| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Andrew W" |
| Date: |
26 Mar 2005 03:36:35 AM |
| Object: |
Proof christians are full of crap |
Proof christians are full of crap.
Christians say that "God is love".
But if you ask them another time why God made humans then their standard
answer is - "to have someone to love him" (obviously because all his angels
have left him. No surprise there).
But if God is love then why does he need someone to love him?
Why does 'Love' need 'love'?
Lol.
It would be like the ocean asking for glasses of water.
Then christians say - "He did it not because 'He' needs our love but because
'we' needed to love him".
But the thing is, before we existed we had no needs for anything at all.
He obviously created us to fill his own needs, even though a god that is
everything is not supposed to have any needs because he has whatever he
wants the very instant he desires it, and being 'Love' itself, he needs no
love from anyone.
Heh. Christianity is a big cuckoo factory.
--
Andrew W.
History books that contain no lies are extremely dull. The christian bible
is a very interesting book indeed.
Religion Exposed!
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~ajwerner
.
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof christians are full of crap |
03 Apr 2005 08:35:13 AM |
|
|
On 3 Apr 2005 03:59:32 -0700, wrote:
If you allow inconsistency, then there can be no Order.
Basing assertions on other unsupported assertions is
a problematic technique.
It is not an unsupported assertion.
Yes it is. You offered no support for the claim. And
you continue to offer no support for it.
Godel showed that if you force completeness on a formal logic system
the result will be inconsistency. Now you have propositions that are
true and propositions that are false.
Tell us, Einstein, how are you going to put such as system in any kind
of order? You can't because you do not have a way to put propositions
into a heirarchy of any kind. Where do you put proposition "A" in
comparison to proposition "Not-A"? Which takes higher precedent?
In a formal system that is consistent you can put the propositions
into the order in which they were generated. Prop1 follows from the
axions, Prop2 follows from Prop1, etc. That is a natural order. But
what happens when you try to put Prop1 and Not-Prop1 into some kind of
order. It can't be done.
You cannot put an inconsistent system into any kind of order.
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
"If you build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. If you
set a man on fire, he will be warm for the rest of his life."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Torkel Franzen" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof christians are full of crap |
04 Apr 2005 12:38:56 PM |
|
|
(Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)) writes:
Godel showed that if you force completeness on a formal logic system
the result will be inconsistency.
By no means. There are many complete and consistent "formal logic
systems".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof christians are full of crap |
04 Apr 2005 03:00:38 PM |
|
|
On 04 Apr 2005 19:38:56 +0200, Torkel Franzen <torkel@sm.luth.se>
wrote:
sob@sob.com (Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)) writes:
Godel showed that if you force completeness on a formal logic system
the result will be inconsistency.
By no means. There are many complete and consistent "formal logic
systems".
Please elaborate.
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
"If someone is so fearful that, that they're going to start
using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very
nervous that these people have these weapons at all!"
--Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Sophist" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof christians are full of crap |
04 Apr 2005 03:01:50 PM |
|
|
Torkel Franzen wrote:
sob@sob.com (Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)) writes:
Godel showed that if you force completeness on a formal logic system
the result will be inconsistency.
By no means. There are many complete and consistent "formal logic
systems".
Indeed, Goedel himself was the first to prove the completeness of the
predicate calculus.
--
Aaron Boyden
The main division between the so-called Continental and Analytic
traditions has been disputes over whether the task of being unclear
should be carried out in natural language or in a formal system.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Torkel Franzen" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof christians are full of crap |
04 Apr 2005 02:59:57 PM |
|
|
The Sophist <sophist@brown.edu> writes:
Indeed, Goedel himself was the first to prove the completeness of the
predicate calculus.
"Complete" has a different meaning in the completeness theorem for
predicate logic. Pure predicate logic is trivially incomplete in the
sense of the incompleteness theorem.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof christians are full of crap |
04 Apr 2005 11:54:42 PM |
|
|
On 04 Apr 2005 21:59:57 +0200, Torkel Franzen <torkel@sm.luth.se>
wrote:
The Sophist <sophist@brown.edu> writes:
Indeed, Goedel himself was the first to prove the completeness of the
predicate calculus.
"Complete" has a different meaning in the completeness theorem for
predicate logic. Pure predicate logic is trivially incomplete in the
sense of the incompleteness theorem.
