In article <3p5en6F8og5jU1@individual.net>, "Icarus" <icarus_uk@email.com>
wrote:

Kadaitcha Man wrote:

prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com wrote:

ALL atheists lack a belief in any god(s).
SOME go further and say that there are no gods. There's
nothing inconsistent with those. One group, the "strong
atheists" make a definite statement

That is inconsistent; it is wholly illogical. I'd explain why
but you won't be able to work it out, no matter how many times
I ram it down your neck.

Don't you do set theory at school?

do you do logic anywhere?
assuming classic logic (excluded middle)
-px eqv p-x hypothesis

-p-x eqv p--x substitution x with -x
-p-x eqv px --x eqv x

let px mean a proof of x exists
let x mean god exists
arf meow arf - dogs and cats living together
if you meet buddha on the usenet
killfile him

The curfew had been lifted and the gamblin' wheel shut down, Anyone
with any sense had already left town. Yet Kadaitcha Man was
standin' in the doorway saying:

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.

Balls, you stupid twat!

A belief that there is/are a God/s who intervene/s in human affairs
is a statement of strong belief.

A belief that there is/are a God/s who is above human affairs is a
statement of weak belief.

So if belief can be both then God is inconsistent!

Game over, you win. I lose.