Teddy…

He told me you were ignoring him…

DB

Come out with the truth people! Grrrr.    I can take it I promise.

MF Doom - 27 May 2008 08:01 PM

bleve - 27 May 2008 07:40 PM

MF Doom - 27 May 2008 07:31 PM

He’s building up momentum, no doubt..

And someone’s been watching way too many episodes of Charmed.

First post for my views and opinions on the subject.

http://www.totallycrap.com/forums/viewthread/3244/

Excellent theories...agnostic? Or not generally interested?

Afraid of commitment.

That explains a lot!

It seems unfair that you demand other people to rant, while you only post a picture randomly picked up on the interwebs.

Ya gotta give a little to get a little.

And it does?

De_Bunk - 27 May 2008 08:09 PM

Teddy…

He told me you were ignoring him…



DB

he just wont stop rabbiting on and on. I really dont need to know that i have to kill everyone called Barry because of some ancient argument between Nigels and Barrys resulting in the Great Battle of Chavhill

MF Doom - 27 May 2008 08:12 PM

It seems unfair that you demand other people to rant, while you only post a picture randomly picked up on the interwebs.

Ya gotta give a little to get a little.

And it does?

It’s all a learning process. One of my interests. Religion and the human species. What better place and people to learn from? Honestly this is a good topic...partake please!!! Or walk away. Whatever floats your boat. Regardless someone else will respond!

I’m a rarity. Willing to learn from other people! OMG. I thought we only valued our own opinions?  Anyways...The post is not random.

religion topics normally end as ‘you suck’ vs ‘no, you suck’ debate so i prefer to talk about the mystical powers of Nigel. They are only making plans for Nigel, although Gordon is a moron

Dammit Teddy. I love your subtle interventions and yet...I really want to know your values...??? I don’t judge and I don’t care if anyone else does. Come on it’s just you and me now as far as I’m concerned.

The archaic Ontological arguments for the Existence of God were undermined by reliance on the term ‘Exists’ as a

predicate. The more recent modal logic attempts are more thorough.If we assume the modal logic Axiom S5,then:It is

proposed that a being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent,

omniscient and wholly good in W; and

It is proposed that a being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.

Maximal greatness is possibly exemplified. That is, it is possible that there be a being that has maximal

greatness. (Premise)

Therefore, possibly it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.

Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists. (By S5)

Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.

(Axiom S5 is :if necessarily possibly p, then possibly p and if possibly necessarily p then necessarily p. The argument succeds or fails by this assumption)

naughtyteddy - 27 May 2008 08:17 PM

religion topics normally end as ‘you suck’ vs ‘no, you suck’ debate so i prefer to talk about the mystical powers of Nigel. They are only making plans for Nigel, although Gordon is a moron

You are so accurate it scares me. 

Wanderlei - 27 May 2008 08:21 PM

The archaic Ontological arguments for the Existence of God were undermined by reliance on the term ‘Exists’ as a

predicate. The more recent modal logic attempts are more thorough.If we assume the modal logic Axiom S5,then:It is

proposed that a being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent,

omniscient and wholly good in W; and

It is proposed that a being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.

Maximal greatness is possibly exemplified. That is, it is possible that there be a being that has maximal

greatness. (Premise)

Therefore, possibly it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.

Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists. (By S5)

Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.

Not necassarily God though? Excellent Wanderlei this is what I’m looking for!

So would you declare yourself agnostic by this statement?

I also want to point out that no religious beliefs of any intellectual merit postulate ‘an invisible thing in the

sky’. As Terry Eagleton said,people who attack religion with such arguments are like commentators on Ornithology

who have read only the Ladybird book of Birds.

bleve - 27 May 2008 08:16 PM

I’m a rarity. Willing to learn from other people! OMG. I thought we only valued our own opinions?  Anyways...The post is not random.

Never said the post was random. Said the picture was random. The quoted post, however, was random.

You seem to have missed my point. My point being that you should start by sharing your owns views in a little greater detail other than a random picture found on google. Especially considering how wide an amount of views and religious mumbojumbo “pagan” covers.

Wanderlei - 27 May 2008 08:25 PM

I also want to point out that no religious beliefs of any intellectual merit postulate ‘an invisible thing in the

sky’. As Terry Eagleton said,people who attack religion with such arguments are like commentators on Ornithology

who have read only the Ladybird book of Birds.

Keep on Wanderlei you might just turn the boys into men.  I’m following...is anyone else? I question that!