Then The Sophist is wrong.
Why is that not surprising.
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
"If someone is so fearful that, that they're going to start
using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very
nervous that these people have these weapons at all!"
--Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Sophist" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof christians are full of crap |
05 Apr 2005 08:54:45 AM |
|
|
Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote:
On 04 Apr 2005 21:59:57 +0200, Torkel Franzen <torkel@sm.luth.se>
wrote:
The Sophist <sophist@brown.edu> writes:
Indeed, Goedel himself was the first to prove the completeness of the
predicate calculus.
"Complete" has a different meaning in the completeness theorem for
predicate logic. Pure predicate logic is trivially incomplete in the
sense of the incompleteness theorem.
Then The Sophist is wrong.
Why is that not surprising.
The incompleteness theorem says that there is no axiomatic system
sufficiently powerful to contain arithmetic as a part which is both
consistent and in which all true statements can be proven. Goedel also
proved that the predicate calculus is complete in precisely this sense.
I have no clue what sense of completeness Torkel is raving about.
--
Aaron Boyden
The main division between the so-called Continental and Analytic
traditions has been disputes over whether the task of being unclear
should be carried out in natural language or in a formal system.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Torkel Franzen" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof christians are full of crap |
05 Apr 2005 08:47:33 AM |
|
|
The Sophist <sophist@brown.edu> writes:
The incompleteness theorem says that there is no axiomatic system
sufficiently powerful to contain arithmetic as a part which is both
consistent and in which all true statements can be proven.
No it doesn't.
Goedel also
proved that the predicate calculus is complete in precisely this
sense.
No he didn't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Sophist" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof christians are full of crap |
05 Apr 2005 09:07:37 AM |
|
|
Torkel Franzen wrote:
The Sophist <sophist@brown.edu> writes:
The incompleteness theorem says that there is no axiomatic system
sufficiently powerful to contain arithmetic as a part which is both
consistent and in which all true statements can be proven.
No it doesn't.
Goedel also
proved that the predicate calculus is complete in precisely this
sense.
No he didn't.
My, what a very enlightening response. I have of course been speaking
briefly and loosely, and am open to the possibility that my words may be
ambiguous in such a way that they might, under some (unintended)
interpretations be false. If so, I would of course prefer to be
clearer, but you provide no indication of what you think is wrong with
my summary of Goedel's completeness theorem or his first incompleteness
theorem, making it difficult for me to determine what needs to be clarified.
--
Aaron Boyden
The main division between the so-called Continental and Analytic
traditions has been disputes over whether the task of being unclear
should be carried out in natural language or in a formal system.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hector Plasmic" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof christians are full of crap |
08 Apr 2005 12:02:27 PM |
|
|
Goedel's First Incompleteness Theorem
Any adequate axiomatizable theory is incomplete. In particular the
sentence "This sentence is not provable" is true but not provable in
the theory.
Goedel's Second Incompleteness Theorem
In any consistent axiomatizable theory (axiomatizable means the
axioms can be computably generated) which can encode sequences of
numbers (and thus the syntactic notions of "formula", "sentence",
"proof") the consistency of the system is not provable in the system.
---
http://kilby.stanford.edu/~rvg/154/handouts/incompleteness.html
Goedel's incompleteness theorem: If a proof system for arithmetic is
sound (meaning that only true formulas are provable) then there must be
a true formula that is not provable.
Proof: The set of provable formulas is enumerable, and the set of true
formulas isn't. Therefore there must be a difference. QED
Remark: The proof of Goedel's incompleteness theorem given here rests
heavily on Church's thesis, which is not a mathematical theorem.
Goedel's own proof bypasses Church's thesis (in fact it predates it by
several years) and therefore is much more complicated. The
undecidability proof of truth goes through also in the absence of
Church's thesis: truth is then not recursive. However, showing that
provability is recursive enumerable is a lot of work, and requires
slightly stronger assumptions regarding the notion of a reasonable
method of provability. It is possible to bypass the use of decidability
and recursive enumerability by showing that provability is arithmetical
(see below), whereas truth is not. Alternatively it is possible to
construct an actual formula that is true but not provable; this is what
Goedel did.
