«

Rob Hughes, <>, wrote:

> Prigdash the clown-panicker is alleged to have said in
> comp.os.linux.advocacy:
>
>> Rob Hughes, <>, wrote:
>>
>>
>>> If there was a ghawd
>>
>> Prove that there isn't.
>>
>
> I'll prove that negative right after you prove there is.

Are you one of those completely illogical ****tards who are so absolutely
stupid that you believe it is not possible to prove a negative? Hmmm? You
are, aren't you snot****?

Try your ****wittery on these, cuntard:

I do not have three legs.
My youngest child does not have a younger brother or sister.
My oldest child does not have an older brother or sister.
The moon does not have a moon.
The moon is not made of green cheese.
Corgis are not cats.

No doubt you'll apply your brilliant logic skills to destroying the proof
below, too, eh?

> But FYI,
> there isn't.

Wow. You got a double whammy in the stupidity stakes. Linux makes you
****ing stupid. Atheism makes you ****ing stupid.

> Just trying to save you the trouble...

Don't forget, "ghawd" = omnipotent metaphysical X.

Definition 1: X is ghawd-like iff X has as essential propertie*s those and
only those properties which are positive.

Definition 2: A is an essence of X iff for every property B,* X has B
necessarily iff A entails B.

Definition 3: 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, i.e., strictly implied *by, a positive
property is positive.

Axiom 3: The property of being ghawd-like is positive.

Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily p*ositive.

Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive.

Axiom 6: For any property P, if P is positive, then being ne*cessarily P is
positive.

Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent,* i.e.,
possibly exemplified.

Corollary 1: The property of being ghawd-like is consistent.

Theorem 2: If something is ghawd-like, then the property of be*ing
ghawd-like is an essence of that thing.

Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being ghawd-like is ex*emplified.

Your turn. Alternatively you can do a "Governor Swill" and declare a
definition or something to be false therefore it's all false without
actually doing anything other than declaring falsehood.