| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Economy Forum » Solution to the energy shortage?
Page 6 of 8 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| Kadaitcha Man |
 Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 11:03 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bqSdnWgu5fqHd4rVnZ2dnUVZ_s3inZ2d@comcast.com...
Quote: Kadaitcha Man wrote:
"DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:qumdnaImur0KeIrVnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
God doesn't exist.
PS: Proof, please.
Ra. Extrapolate.
You can't prove it, huh?
--
alt.usenet.kooks
"We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]
Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Member: Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in 24hoursupport.helpdesk
Member of:
Usenet Ruiner List
Top Assholes on the Net List
Most hated usenetizens of all time List
Cog in the AUK Hate Machine List
Find me on Google Maps: 24°39'47.13"S, 134°4'20.18"E
"If it is non-empirical, then it does not exist."
"DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> asserting that his mind does
not exist. news:IpydnUYo8ssX54zVnZ2dnUVZ_oSunZ2d@comcast.com
"Godel was wrong."
"DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> asserting that he is one of
the most significant logicians of all time, not Kurt Gödel.
news:qumdnaImur0KeIrVnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@comcast.com
"The firmware of a router can become sick after awhile of continuous
usage." DUHane Arnold <MR. Arnold@Arnold.com> giving technical
advice. news:k96dnd110uImNojVnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@earthlink.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| DanielSan |
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 11:08 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
Quote: "DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bqSdnW4u5foWdIrVnZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@comcast.com...
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
"DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:qumdnaImur0KeIrVnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Godel was wrong.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Signatured.
Godel's Ontological Argument contains axioms that are not sufficiently
self-evident. It is not a proof. It is an argument.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Results 1 - 100 of about 2,130 English pages for Godel's "Ontological
Proof". (0.66 seconds)
It appears there are scholars who disagree with you. So, since you've
already claimed a greater expanse of skill, fame and knowledge than Gödel,
what are your university qualifications, affiliations and achievements in
regard to philosophy and formal logic systems?
The axioms are not sufficiently self evident.
Results 1 - 10 of about 197 for Godel's "ontological proof"
self-evident. (0.27 seconds)
In order for an axiom to be true, it has to be self-evident. Axiom 5 is
not, on its own.
Quote:
Names, dates, places, please.
I don't need to give them to you. It is evident that you don't know what
Godel's Ontological Argument is.
Quote:
But, go ahead and signature me out of context if it makes you feel like an
adult. You see, unlike you, I don't really care what others think about
me because they're going to form opinions about me based upon their
experience with me, not because you post a short three-word sentence with
no context.
I recommend you begin asserting your supremacy over "one of the most
significant logicians of all time" by signing up for editing rights on
wikipedia. Apparently it's listed there as "Gödel's ontological proof".
From your cite:
Critique of definitions and axioms
There are several reasons Gödel's axioms may not be realistic, including
the following:
* It may be impossible to properly satisfy axiom 3, which assumes
that a conjunction of positive properties is also a positive property;
for the proof to work, the axiom must be taken to apply to arbitrary,
not necessarily finite, collections of properties. Moreover, some
positive properties may be incompatible with others. For example mercy
may be incompatible with justice. In that case the conjunction would be
an impossible property and G(x) would be false of every x. Ted Drange
has made this objection to the coherence of attributing all positive
properties to God - see this article for Drange's list of incompatible
properties and some counter arguments. For these reasons, this axiom was
replaced in some reworkings of the proof (including Anderson's, below)
by the assumption that G(x) is positive (Pos(G(x)).
* The set of all properties of any object a as a candidate for the
set of all positive properties is always consistent with axioms 1–4
concerning positive properties, because the true statements P(a) form a
class of statements closed under deduction. Any one property could be
claimed to be positive, so long as it is not self-contradictory, with
the right choice of a. Specifically, any property that can be possessed
without contradiction is positive in some model of axioms 1–4, and any
property that can be avoided without contradiction is non-positive in
some model of axioms 1–4. Positivity of a property is as implicitly
defined as anything can get. Why, then, should any one property (such as
the one addressed in axiom 5) be assumed to be positive, given that no
such statement is ever a tautology (although it can be a contradiction
if the property is unsatisfiable)? Note that, with the right choice of
axiom 5, all sorts of things could be proven (see also the objection
below), an error common in some form to all ontological arguments. This
problem with axiom 5 is a logically inescapable point, and is similar to
the demonstration that, in the deontic logic of Ernst Mally, a statement
is morally necessary if and only if it is true.
* It was argued by Jordan Sobel that Gödel's axioms are too strong:
they imply that all possible worlds are identical. He proved this result
by considering the property "is such that X is true", where X is any
true modal statement about the world. If g is a Godlike object, and X is
in fact true, then g must possess this property, and hence must possess
it necessarily. But then X is a necessary truth. A similar argument
shows that all falsehoods are necessary falsehoods. C. Anthony Anderson
gave a slightly different axiomatic system which attempts to avoid this
problem.
In Anderson's system, Axioms 1, 2, and 5 above are unchanged; however
sthe other axioms are replaced with:
Axiom 3': G(x) is positive.
Axiom 4': If a property is positive, its negation is not positive.
These axioms leave open the possibility that a Godlike object will
possess some non-positive properties, provided that these properties are
contingent rather than necessary.
Quote:
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA! You less than fucking useless atheist pillock.
Godel is one of the most significant logicians of all time. He wasn't
infallible, though.
By the way, how old are you? Maturity-wise, that is? You don't seem to
be able to converse without using 3rd-grade schoolyard-style insults.
Grow up. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| DanielSan |
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 11:14 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
Quote: "DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bqSdnWku5fpqdIrVnZ2dnUVZ_s3inZ2d@comcast.com...
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
"DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:qumdnd0mur2pe4rVnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
"Ben Goren" <ben@trumpetpower.com> wrote in message
news:1209523445_1031@isp.n...
Hamlet's Life moaned:
I do not need to address any of your questions.
O<BITCHSLAP
HTH
Translation: RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY!
"Godel was wrong."
"DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> asserting that it is he who
was "one of the most significant logicians of all time", and had
an "immense impact upon scientific and philosophical thinking in the
20th century", not Kurt Gödel.
news:qumdnaImur0KeIrVnZ2dnUVZ_vOd
Can you show where I claim either of those quotes you say I'm asserting?
The quoted text is a paraphrase of the extrapolated implications of your mad
assertion that "Godel was wrong."
"...in this case" is the context you're missing.
Quote:
Proving yourself to be a total, illogical fuckwit by making assertions in
the complete absence of any consideration whatsoever for the consequences is
all you have done in these threads. You have done nothing else.
Except show that the axioms provided in the argument are not
sufficiently self-evident and are, therefore, not true axioms.
Quote:
Does it come as a surprise to you that you are bitchslapped for that yet
again? Hmmm?
By you? I'm not worried about being bitchslapped by you. You're a
small-minded plagiarist who doesn't even know what he posts. No, I'm
not really worried about what you think of me. I doubt anyone else
cares what you think, either.
Quote:
Stiff shit for you. Enjoy your ignominy, retard.
Do you imagine that I have ignominy in alt.atheism (from which I post
and read this)? Or is it you that has that? I can cobble together a
poll of likely posters, if you wish. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| DanielSan |
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 11:21 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
Quote: "DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bqSdnWgu5fqHd4rVnZ2dnUVZ_s3inZ2d@comcast.com...
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
"DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:qumdnaImur0KeIrVnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
God doesn't exist.
PS: Proof, please.
Ra. Extrapolate.
You can't prove it, huh?
You didn't even understand what I said, did you? It's just two words.
Which word did you have a problem with? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Kadaitcha Man |
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 11:26 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:otudnSvW9I1MbYrVnZ2dnUVZ_oqhnZ2d@comcast.com...
Quote: Kadaitcha Man wrote:
"DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bqSdnW4u5foWdIrVnZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@comcast.com...
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
"DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:qumdnaImur0KeIrVnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Godel was wrong.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Signatured.
Godel's Ontological Argument contains axioms that are not sufficiently
self-evident. It is not a proof. It is an argument.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Results 1 - 100 of about 2,130 English pages for Godel's "Ontological
Proof". (0.66 seconds)
It appears there are scholars who disagree with you. So, since you've
already claimed a greater expanse of skill, fame and knowledge than
Gödel, what are your university qualifications, affiliations and
achievements in regard to philosophy and formal logic systems?
The axioms are not sufficiently self evident.
Results 1 - 10 of about 197 for Godel's "ontological proof" self-evident.
(0.27 seconds)
In order for an axiom to be true, it has to be self-evident. Axiom 5 is
not, on its own.
Names, dates, places, please.
I don't need to give them to you. It is evident that you don't know what
Godel's Ontological Argument is.
