Re: Solution to the energy shortage?

DanielSan wrote:
> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>> "Michael Scheltgen" <mikesc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>> news:ySyRj.100666$Cj7.57013@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> 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?