---
http://www.ltn.lv/~podnieks/gt5.html
Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem (extended version). If T is a
fundamental formal theory (only conditions Fu1, Fu2 are necessary),
then one can build a closed PA-formula RT (i.e. a formula asserting
some property of natural numbers) such that if T proves Tr(RT) or T
proves ~Tr(RT), then T is inconsistent.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof christians are full of crap |
08 Apr 2005 04:20:54 PM |
|
|
On 8 Apr 2005 10:02:27 -0700, "Hector Plasmic" <hec@hectorplasmic.com>
wrote:
Proof: The set of provable formulas is enumerable, and the set of true
formulas isn't.
Turing did work on uncomputable numbers which he showed were not
enumerable.
In many ways Turing's work was more fundamental than Godel's.
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
An atheist visited Isaac Newton and noticed his new toy,
a mechanical model of the Solar System.
"Who made this?", asked the atheist.
"No one", replied Newton.
"But somebody MUST have made it - it couldn't make itself",
said the atheist.
"Why do you believe that about the model, but not about the
real thing?", asked Newton.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hector Plasmic" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof christians are full of crap |
11 Apr 2005 12:34:31 PM |
|
|
Proof: The set of provable formulas is enumerable,
and the set of true formulas isn't.
Turing did work on uncomputable numbers which he
showed were not enumerable.
Irrelevant.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Torkel Franzen" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof christians are full of crap |
05 Apr 2005 09:17:47 AM |
|
|
The Sophist <sophist@brown.edu> writes:
My, what a very enlightening response.
I'm just a tedious old grouch on this topic. If you're interested in
details, I recommend my forthcoming book
(http://www.akpeters.com/product.asp?ProdCode=2388).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Acme Diagnostics" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof christians are full of crap |
05 Apr 2005 09:45:02 AM |
|
|
Torkel Franzen <torkel@sm.luth.se> wrote:
The Sophist <sophist@brown.edu> writes:
My, what a very enlightening response.
I'm just a tedious old grouch on this topic. If you're interested in
details, I recommend my forthcoming book
(http://www.akpeters.com/product.asp?ProdCode=2388).
That's very impressive, regaldless of anything.
In the part about "true in that set of axioms," I hope you
didn't forget to include Frege's Context Principle. After all,
its relevance to that phrase and the sentence in which it
oocurs is quite non-technical and has exceptional clarity.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Sophist" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof christians are full of crap |
05 Apr 2005 10:06:18 AM |
|
|
Torkel Franzen wrote:
The Sophist <sophist@brown.edu> writes:
My, what a very enlightening response.
I'm just a tedious old grouch on this topic. If you're interested in
details, I recommend my forthcoming book
(http://www.akpeters.com/product.asp?ProdCode=2388).
Ah. Well, based on the blurb of the book, I expect you interpreted my
loose comments as intending to say more than they were in fact meant to
say, though I still don't know in exactly what respect.
--
Aaron Boyden
The main division between the so-called Continental and Analytic
traditions has been disputes over whether the task of being unclear
should be carried out in natural language or in a formal system.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Barb Knox" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof christians are full of crap |
03 Apr 2005 05:19:35 PM |
|
|
In article <424feeb6.112591307@news-server.houston.rr.com>,
(Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)) wrote:
On 3 Apr 2005 03:59:32 -0700, wrote:
If you allow inconsistency, then there can be no Order.
Basing assertions on other unsupported assertions is
a problematic technique.
It is not an unsupported assertion.
Yes it is. You offered no support for the claim. And
you continue to offer no support for it.
Godel showed that if you force completeness on a formal logic system
the result will be inconsistency. Now you have propositions that are
true and propositions that are false.
Until now this entire thread has been OT for sci.logic (which deals with
MATHEMATICAL logic, not rhetorical analysis), but here at last is something
relevant.
Where in the thread (which I haven't read all of) does anyone say that
logical completeness is either desirable or attainable?
Tell us, Einstein, how are you going to put such as system in any kind
of order? You can't because you do not have a way to put propositions
into a heirarchy of any kind. Where do you put proposition "A" in
comparison to proposition "Not-A"? Which takes higher precedent?
In a formal system that is consistent you can put the propositions
into the order in which they were generated. Prop1 follows from the
axions, Prop2 follows from Prop1, etc. That is a natural order. But
what happens when you try to put Prop1 and Not-Prop1 into some kind of
order. It can't be done.
