Re: The logic of atheism

Aatu Koskensilta wrote:

> Ben Goren wrote:
>
>> Actually, Turing /did/ prove that anything that could simulate
>> a Turing machine could also be simulated /by/ a Turing machine.
>
> Turing proved nothing even remotely resembling that.

Erm...last I checked, that was the whole point behind a Universal
Turing Machine.

>> Aatu Koskensilta wrote:
>>
>>> What do you mean by evidence for some property being essential
>>> or inessential?
>>
>> If a property is essential to an entity, that entity would not
>> exist if it lacked that property.
>
> Sure. But what would you considered evidence of essentiality or
> non-essentiality of any property?

It's all in the definition.

It is an essential property of a square that be a geometric
figure with four right angles. If you have something with four
right angles, it may be a square, provided it has all the
other essential properties. A cube, for example, has four right
angles. But it has more than four right angles, while a square has
exactly four; therefore, a cube is not a square. A right triangle
has one right angle, but it is not a square because it doesn't
have enough right angles.

It's fair to say that, for most modern theists, if their
god isn't the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator of
the universe, then their god is nothing. If something vaguely
resembled their god but wasn't omnipotent, omniscient, or
omnibenevolent, or if it didn't create the universe, then they'd
say, ``That's not my god.''

Sadly for them, all four of those properties are purest
bull***. They might as well call their gods married bachelors and
be done with it.

Cheers,

b&

--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.

Loading