Re: Solution to the energy shortage?

Kadaitcha Man wrote:
> "DanielSan" <danielsan1977@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> news:0dmdnUTUc8TBQ4rVnZ2dnUVZ_qninZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>>> "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.
>> In order for my claim to fail, you have to show how it's an unshown 
>> assertion by showing your evidence<*****SLAP>
> 
> Taking away your diatribe, you are left with "Axiom 5 is unsup****ted",
which 
> is a completely unshown assertion. The counter-argument is "Axiom 5 is 
> sup****ted".
> 
> If it is the case that "Axiom 5 is unsup****ted" then you could not have
got 
> to the question that asked where "Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and 
> Wizardry" is. So, how did you arrive at that question within the
framework 
> presented to you if "Axiom 5 is unsup****ted"? Hmmm?
> 

I can't.  Neither can you.

That was the purpose of this exercise.  Godel was wrong.  So are you. 
Hogwarts doesn't exist.  God doesn't exist.  Your plagiarized logic is 
wrong.