Re: Peterson's Death Sentence

From: Kevin Aylward (salesEXTRACT_at_anasoft.co.uk)
Date: 01/29/05 

Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 10:25:01 GMT

Noah Roberts wrote:
> Kevin Aylward wrote:
>
>> That isn't the claim. The universe couldn't have been created by an
>> all powerful god, as as already proved, such an all-powerful god
>> can't logically exist. A lesser god, theoretically, could have, but
>> so what?
>
> I do realize you like to believe that your reasoning is unfallable.

In general, not at all. I am very clear when my reasoning can fail. I
specifically state such conditions,
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/magic.html

I have truly analysed my position, in depth.

"A good scientist finds evidence to support his theory, a better
scientist finds evidence to refute his theory" - Richard Fynnman.

> However, there are numerous responses to the "proof" you put forth.

Indeed there are. Non of which have any relevance.

> This includes my *valid* response that logic cannot apply to something
> that won't be limited by the results of any logical argument...and
> many more I am just learning about, it is rather fascinating.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox

Yes. I have already addressed this, with commandment 11. Sure, if the
only way you can salvage gods, is to throw absolutely *everything* away,
i.e. allow contradictions, then my argument fails.

And you believe that this is a good refutation of the argument?

Stand up and smell the roses.

>
> There are of course many more. A few hours research and an open mind
> do wonders. Also it pays to go ask people who actually /know the
> subject/.

Indeed it does.

>
> Finally, a "lesser" god is no less important. Do you love your
> parents? Are the omnipotent? So what is your point?
>
> You have studied more than I in a few very specific areas.

Quite a few areas, and in depth:

Electronics - http://www.anasoft.co.uk/EE/index.html
General Relativity - http://www.anasoft.co.uk/physics/gr/index.html
Quantum Mechanics - http://www.anasoft.co.uk/quantummechanics/index.html
Music - http://www.tribute-to-blondie.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
Evolution - http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html
Software - http://www.anasoft.co.uk

>This does
> not make you more intelligent for I could say the same about myself.

By itself, you are correct, however, read between the lines of my
accomplishments then try and claim that I am stupid.

> For instance, how long have you been studying martial arts?

Never.

> Computer
> programming?

15 Years.

> Guitar playing you seem to have also learned more than
> I...

Begun at age 11.

>The point is that we are the same, and we are different and
> neither one of us is better than the other. So I really wish you
> would stop saying otherwise for it is an insult to both of our
> intelligences.

The reality is that some *are* more "intelligent" then others, no matter
how one defines it. We are not all equal. Equality is a fantasy made up
by the politically correct.

"Better" is a meaningless term. Its too relative.

>
> There are also those that seem to know more than you about your
> specific area that don't agree with you about this particular
> question, and there are those that do.

Oh, what specific area are you talking about? general Relativity, Music,
Software, evolution? Of course, I know nothing about golf.

> In fact, us arguing about
> this is like a 1st grader and a second grader arguing about the
> meaning of life.

42

>
> The answer is not as cut and dry as you keep saying and your saying so
> doesn't make it any more so. So I really wish you would stop saying
> it because it is an insult to both of our intelligences.

Some things are cut and dry. The evidence is simply overwhelming that
for example, the mind is the sole result of the brain. You are simply
not aware of such evidence.
http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/journalism/NSintox.htm

The whole idea of god is completly daft today. They were just things
people introduced when they knew no better. How many time does one have
to try to get people to stand back and actually think and understand
what the follwing statment really means:

"I dont know how we came about, so it must have been an all powerfull,
can do anything, is everwhere at once, supreme being that did it."

Get f'ing real dude...Open you f'ing eyes. Its an incredible lame idea.
Inventing an *infinite* being, *just* because one don't know any better.

>
> There are MANY logicians that believe(d) in God.

Sure.

>Some even believe(d)
> in an omnipotent God. The omnipotence paradox is VERY old and is
> still debated TO THIS DAY. You have not solved it; I have not solved
> it; it is not likely to be solved for it is one of the problems that
> questions our very method of thought.

It is solved. There are no gods.

>
> That doesn't even bring into account the numerous different
> philosophies of logic of which you are only applying one. In some
> forms of logic, intuitive logic for example, "(P V ~P) = true" is not
> necissarily true unless it is first proven so there would be no
> paradox. I have also had it explained to me pretty adamantly that
> Godel's Completeness Theorem doesn't apply the way it has been here;
> it was at least used incorrectly. (I assume Godel, if I am wrong
> please point out another 'Completeness Theorem' so that I may go
> investigate - I think it was Parse Tree that used it).

Simply stated, Godel states that things can be true without proof. I use
this idea to back up my proof of the non-derivability of consciousness.
That is, a lack of consciousness derivability does not imply that there
is a missing ingredient, e.g. a soul/god.

>
> Yes, I have caught on to you guys. You are "logical bullies". You
> smack logic into the middle of an argument that doesn't really have
> anything to do with it and play it as a trump card, but when anyone
> actually looks it's just a lowball club.

We are not prepared to toss out of the window absolutely *everything*
accepted in mathematics and physics without *good* cause. There is
simply no credible arguments that shows the existence of gods, or that
gods are required to explain any physical phenomena.

>
> Do the research yourself if you don't believe me...and I challenge
> everyone here to do the same. The things Kevin is saying are half
> truths only (Parse Tree even less), please use google and read what
> you find before taking anything said by face value, including what I
> say.
> And my argument is not infallable either (though I am not sure it is
> 'invalid') yet it amazes me that none of you found the promlem, it was
> me instead that did. It is totally logical, non-reationary, and has
> nothing to do with me saing an unlimited being is unlimited by the
> rules of logic. I am right, by definition it is not, and the more
> you rebel against that the longer it will take you.
>
> I think I will leave it for you to find on your own. Since you are so
> smart and logical I think you can handle something this easy. And
> since it was so hard for me, and you called me ignorant, I don't see
> why I should just hand you more ammo to assault me with.
>
> In the end it's just a stalemate, like always. I'm fine with
> that...hopefully you can learn to be. Otherwise the only thing I can
> say is, "Well, it sucks to be you."
>
> http://www.soundclick.com/noahroberts/

So, you play Blues, that's not a good sign.

"12 bar blues are just an excuse to play the same song 12 times" - Kevin
Aylward

Get a listen to some real music, like Steely Dan.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.