Red Iguana Dawn

Prelude (4 of 5): Red Iguana

From: sprowell@grape.cs.utk.edu (Stacy Prowell)
Subject: PRELUDE TO RED IGUANA DAWN (4 of 5) Red Iguana
Date: 14 Mar 1994 15:03:46 GMT
Message-ID: <2m1uciINNbut@CS.UTK.EDU>

Here's the post where I present a formal proof of Publius' Iguananess.

Re: BACK TO SQUARE ONE

In article <2k8qde$u9f@inca.gate.net>, publius@inca.gate.net (Publius) writes:
|>  OK! I get the message! So it's back to 'square one'!

Stacy: Oh, hi Stan.

|>  It is said that if you repeat a lie often enough it will
|>  eventually be believed:

Stacy: [raising eyebrow] Oh, so that's your tactic.

|>  The Atheist Lie is - (based on the fact

Stacy: ...that Conspicuous Capital Letters lend and Air of Truth and Accuracy to idiotic Drivel.

|>  that Western Science has uncovered a cascade of details about the
|>  Physical Universe) - that that is all there is to Existence and        
|>  Reality.

Stacy: Uh, you mean if it hasn't been discovered it doesn't exist?

Dis. Advisor: Well, you're outa luck, Mr. Prowell!

Stacy: Gee...

|>  It is a beguiling pitch and it is readily believed.

Stacy: ...by small furry animals...

Dis. Advisor: ...with nothing better to do.

|>  Nevertheless it is a Big Lie. - But let's stick to the basic point.

Stacy: Ah! It's a lie! Did you hear that?

Dis. Advisor: Well, okay, I guess you're safe for now.

|>  The Atheist Belief is that everything in the Universe, including  
|>  Life itself, is completely explainable according to the Laws of
|>  Physics and Chemistry.

Stacy: Physics and Chemistry? What about mathematics?

Dis. Advisor: Har! Now you're in trouble!

Stacy: <gulp!> Maybe he means to implicitly include mathematics in those?

|>  From that we can postulate the "God" and
|>  "Religion" of the Atheist Belief. - We all know now how that goes!

Stacy: Uh, no. If atheism is the disbelief in god, then it makes no sense to postulate an atheist god. Look at it this way.

Let B = {x|x is a system}
Let G = {x|x is in B and x contains a god}
Let A = B - G  (set difference)

Defn:  
An "atheist system" is any element of A.


Stan:  
Atheism is a system which contains a god.

Stacy: Let C be an atheist system. C is in A, by definition. Also, we know C is in B, but not in G. However, all systems of B which contain a god are in G, and C cannot be in G by the definition of A. Contradiction.

We have (C is in A) -> (C is in G), or T -> F. Great! Now let's see...

Since from a false premise, anything follows, and you have admitted the false premise (C is in G) to your system, we can do the following:

Atheist systems contain a god (C is in G) implies Publius (Stan) is a bright red iguana. Ah, that's settled. Next?

|>  You want to debate? Debate your basic Belief and leave out that
|>  "Humanist' stuff. It doesn't 'compute'.     PUBLIUS

Stacy: Are we being too "intellectual" for Mister Iguana?

|>  P.S.- Some of you low-lifes say you're going to get me off the Net.
|>  It figures:"From "Political Correctness" to "Religious Correctness".

Stacy: Pbbbbt!

-- 
-- _Stacy Prowell_______sprowell@utkcs.utk.edu_
  |                                            |
  | The mysterious UNIX paradigm:              |
  |                                            |
  |   "No design is better than a bad design." |
  |                             - Ken Thompson |
  |____________________________________________|

Red Iguana Dawn Prev Next