Real meaning: He's qualified only to swill the pigs.
Quote: But, go ahead and signature me out of context if it makes you feel like
an adult. You see, unlike you, I don't really care what others think
about me because they're going to form opinions about me based upon
their experience with me, not because you post a short three-word
sentence with no context.
I recommend you begin asserting your supremacy over "one of the most
significant logicians of all time" by signing up for editing rights on
wikipedia. Apparently it's listed there as "Gödel's ontological proof".
From your cite:
What cite?
You get to go no further until you sort that one out.
Quote: By the way, how old are you?
I will not have sex with you unless you give me the candy first, mister.
Grow a brain.
--
alt.usenet.kooks
"We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]
Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Member: Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in 24hoursupport.helpdesk
Member of:
Usenet Ruiner List
Top Assholes on the Net List
Most hated usenetizens of all time List
Cog in the AUK Hate Machine List
Find me on Google Maps: 24°39'47.13"S, 134°4'20.18"E
"If it is non-empirical, then it does not exist."
"DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> asserting that his mind does
not exist. news:IpydnUYo8ssX54zVnZ2dnUVZ_oSunZ2d@comcast.com
"Godel was wrong."
"DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> asserting that he is one of
the most significant logicians of all time, not Kurt Gödel.
news:qumdnaImur0KeIrVnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@comcast.com
"The firmware of a router can become sick after awhile of continuous
usage." DUHane Arnold <MR. Arnold@Arnold.com> giving technical
advice. news:k96dnd110uImNojVnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@earthlink.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| DanielSan |
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 11:31 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
Quote: "DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:otudnSvW9I1MbYrVnZ2dnUVZ_oqhnZ2d@comcast.com...
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
"DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bqSdnW4u5foWdIrVnZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@comcast.com...
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
"DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:qumdnaImur0KeIrVnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Godel was wrong.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Signatured.
Godel's Ontological Argument contains axioms that are not sufficiently
self-evident. It is not a proof. It is an argument.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Results 1 - 100 of about 2,130 English pages for Godel's "Ontological
Proof". (0.66 seconds)
It appears there are scholars who disagree with you. So, since you've
already claimed a greater expanse of skill, fame and knowledge than
Gödel, what are your university qualifications, affiliations and
achievements in regard to philosophy and formal logic systems?
The axioms are not sufficiently self evident.
Results 1 - 10 of about 197 for Godel's "ontological proof" self-evident.
(0.27 seconds)
In order for an axiom to be true, it has to be self-evident. Axiom 5 is
not, on its own.
Names, dates, places, please.
I don't need to give them to you. It is evident that you don't know what
Godel's Ontological Argument is.
Real meaning: He's qualified only to swill the pigs.
But, go ahead and signature me out of context if it makes you feel like
an adult. You see, unlike you, I don't really care what others think
about me because they're going to form opinions about me based upon
their experience with me, not because you post a short three-word
sentence with no context.
I recommend you begin asserting your supremacy over "one of the most
significant logicians of all time" by signing up for editing rights on
wikipedia. Apparently it's listed there as "Gödel's ontological proof".
From your cite:
What cite?
You get to go no further until you sort that one out.
You cited Wikipedia.
<snip childishness> |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Kadaitcha Man |
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 11:36 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:isudnTB20faUb4rVnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Quote: Kadaitcha Man wrote:
"DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bqSdnWku5fpqdIrVnZ2dnUVZ_s3inZ2d@comcast.com...
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
"DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:qumdnd0mur2pe4rVnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
"Ben Goren" <ben@trumpetpower.com> wrote in message
news:1209523445_1031@isp.n...
Hamlet's Life moaned:
I do not need to address any of your questions.
O<BITCHSLAP
HTH
Translation: RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY!
"Godel was wrong."
"DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> asserting that it is he who
was "one of the most significant logicians of all time", and had
an "immense impact upon scientific and philosophical thinking in the
20th century", not Kurt Gödel.
news:qumdnaImur0KeIrVnZ2dnUVZ_vOd
Can you show where I claim either of those quotes you say I'm asserting?
The quoted text is a paraphrase of the extrapolated implications of your
mad assertion that "Godel was wrong."
"...in this case" is the context you're missing.
Proving yourself to be a total, illogical fuckwit by making assertions in
the complete absence of any consideration whatsoever for the consequences
is all you have done in these threads. You have done nothing else.
Except show that the axioms provided in the argument are not sufficiently
self-evident and are, therefore, not true axioms.
Does it come as a surprise to you that you are bitchslapped for that yet
again? Hmmm?
By you? I'm not worried about being bitchslapped by you. You're a
small-minded plagiarist who doesn't even know what he posts. No, I'm not
really worried about what you think of me.
The work was credited immediately before it was pasted. If plagiarism were
involved it would have been immediately drawn to my attention by my auk
colleagues, for they shall not tolerate such perfidy. I do not see anyone
other than you and the BAAWAAAAAAAWAAAAAAH Knight of fuckwittery pushing
that particular barrow.
Quote: I doubt anyone else cares what you think, either.
Note how you are attempting to minimise potential impact to yourself? Hmmm?
Quote: Stiff shit for you. Enjoy your ignominy, retard.
Do you imagine that I have ignominy in alt.atheism (from which I post and
read this)? Or is it you that has that? I can cobble together a poll of
likely posters,
Note how you are attempting to maximise potential support for yourself?
Hmmm?
Tell me again how not worried you are.
How about you post a list of names of likely posters first?
--
alt.usenet.kooks
"We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]
Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Member: Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in 24hoursupport.helpdesk
Member of:
Usenet Ruiner List
Top Assholes on the Net List
Most hated usenetizens of all time List
Cog in the AUK Hate Machine List
Find me on Google Maps: 24°39'47.13"S, 134°4'20.18"E
"If it is non-empirical, then it does not exist."
"DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> asserting that his mind does
not exist. news:IpydnUYo8ssX54zVnZ2dnUVZ_oSunZ2d@comcast.com
"Godel was wrong."
"DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> asserting that he is one of
the most significant logicians of all time, not Kurt Gödel.
news:qumdnaImur0KeIrVnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@comcast.com
"The firmware of a router can become sick after awhile of continuous
usage." DUHane Arnold <MR. Arnold@Arnold.com> giving technical
advice. news:k96dnd110uImNojVnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@earthlink.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Kadaitcha Man |
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 11:37 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZdSdnZ3IMdlXborVnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Quote: Kadaitcha Man wrote:
"DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bqSdnWgu5fqHd4rVnZ2dnUVZ_s3inZ2d@comcast.com...
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
"DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:qumdnaImur0KeIrVnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
God doesn't exist.
PS: Proof, please.
Ra. Extrapolate.
You can't prove it, huh?
You didn't even understand what I said, did you? It's just two words.
So is "Proof, please."
Quote: Which word did you have a problem with?
Right back at ya.
--
alt.usenet.kooks
"We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]
Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Member: Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in 24hoursupport.helpdesk
Member of:
Usenet Ruiner List
Top Assholes on the Net List
Most hated usenetizens of all time List
Cog in the AUK Hate Machine List
Find me on Google Maps: 24°39'47.13"S, 134°4'20.18"E
"If it is non-empirical, then it does not exist."
"DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> asserting that his mind does
not exist. news:IpydnUYo8ssX54zVnZ2dnUVZ_oSunZ2d@comcast.com
"Godel was wrong."
"DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> asserting that he is one of
the most significant logicians of all time, not Kurt Gödel.
news:qumdnaImur0KeIrVnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@comcast.com
"The firmware of a router can become sick after awhile of continuous
usage." DUHane Arnold <MR. Arnold@Arnold.com> giving technical
advice. news:k96dnd110uImNojVnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@earthlink.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Kadaitcha Man |
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 11:48 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:K7qdnfJ0EuqEa4rVnZ2dnUVZ_vninZ2d@comcast.com...
Quote: Kadaitcha Man wrote:
"DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:otudnSvW9I1MbYrVnZ2dnUVZ_oqhnZ2d@comcast.com...
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
"DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bqSdnW4u5foWdIrVnZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@comcast.com...
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
"DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:qumdnaImur0KeIrVnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Godel was wrong.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Signatured.
Godel's Ontological Argument contains axioms that are not sufficiently
self-evident. It is not a proof. It is an argument.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Results 1 - 100 of about 2,130 English pages for Godel's "Ontological
Proof". (0.66 seconds)
It appears there are scholars who disagree with you. So, since you've
already claimed a greater expanse of skill, fame and knowledge than
Gödel, what are your university qualifications, affiliations and
achievements in regard to philosophy and formal logic systems?
The axioms are not sufficiently self evident.
Results 1 - 10 of about 197 for Godel's "ontological proof"
self-evident. (0.27 seconds)
In order for an axiom to be true, it has to be self-evident. Axiom 5 is
not, on its own.
