Re: Solution to the energy shortage?

"DanielSan" <danielsan1977@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:SpednTgavPNnSIrVnZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>> "DanielSan" <danielsan1977@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>> news:gNednUlHP43SiYrVnZ2dnUVZ_ozinZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> 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?
>>
>>
>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>>
>> Translation: He doesn't get it.
>>
>
> Axiom 5 is unsup****ted.


Unshown assertion. Claim fails.

> Go away, child.  The adults are talking.

Ooooooh. *****y.

-- 
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]