• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Believer vs. Believer

Even though the main topic of the OP doesn't involve grammar, the replies have centered around it, mainly around the issue of not capitalizing the initial letter of the name God. God himself has found that the breach of the grammar rule is logically justifiable for the soft atheists, but not for the hard atheists who seem to mistake logic for emotional outpour. God also recommended that the hard atheists should live up to their assertion and replace the letter O in the name God with very similarly looking number 0, instead of italicizing letter G the way the soft atheists do.

God made this recommendation when he talked to Vincent, but Vincent can care less about the atheists - soft or hard. But I do. Whenever someone insinuates that the hard atheists can't think straight, you can hear epix's fire engine going to the rescue, as always.

So I approached God on behalf of the hard atheists to prove that writing lower-case g in the name of God is perfectly logical for all atheists and in sync with the theorem in Revelation that also includes the definition of God:

I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

So if God compares himself to the opposites, then the logic of opposites should be used to solve the grammar problem. That means the following comparison based on the logic of opposites should settle the issue:

theism is to Lord-->LORD as atheism is to God-->god

The proof of the truthfulness of the comparison is simple: If the theists are in habit of changing the title Lord on the left of the whole expression "LORD God" by capitalizing the lower-case letters, then the atheists logically respond by doing the opposite on the right of it - they italicize the capital letter in the name. Here is an example.

Theists vs atheists logically inconsistent syntax as it appears in the Bible (NIV):
Then the LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it.

Theists vs atheists consistent syntax:
Then the LORD god took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it.

In other words, the atheists, as a whole, are encouraged to italicize the first letter in the name of God.


epix, I don't think that the atheists would do anything in the name of God.

But they do something in the name of God - they change the syntax in it, Heavenly Father.

Nonono. I mean like they would change something in the name of God.

But I already told you that they do change something in the name of God - they go from G to g.

Nonononononono. I mean...like....You know what I mean?

No.

Like In the name of God, go lower case!!! I command you to do so!

But they do go lower-case in the name of God.

Nooooooooooo...ayayayayay! I've been always good to you, epix. Why do you do this to me? Sob...sob...


Lol. Anyway. A change in X may cause a change in Y. But change in X may also change the preference in selection. When you make this change

Kurt Gödel --> Kurt GODel

and Revelation 22:13 shows up this way
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End, ______________?

then you know the passage is incomplete and it should be completed. Given the name above, it's not that difficult to do so:
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End, the True and the False.

Proof: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:Gödel's_incompleteness_theorem_simply_explained
 
Last edited:
It sounds like you want to surround yourself with hard atheists. The more hard atheists you have in your pocket, the better. And you have no use for soft atheists. That or "purplety".
 
@ epix

Your argument only works in English and the capitalization rules therein.

There are atheists that are a part of every linguistical background you can imagine. How are your arguments going with Tagalog or German or Chinese? Made any headway yet?
 
epix said:
I don't understand this... Do you you understand this?

Understand what?

The way the atheists write my name. They don't capitalize the first letter. That's a breach of the rules given by the grammar and not following the rules leads to lawlessness and anarchy. Do the atheists like anarchy?
Click to expand...

What does this mean when you compare it to how my username is presented?
BTW, you're real name given at birth isn't epix, so this argument of yours has no rationality to it. :rolleyes:
 
epix said:
Even though the main topic of the OP doesn't involve grammar, the replies have centered around it, mainly around the issue of not capitalizing the initial letter of the name God. God himself has found that the breach of the grammar rule is logically justifiable for the soft atheists, but not for the hard atheists who seem to mistake logic for emotional outpour. God also recommended that the hard atheists should live up to their assertion and replace the letter O in the name God with very similarly looking number 0, instead of italicizing letter G the way the soft atheists do.

God made this recommendation when he talked to Vincent, but Vincent can care less about the atheists - soft or hard. But I do. Whenever someone insinuates that the hard atheists can't think straight, you can hear epix's fire engine going to the rescue, as always.

