• 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

The OP hinted subject is way too advanced. It is so advanced that even God had to pause for full 3.127 nanoseconds to wrap his omniscient mind around it. For example, is the following statement true or false?

"God" = complete
"Göd" = incomplete

Since the statement lacks the necessary syllogistic form, then a different way of separation must be employed to answer the question.

You can't ask the hard atheists to ponder the issue, because, unlike the soft atheists, they have been proven to make an illogical adjustment to the name God and refused to consider the logical version suggested by God himself in order to continue in their favorite pastime of swimming upstream against common sense.

The statement appears to be FALSE, because garnishing 'o' with two dots renders the widely recognized name God hardly incomplete.

But if someone decides to consider the option TRUE, then the circumstance is in his favor.

"God" = complete
"Göd" = incomplete(ness theorem)

If you append the right side of the relation as an interim solution, you should append the left side as well.

"Göd(el)" = incomplete(ness theorem)

That opens the necessary circumstance under which the initial statement is TRUE inducing a bad case of ambiguity: If true, then God is a complete name of a deity, whereas Göd is an incomplete name of a German logician and mathematician Kurt Gödel, whose incompleteness theorem slammed the door before the attempt of Man to become like God, the knower of the Biblical opposites good and evil.

God = 3 letters
Gödel = 5 letters
and therefore Genesis 3:5
“For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

The Biblical opposites good and evil were meant to be the important opposites that proofs are made of: true and false.

Kurt surely "ate from the Tree of Knowledge," because of his truly ingenious way of showing that there exist systems made of components whose number is not sufficient enough to assure provability of certain statements and where the attempt to increase the number of components leads to redundancy.

If Kurt ate from the Tree of Knowledge, then there exists a problem called Gödel's dilemma. If he didn't eat from that tree, the problem doesn't exist, and that's the right ground for exposing the fallacious philosophy of hard atheism, because the hard atheists won't be able to figure the problem of Gödel's dilemma existing or not existing. And remember that Gödel and God are two similar personal nouns. That carries a certain implication...

Am I right, Heavenly Father?

Leave me alone.

(Lol.)
 
epix said:
The OP hinted subject is way too advanced. It is so advanced that even God had to pause for full 3.127 nanoseconds to wrap his omniscient mind around it. For example, is the following statement true or false?

"God" = complete
"Göd" = incomplete

Since the statement lacks the necessary syllogistic form, then a different way of separation must be employed to answer the question.

You can't ask the hard atheists to ponder the issue, because, unlike the soft atheists, they have been proven to make an illogical adjustment to the name God and refused to consider the logical version suggested by God himself in order to continue in their favorite pastime of swimming upstream against common sense.

The statement appears to be FALSE, because garnishing 'o' with two dots renders the widely recognized name God hardly incomplete.

But if someone decides to consider the option TRUE, then the circumstance is in his favor.

"God" = complete
"Göd" = incomplete(ness theorem)

If you append the right side of the relation as an interim solution, you should append the left side as well.

"Göd(el)" = incomplete(ness theorem)

That opens the necessary circumstance under which the initial statement is TRUE inducing a bad case of ambiguity: If true, then God is a complete name of a deity, whereas Göd is an incomplete name of a German logician and mathematician Kurt Gödel, whose incompleteness theorem slammed the door before the attempt of Man to become like God, the knower of the Biblical opposites good and evil.

God = 3 letters
Gödel = 5 letters
and therefore Genesis 3:5
“For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

The Biblical opposites good and evil were meant to be the important opposites that proofs are made of: true and false.

Kurt surely "ate from the Tree of Knowledge," because of his truly ingenious way of showing that there exist systems made of components whose number is not sufficient enough to assure provability of certain statements and where the attempt to increase the number of components leads to redundancy.

If Kurt ate from the Tree of Knowledge, then there exists a problem called Gödel's dilemma. If he didn't eat from that tree, the problem doesn't exist, and that's the right ground for exposing the fallacious philosophy of hard atheism, because the hard atheists won't be able to figure the problem of Gödel's dilemma existing or not existing. And remember that Gödel and God are two similar personal nouns. That carries a certain implication...

Am I right, Heavenly Father?

Leave me alone.

(Lol.)
Click to expand...

Have you sought medical help?
 
deaman said:
Have you sought medical help?
Click to expand...

I often wonder the same thing. ... He very obviously needs to, but I'm not sure whether we'd be violating the MA by suggesting it. ... I think the most telling factor is the heavy reliance on weird numerology which appears to be "obvious" to only himself.

