«

Rob Hughes, <>, wrote:


> If there was a ghawd

Prove that there isn't.




--
G Morgan admits that he gets told he's a
****wit, not just on usenet, but in in real
life too: "I have my share of detractors in RL"
news:

On 2005-01-28, Prigdash the clown-panicker <prigdash.the.clown-> wrote:
> Rob Hughes, <>, wrote:
>
>
>> If there was a ghawd
>
> Prove that there isn't.

Prove that there is.

--
If you think that an 80G disk can hold HUNDRENDS of |||
hours of DV video then you obviously haven't used iMovie either. / | \

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, JEDIDIAH
<>
wrote
on Tue, 01 Feb 2005 15:11:51 GMT
<1107270711.4bff5b831703ae55cbab8c8525da999b@1usen et>:
> On 2005-01-28, Prigdash the clown-panicker <prigdash.the.clown-> wrote:
>> Rob Hughes, <>, wrote:
>>
>>
>>> If there was a ghawd
>>
>> Prove that there isn't.
>
> Prove that there is.
>

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ghawd

No entry found for ghawd.

Did you mean GAD?
Suggestions:
GAD
Gad
gad
Gard
Gowd
gaud
gead
ghat
goad
Gade
...

There. Proof that there isn't a Ghawd.

Followups.

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, JEDIDIAH
<> wrote:
> <1107270711.4bff5b831703ae55cbab8c8525da999b@1usen et>:
>> On 2005-01-28, Prigdash the clown-panicker wrote:
>> Rob Hughes, <>, wrote:
>>
>>
>>> If there was a ghawd
>>
>> Prove that there isn't.
>
> Prove that there is.

Sure. Your pathetic diversion and your inability to neither put up nor shut
up is noted by the way.

When I prove it, it is highly unlikely that you will understand it.
Nevertheless, choke on this and make a total fool out of yourself...

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.

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 05:15:36 +0545 (UTC), Yaman al-Arubah
<yaman.al->
wrote:

>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 first definition is flawed, therefore your theory is flawed.

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

Ghawd, by definition must contain all positive and all negative
attributes. Anything less than that would be less than ghawd and
should be factored in to your equation.

Bedwarmer

--
"Local Power Company, how may I assist you today?"

"My power is going out."

"Have all your lights gone?"

"No, just the one in the refrigerator."

www.userfriendly.org

Governor Swill, <>, wrote:

> On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 05:15:36 +0545 (UTC), Yaman al-Arubah
> <yaman.al->
> wrote:
>
>> 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 first definition is flawed, therefore your theory is flawed.

Really? So you expect to just get away with "Your first definition is
flawed, therefore your theory is flawed" and leave it at that, do you,
****tard? funny how you should snip the first definition and not address it
at all eh? You do know what essential and positive mean in logic, don't you
retard? Hmmm? No doubt you have iff down as a spelling or typo error too,
hey?

Put up or shut up, you stupid ****.

PS: You just dissed Gödel's Ontological Proof. You do know who Gödel was,
don't you, snot****? And you are aware that the best brains on the planet
haven't been able to destroy it with a mere "Your first definition is
flawed, therefore your theory is flawed", aren't you, ****tard? Hmm?

Of course you are aware of that. That's why you display your ****wittery on
usenet the way you do, isn't it? To hide the fact that you're the possessor
of the most brilliant brain on the planet, yes? Of course, that's it. The
best brain on the planet posts lames on usenet like "More reasonably, your
dad forgetting to stop by the drugstore on the way to your mom's house that
night was OBVIOUSLY a mistake."

You dumb**** ****.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! "Gödel, one of the most notable logicians of our time,
is wrong because I say so!"

On 2005-02-03, Abdul-Muhaimin al-Fath <abdul-muhaimin.al-> wrote:
> Governor Swill, <>, wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 05:15:36 +0545 (UTC), Yaman al-Arubah
>> <yaman.al->
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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 first definition is flawed, therefore your theory is flawed.
>
> Really? So you expect to just get away with "Your first definition is
> flawed, therefore your theory is flawed" and leave it at that, do you,

Such is the nature of religion.

[deletia]


--
If you think that an 80G disk can hold HUNDRENDS of |||
hours of DV video then you obviously haven't used iMovie either. / | \

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 15:15:34 +0545 (UTC), Abdul-Muhaimin al-Fath
<abdul-muhaimin.al-> wrote:

>> Your first definition is flawed, therefore your theory is flawed.
>
>Really? So you expect to just get away with "Your first definition is
>flawed, therefore your theory is flawed" and leave it at that, do you,
>****tard?

wit: a message whose ingenuity or verbal skill or incongruity has
the power to evoke laughter
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

the trait of appreciating (and being able to express) the
humorous; "she didn't appreciate my humor"; "you can't survive in the
army without a sense of humor"
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

temper: a characteristic (habitual or relatively temporary) state
of feeling; "whether he praised or cursed me depended on his temper at
the time"; "he was in a bad humor"
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

the quality of being funny; "I fail to see the humor in it"
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

(Middle Ages) one of the four fluids in the body whose balance was
believed to determine your emotional and physical state; "the humors
are blood and phlegm and yellow and black bile"
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

liquid body substance: the liquid parts of the body
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

put into a good mood
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

Swill

--
"Local Power Company, how may I assist you today?"

"My power is going out."

"Have all your lights gone?"

"No, just the one in the refrigerator."

www.userfriendly.org

Governor Swill, <>, wrote:

> On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 15:15:34 +0545 (UTC), Abdul-Muhaimin al-Fath
> <abdul-muhaimin.al-> wrote:
>
>>> Your first definition is flawed, therefore your theory is flawed.
>>
>> Really? So you expect to just get away with "Your first definition is
>> flawed, therefore your theory is flawed" and leave it at that, do
>> you, ****tard?
>
> wit:

So you can't backup your statement and instead feel forced to claim wit? Is
that what you wish to imply?

Paraphrase of "Governor Swill": "When I claimed that Gödel, one of the most
notable logicians of our time, was wrong, I was just being witty. Really."

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. But FYI, there
isn't. Just trying to save you the trouble...

--
Ignorance is a condition. Stupidity is a way of life.