You never addressed me calling BS on your assertion allegedly bolstered by “professional logicians”. Weak.

The ilk running the country into financial ruin are the guys who have used the simpleton evangelicals and fundamentalists to put themselves into power. They are very bad news, and mostly Republican. Follow the money. Lehman went down because Fuld was a big Democrat. My old buddy Jimmie Caine was saved because he was a Pioneer. Maurie Greenberg, and Sandy Weil are big Republicans.

Don’t get me wrong, the Dems are pretty bad news too, but nothing compared to the institutionalization of filth and corruption that began with peri-senile Reagan. ( Robbing citizens through “privatization” = corporate welfare, etc. )

Due to the nihilistic Republicans the country cannot be ruled. (You should read Krugman’s NYTimes op-ed from Monday. He is one of the most insightful minds out there.) I really think we are shot. Bush was the worst president since Buchanan. I seriously fear that within 50 years the country will be destroyed by filth like the Tea Party. Pax Senensis anyone?

The Big O leads a parade of academic nimrods in DC with no real world experience and Observer cannot figure out why our country is where it is today.

“You will also note in Zach’s publication list besides Goedel, his most recent work covers the greats Russell and Tarski. These guys are not on your side logically or theologically.”

Show me their work where a negative cannot be proven. Thanks in advance. I never claimed anything theologically then again men are not my Gods, they are my sources. You are really hung up of theology.

“For the storehouse of data against “God” you can look at this website.”

So, you really do not have any real evidence. You do realize there is no hard evidence here, right?

“The evangelicals, fundamentalists and their allies are our Taliban. It will be a miracle if the great humanist experiment of the Founding Fathers can go on and succeed.”

Biased hate-filled accusation against other Americans is sickening. The founders were predominately theist. Are you certain you would not like to bring them into the Taliban?

I do not doubt Palin, Limbaugh, and Beck are the best and brightest of the conservative and Republican movements”

Maybe you did not realize they hold no power. Beck & Limbaugh are the media! Would you like to consider the ilk actually running our nation into financial ruin?

The more I understand about my countrymen, such as yourself, the less optimistic I become. The failure is due to poor education, and that has its roots in the liberalism of the 1960s and 1970s.

Failure is due to the elitism arrogant attitudes of men such as yourself and the BHOs of the world. Your judgmental arrogant attitude reflects a generation of elitist who tend to believe they know what is best for everyone and thus nanny states.

I can no longer waste my time with such hate.

As for Zach, you make my point from my first post where I now, it seems, presciently wrote the following:
“What is the paper or theorem? Please do not give a misinterpretation of Goedel incompleteness or show us a misunderstanding of proof by contraposition.”

You will also note in Zach’s publication list besides Goedel, his most recent work covers the greats Russell and Tarski. These guys are not on your side logically or theologically. Russell was a less charitable atheist than Dawkins ( He thought, perhaps correctly, wasting time trying to educate the masses was not worth his time. ) Tarski, while technically a converted Catholic, appears to have done so in the same way Marx’s pappy converted to Lutheranism, and thus by extension Karl himself, and Disraeli to the Church of England- purely for professional reasons. I am not aware of any theism from him. Wouldn’t you imagine these guys would get on the God bandwagon if they could show something?

For the storehouse of data against “God” you can look at this website. I will concede though that it is better to state there is nothing to support the notion of God. Dealing with you theistic folks is like pissing up a rope.

This website is a time vampire. Why am I here? I am confounded by the collapse of my country ( the USA). I am trying to understand the population doing the most to destroy America. These folks are mostly evangelical and fundamentalist Christians and their allies. Prior to Carter, admitting “Born Again” status was like admitting pedophilia or incest. This Christian perversion, with its concomitant irrationality applied to economics, government, public and foreign policy has likely done irreparable damage to the United States of America. The evangelicals, fundamentalists and their allies are our Taliban. It will be a miracle if the great humanist experiment of the Founding Fathers can go on and succeed.

We are witnessing the realization of the fictional “Idiocracy”. While I do not doubt Palin, Limbaugh, and Beck are the best and brightest of the conservative and Republican movements, and they stand a great chance of running the country, they and their ilk are nevertheless a disaster for the my country, and arguably the world.

