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 |
  |____________________________________________|