You seem to be confusing a mathematical "order" (which seems to be a total
order from the way you talk about it, but in fact the derivation-order of
theorems in a logic is only a partial order) with some metaphysical "Order".
Don't do that.
Also, there are logics which DO handle contradictions: Google
"paraconsistent logic", e.g.
<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent/>.
Also, as a consequence Tarski's theorem, natural languages (which can talk
about their own meanings) are inherently and unavoidably inconsistent. Deal
with it.
Also, modern physics lives with various inconsistencies. For example, QM
and General Relativity are each internally consistent, but they are
inconsistent with each other. Physicists don't particularly like this state
of affairs (hence the search for a unified Theory Of Everything), but they
manage to deal with it.
You cannot put an inconsistent system into any kind of order.
Such logical systems have various mathematical orderings, and may even have
metaphysical Order (depending of course on one's metaphysics).
--
---------------------------
| BBB b \ Barbara at LivingHistory stop co stop uk
| B B aa rrr b |
| BBB a a r bbb | Quidquid latine dictum sit,
| B B a a r b b | altum viditur.
| BBB aa a r bbb |
-----------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof christians are full of crap |
03 Apr 2005 09:12:33 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 10:19:35 +1200, Barb Knox <see@sig.below> wrote:
Where in the thread (which I haven't read all of) does anyone say that
logical completeness is either desirable or attainable?
I thought Godel showed that if you were able to have completeness it
would result in false propositions.
You seem to be confusing a mathematical "order" (which seems to be a total
order from the way you talk about it, but in fact the derivation-order of
theorems in a logic is only a partial order) with some metaphysical "Order".
Don't do that.
I am talking about the Order we observe in the Universe - the kind
seen in Physics, like the orderly manner in which the planets rotate
around the Sun, the orderly manner in which a hydrogen atom emits
radiation, the orderly manner in which electromagnetic waves
propagate, etc - well, you get the idea.
Also, there are logics which DO handle contradictions: Google
"paraconsistent logic", e.g.
<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent/>.
If you had followed this topic from the beginning you would have seen
that we covered that. Indeed you have supported my earlier claim that
the Idealist Worldview allows contradictions.
Also, modern physics lives with various inconsistencies. For example, QM
and General Relativity are each internally consistent, but they are
inconsistent with each other.
I am well aware of inconsistencies in Physics. How do you think
Quantum Mechaniocs and Relativity came about in the first place?
Physicists don't particularly like this state
of affairs (hence the search for a unified Theory Of Everything), but they
manage to deal with it.
No, they do not "deal with it", like women deal with PMS. Physicists
are very concerned with these inconsistencies - as Roger Penrose,
Brian Greene, Stephen Hawkings, etc, chronicle in their popular books.
You cannot put an inconsistent system into any kind of order.
Such logical systems have various mathematical orderings, and may even have
metaphysical Order (depending of course on one's metaphysics).
If you had come into this topic at the beginning you would know that I
am talking about within the Worldview of Existential Realism. Please
use Google and catch up before you start bitching.
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
"If someone is so fearful that, that they're going to start
using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very
nervous that these people have these weapons at all!"
--Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "yõwïe" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof christians are full of crap |
03 Apr 2005 10:43:46 PM |
|
|
In <4250a068.437148@news-server.houston.rr.com>
Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) posted to
[alt.atheism.satire]:
On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 10:19:35 +1200, Barb Knox <see@sig.below> wrote:
Where in the thread (which I haven't read all of) does anyone say that
logical completeness is either desirable or attainable?
I thought Godel showed that if you were able to have completeness it
would result in false propositions.
You seem to be confusing a mathematical "order" (which seems to be a total
order from the way you talk about it, but in fact the derivation-order of
theorems in a logic is only a partial order) with some metaphysical "Order".
Don't do that.
I am talking about the Order we observe in the Universe - the kind
seen in Physics, like the orderly manner in which the planets rotate
around the Sun, the orderly manner in which a hydrogen atom emits
radiation, the orderly manner in which electromagnetic waves
propagate, etc - well, you get the idea.
Also, there are logics which DO handle contradictions: Google
"paraconsistent logic", e.g.
<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent/>.
If you had followed this topic from the beginning you would have seen
that we covered that. Indeed you have supported my earlier claim that
the Idealist Worldview allows contradictions.
Also, modern physics lives with various inconsistencies. For example, QM
and General Relativity are each internally consistent, but they are
inconsistent with each other.
I am well aware of inconsistencies in Physics. How do you think
Quantum Mechaniocs and Relativity came about in the first place?
Physicists don't particularly like this state
of affairs (hence the search for a unified Theory Of Everything), but they
manage to deal with it.
No, they do not "deal with it", like women deal with PMS. Physicists
are very concerned with these inconsistencies - as Roger Penrose,
Brian Greene, Stephen Hawkings, etc, chronicle in their popular books.
You cannot put an inconsistent system into any kind of order.
Such logical systems have various mathematical orderings, and may even have
metaphysical Order (depending of course on one's metaphysics).
If you had come into this topic at the beginning you would know that I
am talking about within the Worldview of Existential Realism. Please
use Google and catch up before you start bitching.
Try thers:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=plonk&btnG=Search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=troll&btnG=Search
--
"...brainlessness is no hindrance to
finding love and grace in Jesus Christ."
-Pastor Frank
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof christians are full of crap |
04 Apr 2005 07:26:48 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 02:12:33 GMT, (Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB))
wrote:
I am talking about the Order we observe in the Universe - the kind
seen in Physics, like the orderly manner in which the planets rotate
around the Sun, the orderly manner in which a hydrogen atom emits
radiation, the orderly manner in which electromagnetic waves
propagate, etc - well, you get the idea.
Yes we know physics is the body of knlowledge concerning one of
the ways the universe. The predictable. These does not mean that
some aspects are not ransomly ordered.
For example the circumstance in which causal events occur are
nor ordered in any way shape or form and thus the outcome of
such causes can change in an unpredictable way. Thus carbon
becomes diamond only if it happens to be in the appropriate
place. That diamonds are rare is evidence of how infrequent the
right set of circumstances occur. The whole of the universe thus
works in both an ordered dynamic way and an unordered random
way as circumstances come together.
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof christians are full of crap |
04 Apr 2005 09:18:46 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 13:26:48 +0100, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
Yes we know physics is the body of knlowledge concerning one of
the ways the universe. The predictable. These does not mean that
some aspects are not ransomly ordered.
For example the circumstance in which causal events occur are
nor ordered in any way shape or form and thus the outcome of
such causes can change in an unpredictable way. Thus carbon
becomes diamond only if it happens to be in the appropriate
place. That diamonds are rare is evidence of how infrequent the
right set of circumstances occur. The whole of the universe thus
works in both an ordered dynamic way and an unordered random
way as circumstances come together.
Randomness is not the same as acausality.
You can have random aspects of a deterministic system.
If there were processes where causality were not operate, then you
would expect conservation of momentum and conservation of energy to be
violated. If you can find examples of that in *objective reality*,
then you better get measured for your tux because you are going to
need it when you pick up your Nobel Prize.
Good luck.
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
"If someone is so fearful that, that they're going to start
using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very
nervous that these people have these weapons at all!"
--Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof christians are full of crap |
05 Apr 2005 10:01:57 AM |
|
|
Sweet Ol' Bob SOB wrote:
On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 10:19:35 +1200, Barb Knox <see@sig.below> wrote:
Where in the thread (which I haven't read all of) does anyone say
that
logical completeness is either desirable or attainable?
I thought Godel showed that if you were able to have completeness it
would result in false propositions.
Either you're severely brain-damaged, or the new
vacuum cleaner has arrived.
a
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof christians are full of crap |
05 Apr 2005 11:21:31 AM |
|
|
On 5 Apr 2005 08:01:57 -0700, wrote:
I thought Godel showed that if you were able to have completeness it
would result in false propositions.
Either you're severely brain-damaged, or the new
vacuum cleaner has arrived.
<yawn>
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
"If someone is so fearful that, that they're going to start
using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very
nervous that these people have these weapons at all!"
--Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof christians are full of crap |
03 Apr 2005 05:37:45 PM |
|
|
Sweet Ol' Bob SOB wrote:
On 3 Apr 2005 03:59:32 -0700, wrote:
If you allow inconsistency, then there can be no Order.
Basing assertions on other unsupported assertions is
a problematic technique.
It is not an unsupported assertion.
Yes it is. You offered no support for the claim. And
you continue to offer no support for it.
Godel showed that if you force completeness on a formal logic system
the result will be inconsistency. Now you have propositions that are
true and propositions that are false.
