• 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

epix said:
The meaning of the quote is sufficient enough to avoid similar question such as yours, but I can make a justifiable exemption.
Click to expand...
LOL. Well, you know what your made up god said about faith and stupidity and theists...

But did he say anything No, God doesn't care much about the atheists, because they exist in small numbers, which is due to the decreasing incidence of ignorance and close mindedness in the world.
Click to expand...
So, theism is on the wane? Awesome! Too bad we still see such ignorance and close mindedness in thesists, though.

He keeps his eye though on the cases of state sponzored atheism and theism, because places like North Korea, former Soviet union or Iran are always ready to threaten the world with nukes so their pointless point would be well taken.
Click to expand...
For states which sponsor atheism, which god(s) do they say don't exist?

On a more serious note, epix. Have you shared these conversations you have with your god with a mental health professional?
 
epix said:
No, God doesn't care much about the atheists,
Click to expand...

Now we know that christ did not die for everyone, and that gods love is not
all encomnpassing. Thus, making him a not very good god to worship.

Thanks for clearing that up epix.
 
Epix has created his own branch of Christianity. How many branches are there now?
 
epix said:
The meaning of the quote is sufficient enough to avoid similar question such as yours, but I can make a justifiable exemption. No, God doesn't care much about the atheists, because they exist in small numbers, which is due to the decreasing incidence of ignorance and close mindedness in the world. He keeps his eye though on the cases of state sponzored atheism and theism, because places like North Korea, former Soviet union or Iran are always ready to threaten the world with nukes so their pointless point would be well taken.
Click to expand...
You must have read a different set of parables from the ones I read. According to those, God cares more about the stray lamb than about the rest of the flock. Of course that may not be the god of epix, who, writ small as he is, must husband his resources.
 
Upchurch said:
*snort*

I hope that was meant to be comical, especially since you are invoking Gödel.
Click to expand...
Can you be more specific? I would welcome a focused elaboration instead of the usual atheistic goulash, or a brief encounter with a thought resulting in a one-word conclusion.
 
devnull said:
I think the most telling factor is the heavy reliance on weird numerology which appears to be "obvious" to only himself.
Click to expand...
Well, it took lots of brain power for lots of folks to realize that the numerology which Kurt came up with was actually not a numerology.
http://jamesrmeyer.com/ffgit/GodelSimplified3.html

You are not the only one who thinks that all numerical asignments apart from those which reflect upon quantities, measurement, or are involved in indexing; nust be some numerologies of the fortune-telling kind, so don't worry.
 
Rincewind said:
Can someone let me know when the English translation comes out?

Thanks! :)
Click to expand...
Unfortunately for you and perhaps for others, there is really no way to translate the German name Kurt Gödel into English. Since the English alphabet lacks letter 'ö', so does the keypad for this language, and so Kurt's last name appears in articles as 'Godel.' That often poses problems for the hard atheists, I mean for those who are mentally capable of seeing the name this way: Godel. Such an ability ushers in a dilemma: should they capitalize or not; should they write "Godel" or "godel?"

It's apparent that the incompletness theorem relates more to Kurt Godel. But God came up with some interesting problems relating to the incompletness.

Even though Kurt was quite a religous guy, he is not known to extend his far reaching proof beyond the realm where it belongs to, as some others did. The chances that he was unconsciously clued by God are high, but the process of arriving at such a chance can be challenged when attacked by the quite primitive tools that the mathematicians have been using so far.
 
epix said:
Unfortunately for you and perhaps for others, there is really no way to translate the German name Kurt Gödel into English. Since the English alphabet lacks letter 'ö', so does the keypad for this language, and so Kurt's last name appears in articles as 'Godel.' That often poses problems for the hard atheists, I mean for those who are mentally capable of seeing the name this way: Godel. Such an ability ushers in a dilemma: should they capitalize or not; should they write "Godel" or "godel?"

It's apparent that the incompletness theorem relates more to Kurt Godel. But God came up with some interesting problems relating to the incompletness.

Even though Kurt was quite a religous guy, he is not known to extend his far reaching proof beyond the realm where it belongs to, as some others did. The chances that he was unconsciously clued by God are high, but the process of arriving at such a chance can be challenged when attacked by the quite primitive tools that the mathematicians have been using so far.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you don't realize that in English, it's acceptable and routine to write "Goedel" if the umlaut is unavailable. With computers, it's not even an issue any longer if one so desires to type unusual characters.