So I approached God on behalf of the hard atheists to prove that writing lower-case g in the name of God is perfectly logical for all atheists and in sync with the theorem in Revelation that also includes the definition of God:

I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

So if God compares himself to the opposites, then the logic of opposites should be used to solve the grammar problem. That means the following comparison based on the logic of opposites should settle the issue:

theism is to Lord-->LORD as atheism is to God-->god

The proof of the truthfulness of the comparison is simple: If the theists are in habit of changing the title Lord on the left of the whole expression "LORD God" by capitalizing the lower-case letters, then the atheists logically respond by doing the opposite on the right of it - they italicize the capital letter in the name. Here is an example.

Theists vs atheists logically inconsistent syntax as it appears in the Bible (NIV):
Then the LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it.

Theists vs atheists consistent syntax:
Then the LORD god took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it.

In other words, the atheists, as a whole, are encouraged to italicize the first letter in the name of God.


epix, I don't think that the atheists would do anything in the name of God.

But they do something in the name of God - they change the syntax in it, Heavenly Father.

Nonono. I mean like they would change something in the name of God.

But I already told you that they do change something in the name of God - they go from G to g.

Nonononononono. I mean...like....You know what I mean?

No.

Like In the name of God, go lower case!!! I command you to do so!

But they do go lower-case in the name of God.

Nooooooooooo...ayayayayay! I've been always good to you, epix. Why do you do this to me? Sob...sob...


Lol. Anyway. A change in X may cause a change in Y. But change in X may also change the preference in selection. When you make this change

Kurt Gödel --> Kurt GODel

and Revelation 22:13 shows up this way
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End, ______________?

then you know the passage is incomplete and it should be completed. Given the name above, it's not that difficult to do so:
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End, the True and the False.

Proof: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:Gödel's_incompleteness_theorem_simply_explained
Click to expand...
It certainly is handy that you can speak directly to God, but the response you got was (as my post above indicated) entirely inaccurate, applying bizarre fake logic to a simple matter of how one describes a great number of deities, of which the biblical god, often referred to by both theists and atheists as "God," is only one. I suppose one could expect no less given the circumstances, but it's too bad. I've known plenty of theists who were capable of rational thought and comprehensible English. Oh well, if that were the case we'd be addressing someone else, wouldn't we?
 
The Norseman said:
@ epix

Your argument only works in English and the capitalization rules therein.

There are atheists that are a part of every linguistical background you can imagine. How are your arguments going with Tagalog or German or Chinese? Made any headway yet?
Click to expand...
That's true, but you need to take into the account the shift in the development of monotheism. For example, the Roman Catholic Church no longer dwells on all views as it did in the past. For example, the evolution is accepted by the Church as something not to overly argue against. Now imagine that monotheism takes on itself this connotation: There is only one name that represent the monotheistic god of Christianity, Islam and Judaism. What name is it?

That's a tough question, because you can't use anything for an answer that you were taught in school - you need to use your natural ability to reason this out. But the question is not detached from this world at all, because we live in the age of determinism where a true answer may not be enough. For example, if there is a question in your test how much is 2 x 5 and you answer that the result is a number larger than 2 and lesser that 10,000, then your answer is true, but not satisfactory with what is expected from you, e.g. to display a case of hard determinism - you are supposed to answer that 2 x 5 = 10. Determinism goes relentlessly after a unique solution and that's because it is prompted to do so by Practicality. A unique solution in the field of engineering, for example, prevents bridges from collapsing, planes crashing after takeoff, and so on.

So take all words that represent the name of the monotheistic god in all different languages and try to pick just one - find the unique solution. You can easily find a unique solution to

2t - 8 = 12

because you learned how to do it in school, but there is no class that teaches how to separate the special from the ordinary or how to select a unique item from the list.

Here is an example how to approach such a task. There is really no formula that you could follow - only a strategy. It is similar to the case where mathematicians are trying to come up with a proof to their theorems. Imagine that you have three items in the list and you try to select the one that is unique, meaning that it has a property that the other two items don't have.

1. God
2. gOd
3. goD

Which one has a property that makes it different from the rest?