Tell us, Einstein, how are you going to put such as system in any
kind
of order?
You delete my arguments and now you attempt to
shift the burden of proof: you want me to disprove
this goofy straw man/appeal to authority of yours.
You're fucking nuts. This is about what words
mean and what you think they mean. But you're a
little too slow on the uptake to have figured this out,
despite the fact that I have thrice supplied _dictionary
definitions_ for words you toss around without quite
understanding them. But you just delete it all without
indication and offer some trite ad hominem dismissal
in "response." Looks like troll behavior to me.
<snip>
Philosophy is an unusually ingenious attempt to think fallaciously.
- Bertrand Russell
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof christians are full of crap |
31 Mar 2005 01:34:01 PM |
|
|
Peter Webb wrote:
<bedford_park2000@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1111844977.294701.228710@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Andrew W wrote:
Proof christians are full of crap.
Christians say that "God is love".
But if you ask them another time why God made humans then their
standard
answer is...
God can do whatever he wants, so who cares?
Can God change the value of pi?
Nope, the silly old sod can't even change a bloody light-bulb !
--
Jez
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
NFS Underground2, Americas Army And MOH-PA
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof christians are full of crap |
26 Mar 2005 10:38:50 AM |
|
|
<bedford_park2000@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1111844977.294701.228710@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Andrew W wrote:
Proof christians are full of crap.
Christians say that "God is love".
But if you ask them another time why God made humans then their
standard
answer is...
God can do whatever he wants, so who cares?
Yeah, just like Santa Claus!
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Webb" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof christians are full of crap |
26 Mar 2005 06:57:40 PM |
|
|
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:3alhgoF667blpU1@individual.net...
<bedford_park2000@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1111844977.294701.228710@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Andrew W wrote:
Proof christians are full of crap.
Christians say that "God is love".
But if you ask them another time why God made humans then their
standard
answer is...
God can do whatever he wants, so who cares?
Yeah, just like Santa Claus!
--
---------
Ever seen them together????
.
|
|
|
| User: "Barry OGrady" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof christians are full of crap |
13 Apr 2005 07:15:11 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 10:57:40 +1000, "Peter Webb" <webbfamily-diespamdie@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:3alhgoF667blpU1@individual.net...
<bedford_park2000@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1111844977.294701.228710@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Andrew W wrote:
Proof christians are full of crap.
Christians say that "God is love".
But if you ask them another time why God made humans then their
standard
answer is...
God can do whatever he wants, so who cares?
Yeah, just like Santa Claus!
--
---------
Ever seen them together????
On Southpark
Barry
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fredric L. Rice" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof christians are full of crap |
26 Mar 2005 10:38:39 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Andrew W wrote:
Proof christians are full of crap.
Christians say that "God is love".
But if you ask them another time why God made humans then their standard
answer is...
God can do whatever he wants, so who cares?
The gods' attributes are whatever their creators give them.
Funny how the "god of love" is believed in by the cult of hatred.
---
http://www.ElmerFudd.US/ http://www.notserver.com/
Scientology crooks: http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html
Scientology murder: http://PerkinsTragedy.org
Improving the herd: http://www.rightard.org/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "yõwïe" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof christians are full of crap |
26 Mar 2005 08:00:41 PM |
|
|
In <1111844977.294701.228710@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
bedford_park2000@yahoo.ca posted to
[alt.atheism.satire]:
Andrew W wrote:
Proof christians are full of crap.
Christians say that "God is love".
But if you ask them another time why God made humans then their
standard
answer is...
God can do whatever he wants, so who cares?
Not I - and certainly not you, troll.
--
"...brainlessness is no hindrance to
finding love and grace in Jesus Christ."
-Pastor Frank
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof christians are full of crap |
30 Mar 2005 08:11:45 AM |
|
|
On 26 Mar 2005 05:49:37 -0800, wrote:
God can do whatever he wants, so who cares?
God cannot do anything you want Him to.
God can only act in a manner that is consistent with Being (Objective
Reality).
Gor example, you cannot require God to make a rock so large that He
cannot lift it. Such a rock does not exist in objective reality. If it
did, it would cause a contradiction. Contradictions are not allowed in
objective reality. If they were, then there would be no Order.
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
"If you build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. If you
set a man on fire, he will be warm for the rest of his life."
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