Names, dates, places, please.
I don't need to give them to you. It is evident that you don't know what
Godel's Ontological Argument is.
Real meaning: He's qualified only to swill the pigs.
But, go ahead and signature me out of context if it makes you feel
like an adult. You see, unlike you, I don't really care what others
think about me because they're going to form opinions about me based
upon their experience with me, not because you post a short three-word
sentence with no context.
I recommend you begin asserting your supremacy over "one of the most
significant logicians of all time" by signing up for editing rights on
wikipedia. Apparently it's listed there as "Gödel's ontological proof".
From your cite:
What cite?
You get to go no further until you sort that one out.
You cited Wikipedia.
I did no such thing. Take careful note of the word "Apparently".
cite
To quote as an authority or example.
apparently
Appearing as such but not necessarily so; seeming
So, what university did you go to that they taught you that a superficial
reference is equivalent to a quoted authority?
--
alt.usenet.kooks
"We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]
Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Member: Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in 24hoursupport.helpdesk
Member of:
Usenet Ruiner List
Top Assholes on the Net List
Most hated usenetizens of all time List
Cog in the AUK Hate Machine List
Find me on Google Maps: 24°39'47.13"S, 134°4'20.18"E
"If it is non-empirical, then it does not exist."
"DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> asserting that his mind does
not exist. news:IpydnUYo8ssX54zVnZ2dnUVZ_oSunZ2d@comcast.com
"Godel was wrong."
"DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> asserting that he is one of
the most significant logicians of all time, not Kurt Gödel.
news:qumdnaImur0KeIrVnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@comcast.com
"The firmware of a router can become sick after awhile of continuous
usage." DUHane Arnold <MR. Arnold@Arnold.com> giving technical
advice. news:k96dnd110uImNojVnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@earthlink.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dutch |
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 1:23 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:6mve14ht3nul4jc728bjsr3985bditgr4l@4ax.com...
Quote: 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".
Well I don't actually call it god either, I prefer the words "presence" or
"being", but for those who like the word God in my view this is precisely
what all these religious folks have been trying to get at without knowing
it. It is said "God is everywhere", "God is within you", "I am the light",
"Consider the lilies of the fields, how they grow.." etc etc It all points
to God being that ever-changing and evolving in the moment life
force/energy/intelligence/organization that imbues all living matter, all
matter.
Quote: You can define your aunt as a streetcar if you like, but it doesn't
make her one.
You don't know my aunt <rimshot> |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dutch |
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 1:33 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Ben Goren" <ben@trumpetpower.com> wrote in message
news:1209514560_1009@isp.n...
Quote: Dutch wrote:
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
Erm...no, not at all.
Adenosine tri-phosphate.
Whoa! Google time...
OK, a inter-molecular chemical agent, more or less. No I don't worship that.
Actually I don't believe in worship at all, it's one of the biggest errors
in thinking in human history.
I prefer to simply be still in the present moment intensely aware of the
spacious energy deep within and all around me. If god is anything its that. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dutch |
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 1:41 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldinyyz@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:42SRj.2417$Zs1.1961@trndny07...
Quote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:6mve14ht3nul4jc728bjsr3985bditgr4l@4ax.com...
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:37:32 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:041e149bdqeg16cungf2c4iqnd46gmtip0@4ax.com...
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 10:43:23 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
"Ben Goren" <ben@trumpetpower.com> wrote in message
news:1209438312_909@isp.n...
Dutch wrote:
Much exists that is not objectively verifiable. Good character
exists, interest in certain topics, affection, sense of humor,
compassion, courage, just to name a few.
I think you'll find that, once you provide cogent definitions of
those terms, every one of them will be objectively verifiable --
in theory, at least, and, for the most part, in practice.
Tough job.
If I define god as that force which energizes living things, I can
verify
it's existence.
That would be dishonest.
Why is that?
Duh. Because there are better words which don't carry the baggage
implicit in calling it "God".
You can define your aunt as a streetcar if you like, but it doesn't
make her one.
Dutch is big on making up definitions to suit himself.
I'd like to take credit for that one but it's been around in Eastern
spiritualism for a few thousand years, and aboriginal religion as well. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Beldin the Sorcerer |
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 2:38 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:JwURj.230491$pM4.227783@pd7urf1no...
Quote: "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldinyyz@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:42SRj.2417$Zs1.1961@trndny07...
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:6mve14ht3nul4jc728bjsr3985bditgr4l@4ax.com...