Love him or hate him, I'm sure everyone here wishes him nothing but the best of health.
 
devnull said:
I often wonder the same thing. ... He very obviously needs to, but I'm not sure whether we'd be violating the MA by suggesting it. ... I think the most telling factor is the heavy reliance on weird numerology which appears to be "obvious" to only himself.

Love him or hate him, I'm sure everyone here wishes him nothing but the best of health.
Click to expand...

I think he's posting for his sake alone rather than the sake of "unbelievers". He hasnt' convinced anyone in his entire time here, and has no reasonable prospects of doing so any time soon. Yet he's here, posting thread after thread. He's getting something out of it. My theory? He's trying to shore up his own belief by acting it out, rather than trying to get others to believe.
 
If anyone is wondering about what it is to see a militant theist in action, this thread is a pretty darn good example.
 
Well, I give him an A for creative use of subjects, desparately drawn together, by the strangest line of reasoning.
 
epix said:
It was actually God, not me, if I can believe Vincent, who has found a perfectly logical way for the strong atheists to write the name God.
Click to expand...

<snip>

So God suggested a logical solution as seen in the OP.
Click to expand...

<snip>



I can't follow the link; it goes to a page I think you need to subscribe to. Thus, I can only address this part, which made my eyes widen.

Were you having a real conversation with your god (not capitalized because I do not know which god you believe in) when you wrote the OP? Were you just passing along the suggestion from a deity? Did your god really tell you to tell us atheists how to write his/her/its name?

Or did you mean "I think this is a logical suggestion and I think my god would agree, so I am making a point by pretending to take my god's side in this argument"?

'cause those are two different thingiedos, right there.
 
devnull said:
I often wonder the same thing. ... He very obviously needs to, but I'm not sure whether we'd be violating the MA by suggesting it. ... I think the most telling factor is the heavy reliance on weird numerology which appears to be "obvious" to only himself.

Love him or hate him, I'm sure everyone here wishes him nothing but the best of health.
Click to expand...

Has it been established that this isn't all just a huge joke? Sometimes it seems too self aware...

but this is my first encounter with epix, so I can't be sure.

Does anyone know who Vincent is? Is that epix's real name?
 
Mister Earl said:
I think he's posting for his sake alone rather than the sake of "unbelievers". He hasnt' convinced anyone in his entire time here, and has no reasonable prospects of doing so any time soon. Yet he's here, posting thread after thread. He's getting something out of it. My theory? He's trying to shore up his own belief by acting it out, rather than trying to get others to believe.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. I can't possibly try to convince anyone here, because I remember the time when I realized the shocking fact that God is not omniscient as claimed. I remember asking him to intervene in the debilitating dispute between the theists and the atheists so they would make peace. But God shook his head and said, "There are two things that no one can reason with including myself: faith and stupidity."
 
epix said:
Nonsense. I can't possibly try to convince anyone here, because I remember the time when I realized the shocking fact that God is not omniscient as claimed. I remember asking him to intervene in the debilitating dispute between the theists and the atheists so they would make peace. But God shook his head and said, "There are two things that no one can reason with including myself: faith and stupidity."
Click to expand...

Epix - You seem to think you speak for god.
 
epix said:
Positive atheism can hardly throw a punch that would require medical attention.
Click to expand...

Just like gods!

epix said:
Nonsense. I can't possibly try to convince anyone here, because I remember the time when I realized the shocking fact that God is not omniscient as claimed. I remember asking him to intervene in the debilitating dispute between the theists and the atheists so they would make peace. But God shook his head and said, "There are two things that no one can reason with including myself: faith and stupidity."
Click to expand...

Did he have anything to say about atheists?
 
God, god, Godel, Godalming, goddammit, godawful, godaminute?, the piece of cod that passeth all understanding, godetias, zygodactyl, stegodon, ergodic.
 
You know I do sorta wish people like epix would grasp how much harm they are doing to the causes they profess to support.

It's hard enough for me to remember that all religious beliefs aren't batcrap crazy insane when I'm talking to religious people a billion times more coherent then this stream of consciousness nonsense. It's damn near impossible when deep in most conversations here.
 
RoboTimbo said:
Did he have anything to say about atheists?
Click to expand...
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.
 
epix said:
No, God doesn't care much about the atheists...
Click to expand...
I thought your god loves all of mankind. I'm guessing that the god you made up has exceptions, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom