DanielSan because he want's to tell you what to read.

On the contrary, he's just making a simple request, which was directed
primarily at the regulars of alt.atheism.

Then the dumbass should have just posted it there, instead of trolling
three additional groups at the same time.

Are you normally this obnoxious, or are you just asking for a
spanking?

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 00:37:11 -0400, smallfoot <tip@toe.foot> wrote:

In article <4u7fi1tu5g7nmv9o8dmr7gvpsij9hmgdd6@4ax.com>,
nunya@biziniz.net says...

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 18:30:47 -0400, Gary L. Burnore
<gburnore@databasix.com> wrote:

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 21:34:52 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:

Kadaitcha Man wrote:

<snip>

Attention, folks. Please ignore

DanielSan because he want's to tell you what to read.

On the contrary, he's just making a simple request, which was directed
primarily at the regulars of alt.atheism.

Then the dumbass should have just posted it there, instead of trolling
three additional groups at the same time.

Are you normally this obnoxious, or are you just asking for a
spanking?

prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com, <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com>, the synaptic, fitful
apple-john, and contractor of labourers at cheap rate of pay, gnawed:

In talk.atheism Kadaitcha Man <nospam@*****-off-and-die.com> wrote:

prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com, <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com>, the
boot-licking, fawning art teacher, and washer woman, blathered:

In talk.atheism Kadaitcha Man <nospam@*****-off-and-die.com> wrote:

DanielSan, <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>, the convinced, mad dessert,
and old woman who goes about the streets gathering dog droppings to
be used for tanning leather, clamoured:

No, I understood it and it was, indeed, irrelevant to atheism.

Actually, you didn't understand it, and it is wholly relevant to
atheism since the principle it demonstrates exposes atheism for the
illogical crock of ***** that it is. That's a claim, not a
statement. Here is proof for the claim:

Let s = any sentence, thus Let s = "This statement is false".
Let P = PROVABLE, thus for any sentence s, 1) < s > is in P iff s
is provable.

Since the set of axioms is computably generable;
So is the set of proofs which use these axioms;
So is the set of provable theorems and hence;
So is P, the set of encodings of provable theorems.

Since computable implies definable in adequate theories, P can be
defined thus P is definable.

Let s be the sentence "This sentence is false."
By Tarski, s exists since it is the solution of:
2) s iff < s > is not in P.
Thus
3) s iff < s > is not in P iff s is not provable.

Applying excluded middle, s is either true or false.

If s is false, then by 3), s is provable.

That is impossible since provable sentences are true.

Thus s is true.
Thus by 3), s is not provable.
Hence s is true but unprovable.

Conclusion: There are statements that are true but cannot be
proved.

True. In any given system, the system is either incoherent (not
logical) OR it's incomplete (statements exist that may be true but
not provably true.)

Corollary 1: Truth outruns provability.

"Outruns?"

Corallary 2: Knowledge is incomplete.

Corollary 3: It is inconsistent to claim "The atheist position is
coherent and consistent".

No, it's not because nothing is said about completeness.

Try, "There are no gods", for example.

That's not a statement of atheism. Atheism is a lack of any belief in
any god.

No. You are assuming that your definition of atheism is the same as the next
atheist's definition. "A lack of belief" is a statement of weak atheism,
whereas "There are no gods" is a statement of strong atheism. So, if atheism
can be both, then atheism is inconsistent.

Game over. I win. You lose.