrote:

Whose ``proof'' did you qu<BITCHSLAP

That was made clear, you dense cunt.

No<BITCHSLAP

One would not reasonably expect tautological logic from Kurt Gödel.

"One of the most significant logicians of all time, Gödel's work has
had immense impact upon scientific and philosophical thinking in the
20th century..." - wiki.

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:37:32 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:041e149bdqeg16cungf2c4iqnd46gmtip0@4ax.com...
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 10:43:23 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

"Ben Goren" <ben@trumpetpower.com> wrote in message
news:1209438312_909@isp.n...
Dutch wrote:

Much exists that is not objectively verifiable. Good character
exists, interest in certain topics, affection, sense of humor,
compassion, courage, just to name a few.

I think you'll find that, once you provide cogent definitions of
those terms, every one of them will be objectively verifiable --
in theory, at least, and, for the most part, in practice.

Tough job.

If I define god as that force which energizes living things, I can
verify
it's existence.

That would be dishonest.

Why is that?

Duh. Because there are better words which don't carry the baggage
implicit in calling it "God".

You can define your aunt as a streetcar if you like, but it doesn't
make her one.

"DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gNednUlHP43SiYrVnZ2dnUVZ_ozinZ2d@comcast.com...
DanielSan wrote:
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
"Michael Scheltgen" <mikesc@iname.com> wrote in message
news:ySyRj.100666$Cj7.57013@pd7urf2no...
Kadaitcha Man wrote:

Definition 1: God = Metaphysical X.
Definition 2: Metaphysical = Without physical form or substance.

Theorem: Necessarily, God exists.
KM, Not that I disagree with you,
Playing safe, huh? :)

but what you wrote above appears tautologous.
One would not reasonably expect tautological logic from Kurt Gödel.

"One of the most significant logicians of all time, Gödel's work has had
immense impact upon scientific and philosophical thinking in the 20th
century..." - wiki.

I'd be interested in seeing a proof of the theorem.
No problem at all. But first, there is fun to be had with a
BAAAWAAAAAAHWAAAAH Knight of atheism.

Oh, bugger it. Here:

Definition 1: God = Metaphysical X.

Definition 2: Metaphysical = Without physical form or substance.

Definition 3: x is God-like iff x has as essential properties those and
only those properties which are positive.

Definition 4: A is an essence of x iff for every property B, x has B
necessarily iff A entails B.

Definition 5: x necessarily exists iff every essence of x is necessarily
exemplified.

Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive.

Axiom 2: Any property entailed by a positive property is positive.

Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive.

Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive.

Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive.

Axiom 6: For any property P, if P is positive, then being necessarily P
is
positive.

Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e.,
possibly exemplified.

Corollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent.

Theorem 2: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like
is an essence of that thing.

Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified.

Corollary 2: Necessarily, God exists.

After I've had my disguting way with the BAAAWAAAAAAHWAAAAH Knight of
atheism's unwilling body I'll show you precisely where the killer twist
of the logic knife is, assuming you don't spot it first, of course.

Let's redo your "logic" with another imaginary character:

Definition 1: Albus Dumbledore = Metaphysical X.

Definition 2: Metaphysical = Without physical form or substance.

Definition 3: x is Dumbledore-like iff x has as essential properties
those and only those properties which are positive.

Definition 4: A is an essence of x iff for every property B, x has B
necessarily iff A entails B.

Definition 5: x necessarily exists iff every essence of x is necessarily
exemplified.

Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive.

Axiom 2: Any property entailed by a positive property is positive.

Axiom 3: The property of being Dumbledore-like is positive.

Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive.

Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive.

Axiom 6: For any property P, if P is positive, then being necessarily P
is
positive.

Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e.,
possibly exemplified.

Corollary 1: The property of being Dumbledore-like is consistent.

Theorem 2: If something is Dumbledore-like, then the property of being
Dumbledore-like is an essence of that thing.

Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being Dumbledore-like is
exemplified.

Corollary 2: Necessarily, Dumbledore exists.

So, now, let me know where Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry is.
(By the way, if you don't know, you're committing the classic "begging
the question" fallacy.)
By the way, if you strip out the diversionary tactics within the "logic"
provided, you get to the following:

Existence is positive.
God is positive.
Therefore, God must exist.

Existence is positive.
Dumbledore is positive.
Therefore, Dumbledore must exist.

See the fallacy, KM?


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Translation: He doesn't get it.

Ben Goren wrote:
Kadaitcha Man wrote:

Whose ``proof'' did you qu<BITCHSLAP

That was made clear, you dense cunt.

No<BITCHSLAP

news:1r362h.2m2.17.1@news.alt.net



Then the proof immediately followed.

It is your problem entirely that you lack the necessary two
brain cells required to join dot 1 to dot 2.

HTH

Kadaitcha Man wrote:
"DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gNednUlHP43SiYrVnZ2dnUVZ_ozinZ2d@comcast.com...
DanielSan wrote:
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
"Michael Scheltgen" <mikesc@iname.com> wrote in message
news:ySyRj.100666$Cj7.57013@pd7urf2no...
Kadaitcha Man wrote:

Definition 1: God = Metaphysical X.
Definition 2: Metaphysical = Without physical form or substance.

Theorem: Necessarily, God exists.
KM, Not that I disagree with you,
Playing safe, huh? :)

but what you wrote above appears tautologous.
One would not reasonably expect tautological logic from Kurt Gödel.

"One of the most significant logicians of all time, Gödel's work has
had immense impact upon scientific and philosophical thinking in the
20th century..." - wiki.

I'd be interested in seeing a proof of the theorem.
No problem at all. But first, there is fun to be had with a
BAAAWAAAAAAHWAAAAH Knight of atheism.

Oh, bugger it. Here:

Definition 1: God = Metaphysical X.

Definition 2: Metaphysical = Without physical form or substance.

Definition 3: x is God-like iff x has as essential properties those
and
only those properties which are positive.

Definition 4: A is an essence of x iff for every property B, x has B
necessarily iff A entails B.

Definition 5: x necessarily exists iff every essence of x is
necessarily
exemplified.

Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive.

Axiom 2: Any property entailed by a positive property is positive.

Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive.

Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive.

Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive.

Axiom 6: For any property P, if P is positive, then being necessarily
P is
positive.

Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e.,
possibly exemplified.

Corollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent.

Theorem 2: If something is God-like, then the property of being
God-like
is an essence of that thing.

Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified.

Corollary 2: Necessarily, God exists.

After I've had my disguting way with the BAAAWAAAAAAHWAAAAH Knight of
atheism's unwilling body I'll show you precisely where the killer
twist of the logic knife is, assuming you don't spot it first, of
course.

Let's redo your "logic" with another imaginary character:

Definition 1: Albus Dumbledore = Metaphysical X.

Definition 2: Metaphysical = Without physical form or substance.

Definition 3: x is Dumbledore-like iff x has as essential properties
those and only those properties which are positive.

Definition 4: A is an essence of x iff for every property B, x has B
necessarily iff A entails B.

Definition 5: x necessarily exists iff every essence of x is
necessarily
exemplified.

Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive.

Axiom 2: Any property entailed by a positive property is positive.

Axiom 3: The property of being Dumbledore-like is positive.

Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive.

Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive.

Axiom 6: For any property P, if P is positive, then being necessarily P
is
positive.

Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e.,
possibly exemplified.

Corollary 1: The property of being Dumbledore-like is consistent.

Theorem 2: If something is Dumbledore-like, then the property of being
Dumbledore-like is an essence of that thing.

Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being Dumbledore-like is
exemplified.

Corollary 2: Necessarily, Dumbledore exists.

So, now, let me know where Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry
is. (By the way, if you don't know, you're committing the classic
"begging the question" fallacy.)
By the way, if you strip out the diversionary tactics within the "logic"
provided, you get to the following:

Existence is positive.
God is positive.
Therefore, God must exist.

Existence is positive.
Dumbledore is positive.
Therefore, Dumbledore must exist.

See the fallacy, KM?


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Translation: He doesn't get it.


Axiom 5 is unsupported.

Go away, child. The adults are talking.

Kadaitcha Man wrote:

Ben Goren wrote:
Kadaitcha Man wrote:

Whose ``proof'' did you qu<BITCHSLAP

That was made clear, you dense cunt.

No<BITCHSLAP

news:1r362h.2m2.17.1@news.alt.net



Then the proof immediately followed.

It is your problem entirely that you lack the necessary two
brain cells required to join dot 1 to dot 2.

HTH

yawn

Bored now.

In this and your other most recent posts, the list of things you
managed to not do is quite astounding. Or, it would be, if it
weren't so obvious that you're the poser you so clearly are.

You've not addressed the question of whether or not Godel's proof
fails<BITCHSLAP