Thank Goed for computers!
 
The Norseman said:
Perhaps you don't realize that in English, it's acceptable and routine to write "Goedel" if the umlaut is unavailable. With computers, it's not even an issue any longer if one so desires to type unusual characters.

Thank Goed for computers!
Click to expand...
Your suggested option is hardly a routine event; it is sometimes used, but it shouldn't in connection to the incompleteness theorem. I mean, it takes a great deal of ignorance to discuss incompletness and at the same time furnish Kurt's last name with an additional letter. God always writes "Godel" in relation to Kurt's famous theorem of incompletness. I saw it written that way, because he's now writing a book titled "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Omniscience." You know the series, right?
http://ecimages.kobobooks.com/Image.ashx?imageID=Dp18ZrjJPEeIUrrYrgzZhQ&Type=Full
 
epix said:
Your suggested option is hardly a routine event; it is sometimes used, but it shouldn't in connection to the incompleteness theorem. I mean, it takes a great deal of ignorance to discuss incompletness and at the same time furnish Kurt's last name with an additional letter. God always writes "Godel" in relation to Kurt's famous theorem of incompletness. I saw it written that way, because he's now writing a book titled "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Omniscience." You know the series, right?
http://ecimages.kobobooks.com/Image.ashx?imageID=Dp18ZrjJPEeIUrrYrgzZhQ&Type=Full
Click to expand...
Since English isn't your native language, I'll forgive the oversight. Apparently your god isn't a native speaker either which is, I must confess, a sin.

Since you don't want your god to sin (and who would really) you might as well tell me how Kurt's name works in your native language. There are enough people already who butcher English, so don't continue the sin of your Savior. Not to be confused with Saviore. Which is another language and an additional sin.
 
epix said:
Unfortunately for you and perhaps for others, there is really no way to translate the German name Kurt Gödel into English. Since the English alphabet lacks letter 'ö', so does the keypad for this language, and so Kurt's last name appears in articles as 'Godel.' That often poses problems for the hard atheists, I mean for those who are mentally capable of seeing the name this way: Godel. Such an ability ushers in a dilemma: should they capitalize or not; should they write "Godel" or "godel?"

It's apparent that the incompletness theorem relates more to Kurt Godel. But God came up with some interesting problems relating to the incompletness.

Even though Kurt was quite a religous guy, he is not known to extend his far reaching proof beyond the realm where it belongs to, as some others did. The chances that he was unconsciously clued by God are high, but the process of arriving at such a chance can be challenged when attacked by the quite primitive tools that the mathematicians have been using so far.
Click to expand...

Sorry I asked now....
 
epix said:
Your suggested option is hardly a routine event; it is sometimes used, but it shouldn't in connection to the incompleteness theorem. I mean, it takes a great deal of ignorance to discuss incompletness and at the same time furnish Kurt's last name with an additional letter. God always writes "Godel" in relation to Kurt's famous theorem of incompletness. I saw it written that way, because he's now writing a book titled "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Omniscience." You know the series, right?
http://ecimages.kobobooks.com/Image.ashx?imageID=Dp18ZrjJPEeIUrrYrgzZhQ&Type=Full
Click to expand...
Huh? Who is writing a book? Godel? Your god?
 
epix said:
Unfortunately for you and perhaps for others, there is really no way to translate the German name Kurt Gödel into English. Since the English alphabet lacks letter 'ö', so does the keypad for this language, and so Kurt's last name appears in articles as 'Godel.' That often poses problems for the hard atheists, I mean for those who are mentally capable of seeing the name this way: Godel. Such an ability ushers in a dilemma: should they capitalize or not; should they write "Godel" or "godel?"

It's apparent that the incompletness theorem relates more to Kurt Godel. But God came up with some interesting problems relating to the incompletness.

Even though Kurt was quite a religous guy, he is not known to extend his far reaching proof beyond the realm where it belongs to, as some others did. The chances that he was unconsciously clued by God are high, but the process of arriving at such a chance can be challenged when attacked by the quite primitive tools that the mathematicians have been using so far.
Click to expand...

epix said:
Can you be more specific? I would welcome a focused elaboration instead of the usual atheistic goulash, or a brief encounter with a thought resulting in a one-word conclusion.
Click to expand...

LOL. Can you take your own advice?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom