Re: Solution to the energy shortage?

"Ben Goren" <ben@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:1209479667_947@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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<*****SLAP>

That was made clear, you dense ****.

> 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?

Instead of asking irrelevant questions and making unshown assertions, how 
about you knocking it down?

> 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.

You have the proof. Spotting "where the ``proof'' goes worng" is your job,

hey.

-- 
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 24hoursup****t.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@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> asserting that his mind does
not exist. news:IpydnUYo8ssX54zVnZ2dnUVZ_oSunZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"The firmware of a router can become sick after awhile of continuous
usage." DUHane Arnold <MR. Arnold@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> giving technical advice. 
news:k96dnd110uImNojVnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]