The more I understand about my countrymen, such as yourself, the less optimistic I become. The failure is due to poor education, and that has its roots in the liberalism of the 1960s and 1970s. Just because someone has a viewpoint, it does not necessarily deserve being heard. Dignifying Creationism, Intelligent Design, or any of the other Bible based anti-science fantasies with debate is folly, and only serves to undermine education and the country.

Here is one of the most honest Christian websites: http://www.fixedearth.com . Enjoy.

I don’t feel a need to sound my own horn. But if it is that much of a concern I did all my graduate and postgraduate work at Vanderbilt U may years ago. Your belief is quite irrelevant.

You do not even have the ability to reason your way through a simple sentence on a blog? The sentence was an attempt at an insult? I assure you if I were hurling insults it would be evident. My pardons if you are much more.

I don’t feel a need to sound my own horn. But if it is that much of a concern I did all my graduate and postgraduate work at Vanderbilt U may years ago. Your belief is quite irrelevant.

I take it you will not be providing the storehouse of information that is so overwhelming against the existence of God? That’s a shame; I was stoked about the possibilities.

You seem upset at the prospect that a negative can be proven. If you are the great mind as you project, this should be self-explanatory. Hint: Richard Zach, and undoubtedly many others.

You seem upset at the prospect that a negative can be proven. If you are the great mind as you project, this should be self-explanatory. Hint: Richard Zach, and undoubtedly many others.

“I offer those text since I did not detect any ability above their intended audience.” Forget the inanity of content, can you see the errors in your sentence? Is than attempt to insult me? You cannot insult me.

“Past the history of F&S, again, you fail to show any ability to read comprehensibly.” Is this another attempt at English? From the rest of this paragraph, and what I believe to be a reference to my “Example” in my previous post, can we infer you do not believe there is a “God”?

“Shifting back from your quick dismissal of your bold proclamation.” What is your first language?

Again, this began with you claiming to be a scientist. Where and in what did you receive your degrees? ( There was a great story on “This American Life” where some sort of tradesman decided he had found a flaw in Einstein’s relativity theories. Of course, this guy didn’t even have mastery of high school math. This guy was crank. ) You have not answered this question, and looking at your writing, my guess is that you made it out of high school, and did not have a successful college career.

The second point was a vague assertion about what “professional logicians” say regarding what is provable. You failed to make a citation, but rather invited interested readers to do so. Again, what is the citation? What is the lemma or theorem?

You are trying to weasel out of answering the direct questions put to you. This is a lost cause. Dealing with Christians makes me feel unclean.

I offer those text since I did not detect any ability above their intended audience. I did not intend to overwhelm.

Past the history of F&S, again, you fail to show any ability to read comprehensibly. Where did I claim I could prove God? I have my own personal proofs but I feel no need to bold proclaim I have “overwhelming evidence” to bestow on the masses.

Shifting back from your quick dismissal of your bold proclamation. Observer, you on the other hand have a storehouse of information against God’s existence. Once again, an attempt to “shift” the burden of proof. Will you be offering evidence for review or are you just another voice spitting out old cliches?

I suppose I should not be surprised that you cite Spears (2008, 8th ed. McGraw-Hill) and Freeley and Steinberg (2008, 12th ed. Wadsworth-Cengage). These are high school-level texts. I did not find any of Spears to read online. I read a good bit of F&S and it is very elementary, but not wrong. (It is worth noting that Freeley is an ambulance chaser specializing in air-bag injuries. Cengage, the publisher is a vocational training outfit. ) It is funny, but if Theists were to even follow the very simple reasoning in this book, assuming average intelligence, they would not be able to follow their own professed religious beliefs.

For example: You claim there is a “God”. Using F&S the burden of proof is on you, as Ricky Gervais et al. have pointed out. Aquinas and those who followed have not been able to prove God for good reason.

You failed to cite anything on your assertions of provability. Was this a palliative line from a bible study instructor? If you are interested in this kind of thing, let me recommend a book from my own library, Polya’s Plausible Reasoning vol. I.

I never claimed existence of God is provable. I claimed the blanket statement claiming a negative cannot be proven is false. I suggest “Developing Critical Reading Skills” by Spears in this area.

Yes, please elaborate on this “overwhelming” evidence. I and the vast majority seemed to have missed this storehouse of evidence.