It's a difficult question, because there are several criteria according to which you can start the process of selection, and the solution may prove to be a case of ambiguity. That's because 1. God is the only grammatically correct way to write the name and if there is at least one another option found, then the problem is deemed ambiguous. That means you need to throw out the obvious grammar criterion of selection and employ other options.

Like anyone else, I would stare at the problem not knowing what to do, how to start . . . So decided to ask God what he would do. He is supposed to be omniscient, and since he was in a good mood, he looked at the problem.

He said that the problem should be reformulated: You have the word god, like in a neutral position, and then you are asked to capitalize one of the three letters. By doing so, that letter is deemed special. Then he said that the option 1. God seems to be the most logical choice. He justified his choice this way: If you select letter G, then you also select the first letter. Then you pass reference onto another name with the same property, a name that starts with G where the meaning of the name is significantly linked to the concept of start, or beginning:

God
Genesis

When you look at the word Genesis - the first book of the Bible - you see that there is only one capitalized letter right in the beginning of the word. So if that letter is special, the beginning of the Book of Genesis should be special as well. But since Genesis and God are similar words (identical beginning with different rest), you concentrate on those passages of Genesis which include the word God. Since G and G are identical letters, you pay special attention to the passages where the numbers of the chapter and the verse are identical as well. Then you select the one that matters:
By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.
Click to expand...
Genesis 2:2

It follows that the seventh day was special, because God was no longer working like in those six days. And since the 7th item is special, so must be letter G, because it is the 7th item in the list called the English alphabet.

I wasn't that happy with his justification, because the 7th day was the last day, but G is the first letter in the name. But God said that the 7th day is now Sunday, and Sunday is the first day of the week. I argued that in Europe, Sunday is the last day of the week, not the first, but God said that Moses, who wrote Genesis, wasn't a European; he said that he was a Jew a Jewish week starts with Sunday. Then he became unstable a threw an avocado at me.

Later, when he calmed down, he said that this type of reasoning has been conceptually involved in a few mathematical proofs, but he didn't disclose which ones.

He supposedly formulated this problem of capitalizing one letter by forcing some atheists to break the grammar rule and write the name God in its neutral form, that means god.

He claims that when all aspects are considered, the name God is the most logical choice of all names used by present languages and those of the past. That's why he chose English as a main language of science. You are free to prove him wrong by coming up with a more logical name, but 1) you would have to convert to theism, because for the atheists, God is no show and so there is no one to go against, and 2) you would have to know all the arguments supporting the selection of the name God as the most logical name. That's not possible though, because the related paper, which God published in the Journal of Logical Theology, has 101 quadrillion words and logical symbols (most of them in English) and is available only in Heaven to a few properly deceased scholars. (Some folks pretend to die to see what Heaven looks like.)
 
Last edited:
Nay_Sayer said:
Oh he did [sic] and even better gave us a great gem in brain meets reality;
Click to expand...
I was really amazed to see that you could spot one of the rather obvious contradictions that I sometimes intentionally include in my scribble. Most of the replies are a disaster - a monument of inattentivness and poor judgement. That's why the hard atheists can only assert this and that, because they are incapable of properly justifying their decision. I don't think that they are even capable of doctoring the reality the way it is shown in the OP link where a dude brutalized one of the Godel's theorem to suit his overgrown religious needs. They just simply assert. Lol.
 
epix said:
I was really amazed to see that you could spot one of the rather obvious contradictions that I sometimes intentionally include in my scribble. Most of the replies are a disaster - a monument of inattentivness and poor judgement. That's why the hard atheists can only assert this and that, because they are incapable of properly justifying their decision. I don't think that they are even capable of doctoring the reality the way it is shown in the OP link where a dude brutalized one of the Godel's theorem to suit his overgrown religious needs. They just simply assert. Lol.
Click to expand...

Yea, right. Was the misspelling of inattentiveness intentional? What does this have to do with your imaginary god?
 
