Re: Solution to the energy shortage?

Kadaitcha Man wrote:
> "Marko Pojatina" <mpojatin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> news:fvdnb5$niu$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
>> Kadaitcha Man, could you please address DanielSan's claims that Axiom 5
is
>> not self-evident?
> 
> Can not and will not are two different things. I can, but I will not.
> 
> First, he made the assertion without showing it to be vaild; it was a
bald, 
> unsup****ted assertion, but only because he had no ****ing clue what he
was 
> on about, then he went to wikipedia and parrot-quoted masses of text
that 
> were critiques of Gödel's definitions and axioms to make it look as if
he 
> did know something. From the fact that a critique existed he then
asserted 
> that "Godel was wrong", even while ignoring the fact that his parrot
quote 
> made no mention of axiom 5, and even while being totally ****ing witless
to 
> the idea that a critique does not imply wrongness.

Well, there's only one person that can be wrong here.  It's either Godel 
or it's you, so I gave you the benefit of the doubt.  However, since you 
seem to be unwilling (or unable) to even understand the difference 
between axiomatic logic and scientific evidence, I guess I should've 
said you were wrong.

Forgive me for thinking you had intelligence.

> 
>> I'm really interested in your discussion. Thanks.
> 
> Just like you, DanielSan assumed that if he dropped a stinking turd then
I 
> would pick it up and run with it. If you want a discussion on axiom 5,
post 
> your position on it.
> 
> Just who the **** do you think is stupid enough to argue against a null 
> proposition, you ****ing stupid, flapwitted toad?
> 

What we require is something you childishly attack:  Scientific evidence 
for a God.  You call what we need reifaction.  That is exactly the 
point.  The abstract can be anything we can think up.  Athesits, by and 
large, only believe in the material -- that which can be proven.  We 
like the abstract, but we do not believe in it.

Do you understand the difference and how Godel's proof is irrelevant 
question begging?  Now, the only way to show me that I'm wrong is to 
show how replacing "God" in Godel's proof with some other fictional 
character ("Luke Skywalker", "Albus Dumbledore", "Frodo Baggins", 
"Phillip J. Fry", etc) is invalid.  Go ahead and take the proof and do a 
search-and-replace for the text-string "god" and replace it with 
anything you want.

How is it now invalid?  Explain it to me.