"DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZdSdnZ3IMdlXborVnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
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."

Which word did you have a problem with?

Right back at ya.

Kadaitcha Man wrote:
"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.

Kadaitcha Man wrote:
"DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZdSdnZ3IMdlXborVnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
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."

I provided it.


Which word did you have a problem with?

Right back at ya.


I provided it. Look, you don't seem to understand what I provided. That's
fine. I just don't see anything further being produced from this dialog,
so I'm cutting it off here. If you feel the need to piss and moan about
it, please do so.

I have better things to do.

"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".

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.

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

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 06:23:02 GMT, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
"ChristopherA.Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:6mve14ht3nul4jc728bjsr3985bditgr4l@4ax.com...
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:37:32 GMT, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:

"ChristopherA.Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:041e149bdqeg16cungf2c4iqnd46gmtip0@4ax.com...
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 10:43:23 GMT, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:

"Ben Goren" <b...@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.

What "presence or being"?

Even that carries unjustified baggage.

Using the wrong word gets in the way of communication because it
carries the wrong meaning.

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>- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message

news:9pURj.101906$Cj7.77582@pd7urf2no...





"Ben Goren" <b...@trumpetpower.com> wrote in message
news:1209514560_1009@isp.n...
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.

WTF is 'spacious energy', apart from a type of godfart?

"Ben Goren" <ben@trumpetpower.com> wrote in message
news:1209514560_1009@isp.n...
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.

Kadaitcha Man, could you please address DanielSan's claims that Axiom 5 is
not self-evident?

I'm really interested in your discussion. Thanks.

"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message

news:9pURj.101906$Cj7.77582@pd7urf2no...





"Ben Goren" <b...@trumpetpower.com> wrote in message
news:1209514560_1009@isp.n...
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.

WTF is 'spacious energy', apart from a type of godfart?

"Marko Pojatina" <mpojatin@ffzg.hr> wrote in message
news:fvdnb5$niu$1@news1.carnet.hr...

Kadaitcha Man, could you please address DanielSan's claims that Axiom 5 is
not self-evident?

Can not and will not are two different things. I can, but I will not.

First, he made the assertion without showing it to be vaild; it was a bald,
unsupported assertion, but only because he had no fucking clue what he was
on about, then he went to wikipedia and parrot-quoted masses of text that
were critiques of Gödel's definitions and axioms to make it look as if he
did know something. From the fact that a critique existed he then asserted
that "Godel was wrong", even while ignoring the fact that his parrot quote
made no mention of axiom 5, and even while being totally fucking witless to
the idea that a critique does not imply wrongness.

I'm really interested in your discussion. Thanks.

Just like you, DanielSan assumed that if he dropped a stinking turd then I
would pick it up and run with it. If you want a discussion on axiom 5, post
your position on it.

Just who the fuck do you think is stupid enough to argue against a null
proposition, you fucking stupid, flapwitted toad?

Kadaitcha Man wrote:
"Marko Pojatina" <mpojatin@ffzg.hr> wrote in message
news:fvdnb5$niu$1@news1.carnet.hr...

Kadaitcha Man, could you please address DanielSan's claims that Axiom 5
is
not self-evident?

Can not and will not are two different things. I can, but I will not.

First, he made the assertion without showing it to be vaild; it was a
bald, unsupported assertion, but only because he had no fucking clue what
he was on about, then he went to wikipedia and parrot-quoted masses of
text that were critiques of Gödel's definitions and axioms to make it
look as if he did know something. From the fact that a critique existed
he then asserted that "Godel was wrong", even while ignoring the fact
that his parrot quote made no mention of axiom 5, and even while being
totally fucking witless to the idea that a critique does not imply
wrongness.

W<BITCHSLAP

"DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:vv-dnUt4me-GHofVnZ2dnUVZ_uOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
"Marko Pojatina" <mpojatin@ffzg.hr> wrote in message
news:fvdnb5$niu$1@news1.carnet.hr...

Kadaitcha Man, could you please address DanielSan's claims that Axiom 5
is
not self-evident?
Can not and will not are two different things. I can, but I will not.

First, he made the assertion without showing it to be vaild; it was a
bald, unsupported assertion, but only because he had no fucking clue what
he was on about, then he went to wikipedia and parrot-quoted masses of
text that were critiques of Gödel's definitions and axioms to make it
look as if he did know something. From the fact that a critique existed
he then asserted that "Godel was wrong", even while ignoring the fact
that his parrot quote made no mention of axiom 5, and even while being
totally fucking witless to the idea that a critique does not imply
wrongness.
W<BITCHSLAP

ObHint: Snipped, entirely unread.

HTH

Kadaitcha Man wrote:
"DanielSan" <danielsan1977@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:vv-dnUt4me-GHofVnZ2dnUVZ_uOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
"Marko Pojatina" <mpojatin@ffzg.hr> wrote in message
news:fvdnb5$niu$1@news1.carnet.hr...

Kadaitcha Man, could you please address DanielSan's claims that Axiom
5 is
not self-evident?
Can not and will not are two different things. I can, but I will not.

First, he made the assertion without showing it to be vaild; it was a
bald, unsupported assertion, but only because he had no fucking clue
what he was on about, then he went to wikipedia and parrot-quoted
masses of text that were critiques of Gödel's definitions and axioms to
make it look as if he did know something. From the fact that a critique
existed he then asserted that "Godel was wrong", even while ignoring
the fact that his parrot quote made no mention of axiom 5, and even
while being totally fucking witless to the idea that a critique does
not imply wrongness.
W<BITCHSLAP

ObHint: Snipped, entirely unread.

HTH


h<BITCHSLAP

"Marko Pojatina" <mpojatin@ffzg.hr> wrote in message
news:fvdnb5$niu$1@news1.carnet.hr...

Kadaitcha Man, could you please address DanielSan's claims that Axiom 5
is
not self-evident?

Can not and will not are two different things. I can, but I will not.

I'm really interested in your discussion. Thanks.

Just like you,

DanielSan assumed that if he dropped a stinking turd then I
would pick it up and run with it. If you want a discussion on axiom 5,
post
your position on it.

Just who the fuck do you think is stupid enough to argue against a null
proposition, you fucking stupid, flapwitted toad?