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:37:32 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:041e149bdqeg16cungf2c4iqnd46gmtip0@4ax.com...
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 10:43:23 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
"Ben Goren" <ben@trumpetpower.com> wrote in message
news:1209438312_909@isp.n...
Dutch wrote:
Much exists that is not objectively verifiable. Good character
exists, interest in certain topics, affection, sense of humor,
compassion, courage, just to name a few.
I think you'll find that, once you provide cogent definitions of
those terms, every one of them will be objectively verifiable --
in theory, at least, and, for the most part, in practice.
Tough job.
If I define god as that force which energizes living things, I can
verify
it's existence.
That would be dishonest.
Why is that?
Duh. Because there are better words which don't carry the baggage
implicit in calling it "God".
You can define your aunt as a streetcar if you like, but it doesn't
make her one.
Dutch is big on making up definitions to suit himself.
I'd like to take credit for that one but it's been around in Eastern
spiritualism for a few thousand years, and aboriginal religion as well.
No, 'God' mostly was "whatever the hell we don't understand at the moment"
> |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dutch |
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 4:26 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldinyyz@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:VlVRj.5227$WS1.5171@trndny04...
Quote:
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:JwURj.230491$pM4.227783@pd7urf1no...
"Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldinyyz@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:42SRj.2417$Zs1.1961@trndny07...
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:6mve14ht3nul4jc728bjsr3985bditgr4l@4ax.com...
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.
Dutch is big on making up definitions to suit himself.
I'd like to take credit for that one but it's been around in Eastern
spiritualism for a few thousand years, and aboriginal religion as well.
No, 'God' mostly was "whatever the hell we don't understand at the moment"
That's one also, and "that Big Dude who will smack you down if you don't pay
homage to the church".
But going beyond organized religion, going beyond atheism and anti-religion,
beyond all the duality, there is something real and worthwhile that in my
opinon was the real message of people like Buddha and Jesus and others. It
defies description but it has to do with tapping into the raw power of life
itself. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| DanielSan |
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 5:43 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
Quote: "DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:isudnTB20faUb4rVnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
"DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bqSdnWku5fpqdIrVnZ2dnUVZ_s3inZ2d@comcast.com...
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
"DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:qumdnd0mur2pe4rVnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
"Ben Goren" <ben@trumpetpower.com> wrote in message
news:1209523445_1031@isp.n...
Hamlet's Life moaned:
I do not need to address any of your questions.
O<BITCHSLAP
HTH
Translation: RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY!
"Godel was wrong."
"DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> asserting that it is he who
was "one of the most significant logicians of all time", and had
an "immense impact upon scientific and philosophical thinking in the
20th century", not Kurt Gödel.
news:qumdnaImur0KeIrVnZ2dnUVZ_vOd
Can you show where I claim either of those quotes you say I'm asserting?
The quoted text is a paraphrase of the extrapolated implications of your
mad assertion that "Godel was wrong."
"...in this case" is the context you're missing.
Proving yourself to be a total, illogical fuckwit by making assertions in
the complete absence of any consideration whatsoever for the consequences
is all you have done in these threads. You have done nothing else.
Except show that the axioms provided in the argument are not sufficiently
self-evident and are, therefore, not true axioms.
Does it come as a surprise to you that you are bitchslapped for that yet
again? Hmmm?
By you? I'm not worried about being bitchslapped by you. You're a
small-minded plagiarist who doesn't even know what he posts. No, I'm not
really worried about what you think of me.
The work was credited immediately before it was pasted. If plagiarism were
involved it would have been immediately drawn to my attention by my auk
colleagues, for they shall not tolerate such perfidy. I do not see anyone
other than you and the BAAWAAAAAAAWAAAAAAH Knight of fuckwittery pushing
that particular barrow.
It should've been credited at the time of posting.
Quote:
I doubt anyone else cares what you think, either.
Note how you are attempting to minimise potential impact to yourself? Hmmm?
Not at all.
Quote:
Stiff shit for you. Enjoy your ignominy, retard.
Do you imagine that I have ignominy in alt.atheism (from which I post and
read this)? Or is it you that has that? I can cobble together a poll of
likely posters,
Note how you are attempting to maximise potential support for yourself?
Hmmm?
Tell me again how not worried you are.
None.
Quote:
if you wish.
How about you post a list of names of likely posters first?
How worried are you? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 6 of 8 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Sep 07, 2008 11:20 pm
|
|