Last edited:
epix said:
I was really amazed to see that you could spot one of the rather obvious contradictions that I sometimes intentionally include in my scribble. Most of the replies are a disaster - a monument of inattentivness and poor judgement. That's why the hard atheists can only assert this and that, because they are incapable of properly justifying their decision. I don't think that they are even capable of doctoring the reality the way it is shown in the OP link where a dude brutalized one of the Godel's theorem to suit his overgrown religious needs. They just simply assert. Lol.
Click to expand...


Why would you want atheists to be capable of doctoring reality in a way that you acknowledge is brutal and ridiculous?

And what is inherited theism?

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
epix said:
I was really amazed to see that you could spot one of the rather obvious contradictions that I sometimes intentionally include in my scribble. Most of the replies are a disaster - a monument of inattentivness and poor judgement. That's why the hard atheists can only assert this and that, because they are incapable of properly justifying their decision. I don't think that they are even capable of doctoring the reality the way it is shown in the OP link where a dude brutalized one of the Godel's theorem to suit his overgrown religious needs. They just simply assert. Lol.
Click to expand...

And we agreed that you're a hard atheist about how many gods? LOL.
 
epix said:
I was really amazed to see that you could spot one of the rather obvious contradictions that I sometimes intentionally include in my scribble. Most of the replies are a disaster - a monument of inattentivness and poor judgement. That's why the hard atheists can only assert this and that, because they are incapable of properly justifying their decision. I don't think that they are even capable of doctoring the reality the way it is shown in the OP link where a dude brutalized one of the Godel's theorem to suit his overgrown religious needs. They just simply assert. Lol.
Click to expand...

I am sorry Epix, little of what you write seems to make any real sense at all.

However, I must ask you, how is it that you "think" you know how "every hard athiest" or, anybody else on the planet, thinks? Are you a mind reader? Unless you can read everybody's mind, you simply sound delusional.

Maybe your posts would have more of an effect, if instead of discribing, what you pretend to think you know, why not tell us about your own experiences.
 
deaman said:
Oh, my god................................!
Click to expand...
Which god?

Speaking of that question, today, we are going to test Kurt Gödel of the OP, or rather Kurt GODel, to see how he performs when the subject is polytheism and monotheism.

Given environment 10, how many pagan gods are in there?

Kurt was a mathematician and logician, so he would be able to count them all...

10 = 1 + 9
10 = 2 + 8
10 = 3 + 7
.
.
.
10 = 1 + 1 +8
10 = 1 + 2 + 7
10 = 1 + 3 + 6
.
.
.

Translated into the words, Kurt simply partitions number 10
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_(number_theory)
and counts all the partitions. Since there are 42 ways to partition number 10, there are 42 pagan gods living in the environment 10 - or the Land of Ten.

Now the folks living in Ten decided to switch to monotheism. Who is going to be their only god - which god are they going to select?

Obviously the one which have a unique property - a property that no other gods (those partitions) have.

But Kurt knows that such a way of selection could lead to an ambiguity, and so, as a mathematician, he suggests the selection is done by factoring 10,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Gödel
because there can be only one way to factor every positive integer.

10 = 2 x 5

And so the folks living in Ten have a brand new god of the monotheistic kind.

Now this god has to have a name, so after months of bickering which even brought a civil unrest upon the land, a wise man - the fan of minimalism - decided that the name for the new god would be God.

This God said that he created the world in six days and then he rested afterward. For how many day he rested?

That's easy to find out. Kurt knows that the particular info is available in the Book of Genesis and so you simply start reading from the beginning and stop when you come across the answer to the question. But there is a big problem: as you start reading, you check many passages, and many relates to polytheism - a system of belief supporting many gods. But the problem was given by God - the one that "you wouldn't have any other before him." God is made of monotheistic dough, and therefore, as he realizes, Kurt can consult only one passage in Genesis.

The odds are against him if he employs a random choice, but such an idea is a rather offensive suggestion, because Kurt, was a logician mathematician known to hang around even with Albert Einstein.
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/vhd05/images/Einstein.Godel.550.jpg

And so Kurt assumes that God can think straight and there is an analytic solution to the question for how many days God rested. So he reasons this way: If God, worshipped by the folks of Ten, is unique, then he looks like 2 x 5, because

10 = 2 x 5

If God worked for six days and there supposed to be only one passage in Genesis that you can consult to find out for how many days God rested, then you should factor number 6 to stay consistent.

