Re: Solution to the energy shortage?

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 quote 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.

Cheers,

b&

-- 
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''


----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.pronews.com
The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---