6 = 2 x 3

Since the Bible is indexed by the chapters and verses, then it naturally follows that

6 = 2 x 3 -------> Chapter 2, Verse 3

Add two teaspoons of faith that God knows what he's doing and a pinch of luck . . .

Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.
Genesis 2:3

So the answer to the God's question is that he rested only one day...


...to stay consistent with monorestism, which is a far better system of belief than polyworkism.

I agree.

You don't like to work hard?

No.

How about thinking. Do you like to think?

NO!

In that case, I truly assert onto you that you should convert to hard atheism, which provably frees your mind from all rationality and logic, so your mind can focus only on those things worth of focusing on.
 
Last edited:
epix said:
Which god?

Speaking of that question, today, we are going to test Kurt Gödel of the OP, or rather Kurt GODel, to see how he performs when the subject is polytheism and monotheism.

Given environment 10, how many pagan gods are in there?

Kurt was a mathematician and logician, so he would be able to count them all...

10 = 1 + 9
10 = 2 + 8
10 = 3 + 7
.
.
.
10 = 1 + 1 +8
10 = 1 + 2 + 7
10 = 1 + 3 + 6
.
.
.

Translated into the words, Kurt simply partitions number 10
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_(number_theory)
and counts all the partitions. Since there are 42 ways to partition number 10, there are 42 pagan gods living in the environment 10 - or the Land of Ten.

Now the folks living in Ten decided to switch to monotheism. Who is going to be their only god - which god are they going to select?

Obviously the one which have a unique property - a property that no other gods (those partitions) have.

But Kurt knows that such a way of selection could lead to an ambiguity, and so, as a mathematician, he suggests the selection is done by factoring 10,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Gödel
because there can be only one way to factor every positive integer.
10 = 2 x 5

And so the folks living in Ten have a brand new god of the monotheistic kind.

Now this god has to have a name, so after months of bickering which even brought a civil unrest upon the land, a wise man - the fan of minimalism - decided that the name for the new god would be God.

This God said that he created the world in six days and then he rested afterward. For how many day he rested?

That's easy to find out. Kurt knows that the particular info is available in the Book of Genesis and so you simply start reading from the beginning and stop when you come across the answer to the question. But there is a big problem: as you start reading, you check many passages, and many relates to polytheism - a system of belief supporting many gods. But the problem was given by God - the one that "you wouldn't have any other before him." God is made of monotheistic dough, and therefore, as he realizes, Kurt can consult only one passage in Genesis.

The odds are against him if he employs a random choice, but such an idea is a rather offensive suggestion, because Kurt, was a logician mathematician known to hang around even with Albert Einstein.
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/vhd05/images/Einstein.Godel.550.jpg

And so Kurt assumes that God can think straight and there is an analytic solution to the question for how many days God rested. So he reasons this way: If God, worshipped by the folks of Ten, is unique, then he looks like 2 x 5, because

10 = 2 x 5

If God worked for six days and there supposed to be only one passage in Genesis that you can consult to find out for how many days God rested, then you should factor number 6 to stay consistent.

6 = 2 x 3

Since the Bible is indexed by the chapters and verses, then it naturally follows that

6 = 2 x 3 -------> Chapter 2, Verse 3

Add two teaspoons of faith that God knows what he's doing and a pinch of luck . . .

Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.
Genesis 2:3

So the answer to the God's question is that he rested only one day...


...to stay consistent with monorestism, which is a far better system of belief than polyworkism.

I agree.

You don't like to work hard?

No.

How about thinking. Do you like to think?

NO!

In that case, I truly assert onto you that you should convert to hard atheism, which provably frees your mind from all rationality and logic, so your mind can focus only on those things worth of focusing on.
Click to expand...

Kurt is dead, and his theorem had nothing to do with religion. You are a Hindu god hard atheist. Your post is the usual gibberish. What on earth does ''the folks living in Ten '' mean? Epic epix fail this time. Your post makes no sense.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom