John Fields wrote:

[Image]

A very convincing argument to go to hell instead.

Graham

Eeyore wrote:

John Fields wrote:

[Image]

A very convincing argument to go to hell instead.


So you haven't changed your future plans?


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

John Fields wrote:

[Image]


Just imagine what is waiting for them in hell.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

In message , John Fields
writes


[ A UUEncoded file (Surprise Ahmed.JPG) was included here. ]

You're missing the other 62 and nobody said they were going to be
female...
--
Clint Sharp

Clint Sharp wrote:

In message , John Fields
writes


[ A UUEncoded file (Surprise Ahmed.JPG) was included here. ]

You're missing the other 62 and nobody said they were going to be
female...


The fact that they are dressed as nuns doesn't prove anything, does
it?

--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

"John Fields" wrote in message
...


I'll see your 'nuns with guns' and raise you a BC comic.
btw- the order of nuns I'm associated with used to have a basketball team
called 'nun better'...

A belated Happy Easter
Oppie

On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 19:33:45 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

I've wondered about that too. Pity Muslim men don't

What's in it for the virgins? I mean presumably they are defiled and
have to go to hell afterwards. What happens if your own sister is
numbered among the 76 ?

Religion makes no sense at all.

--

"default" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 19:33:45 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

Religion makes no sense at all.

Of course it doesn't. It's faith based.

On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:32:29 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 15:50:53 -0400, default
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 19:33:45 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

I've wondered about that too. Pity Muslim men don't

What's in it for the virgins? I mean presumably they are defiled and
have to go to hell afterwards. What happens if your own sister is
numbered among the 76 ?

Religion makes no sense at all.

I wasn't aware that Islamic Fundamentalism is the only religion.

It isn't, but any religion can be picked apart with logic. Faith is
the belief in something for which no proof exists. Religion relies on
faith - not proof, not logic, not anything tangible.

Men get all emotional about what they want to believe - it doesn't
have to make any sense at all from a rational point of view. Religion
offers security - men need security.

Politics, street gangs, nations, religions, clubs, organizations, etc.
are similar in that respect - if you "belong" you tend to defend your
exclusive group, without rational, let alone skeptical, analysis.

--

On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 19:20:55 -0400, default
wrote:

Politics, street gangs, nations, religions, clubs, organizations, etc.
are similar in that respect - if you "belong" you tend to defend your
exclusive group, without rational, let alone skeptical, analysis.


One of man's biggest faults.

All the retards that voted for Obama, then watched him say one thing
out of one side of his mouth, and something else out the other, ALL are
wearing horses blinders, because the ******* that cried about Bush's debt
TRIPLED IT!

The entire Obama voter crew are a bunch of total retards!

On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 20:01:13 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 19:20:55 -0400, default
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:32:29 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 15:50:53 -0400, default
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 19:33:45 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

I've wondered about that too. Pity Muslim men don't

What's in it for the virgins? I mean presumably they are defiled and
have to go to hell afterwards. What happens if your own sister is
numbered among the 76 ?

Religion makes no sense at all.

I wasn't aware that Islamic Fundamentalism is the only religion.

It isn't,

As someone who's about to hang their hat on "logic" you should know
better than to leap from the anecdotal to the general.

but any religion can be picked apart with logic. Faith is
the belief in something for which no proof exists. Religion relies on
faith - not proof, not logic, not anything tangible.

You've just described your 'believe system': that all of existence can
be formalized into 'logic' and 'proofs'.

No. That's what you are reading into what I write. Your inference.

Here's one for you to mull over, then. It has been shown, by the
system of formal logic and proof you hang your hat on, that in any non
trivial consistent logic system there exist theorems the system cannot
prove to be either true or false but that can be shown to be true or
false in a higher order system. (Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem)

No argument there - so now that that's established, give me god.

So, are you operating in the highest order logic? Can't be, because
there are always unprovable theorems in "any" consistent system of
logic. Or, to use the oft cited compression of it: "not all truths can
be proven."

Un provable theorems or unproved theorems? I like to think there is a
proof - I don't necessarily need to know it and mankind won't be
around long enough to prove some things. Things don't happen without
reasons.

So your own belief system tells you that arguing the 'non-existence'
of things simply because they are 'unprovable' is a logic fallacy.

Your words again. I don't believe in god, but that is only because I
see no proof or reason to believe - that, while unlikely, could
change. And the unlikely part has more to do with the length of time
people have already had to prove it, not my bias.

I don't have all the answers and I never will.

Men get all emotional about what they want to believe - it doesn't
have to make any sense at all from a rational point of view. Religion
offers security - men need security.

Those are your 'beliefs' and religious people believe in their truths
just as much as you believe in yours. They also argue that your
'logic' is insufficient to answer 'all things' which, ironically, is a
contention your own system of logic says is correct, that it cannot
prove or disprove 'all things'.

To me "truth" implies a reason and proof. Their truths can be way off
the mark. They have neither truth or falsehood - just faith.

So your 'belief' in "rationality" demands you accept the possibility
there just might be some religious 'truths', lack of 'proof'
notwithstanding, because we (well,, Gödel) have proved "not all truths
can be proven."

Not all truths have be proven. Some things can be true and never
proven. Not a reason to say a deity exists and far less to attribute
a character to it.

God may well exist - and be totally oblivious to the existence of
humans, unless god is omniscient which deals with the quality or
character of god. God may exist and be aware of humans but not care.
God may be incapable of awareness - as a natural force. Or perhaps
many gods.

We can play 'what if' forever. If we settle on god then we have to
decide which of the worlds religions got it right. The "true god."

I think of the unimaginable size of the universe and think that the
stage is much too large for the play.

Politics, street gangs, nations, religions, clubs, organizations, etc.
are similar in that respect - if you "belong" you tend to defend your
exclusive group, without rational, let alone skeptical, analysis.

That is a false equivalency and simply not true, as evidenced by, as
but one example, 'revolutions' because people reject the government.
Another is that people chose to join organizations, political parties,
street gangs, clubs, etc. and for you to claim there is never a
rational reason, and that they never engage in skeptical analysis, is
itself irrational.

There is a rational reason - it makes them feel secure. Humans
evolved to cooperate as a survival strategy - we are herd animals in
that respect. We feel most secure in a group. As population density
increases cooperation is supplanted with competition - but we still
join groups to compete with other groups.

Once they join and are welcomed into a group there's usually a lot of
acceptance of the leaders without rational examination. THATS a
generalization not meant to apply universally in every situation.
--

On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 01:31:54 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 21:58:33 -0400, default
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 20:01:13 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 19:20:55 -0400, default
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:32:29 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 15:50:53 -0400, default
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 19:33:45 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

I've wondered about that too. Pity Muslim men don't

What's in it for the virgins? I mean presumably they are defiled and
have to go to hell afterwards. What happens if your own sister is
numbered among the 76 ?

Religion makes no sense at all.

I wasn't aware that Islamic Fundamentalism is the only religion.

It isn't,

As someone who's about to hang their hat on "logic" you should know
better than to leap from the anecdotal to the general.

but any religion can be picked apart with logic. Faith is
the belief in something for which no proof exists. Religion relies on
faith - not proof, not logic, not anything tangible.

You've just described your 'believe system': that all of existence can
be formalized into 'logic' and 'proofs'.

No. That's what you are reading into what I write. Your inference.

Oh, so you don't believe in logic and proof, despite using that as
your rationale for what to believe?

I don't have a "doctrinal ideological dogmatic, belief system" You
are trying to attribute something that isn't there. Logic is more
likely to yield the truth than some guy in a black dress though.

Obviously you've had to argue the pro religious point of view and want
to take shortcuts by categorizing my "belief system" and presumably
once you've made those assumptions you will go on to "show me the
error of my ways."

The patronizing approach? Does that ever work?

Here's one for you to mull over, then. It has been shown, by the
system of formal logic and proof you hang your hat on, that in any non
trivial consistent logic system there exist theorems the system cannot
prove to be either true or false but that can be shown to be true or
false in a higher order system. (Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem)

No argument there

Good.

- so now that that's established, give me god.

Not my job or purpose. The point was you claimed religion was nothing
'tangible' but your reliance on a 'lack of proof' to make the
assertion is a logic fallacy.

It is lunacy to make a lot of assumptions, based on the highly
superstitious ideas of some humans who lived thousands of years ago,
then apply a character to a god etc., based on those ideas.

It may be that proof is lacking - but that's no justification to
believe in something. People believe because "it gives meaning to
their lives" (implying that without god there would not be meaning)
or they bought into their childhood indoctrination and fear hell, or
they want to think they live forever in heaven.

I'm human too and want those things. But to have blind faith in
anything, or any one, is outside my ability to rationalize.

So, are you operating in the highest order logic? Can't be, because
there are always unprovable theorems in "any" consistent system of
logic. Or, to use the oft cited compression of it: "not all truths can
be proven."

Un provable theorems or unproved theorems? I like to think there is a
proof - I don't necessarily need to know it and mankind won't be
around long enough to prove some things.

You just agreed with Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem and it says what
you'd "like to think" is simply not so.

Things don't happen without
reasons.

Amusingly enough, that was one of Einstein's arguments in favor of
God.

Einstein is a good example of someone who frequently referred to god.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable
superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able
to perceive With our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional
conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is
revealed in the incomprehensible Universe, forms my idea of God."

He had already made his own religion that didn't include any
conventional deity - but when he's quoted in public they conveniently
leave that out. That was from an early quote for public consumption
and what the NYT chose for his obituary.

Some other quotes of his:
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced
that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral
principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need
the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis
of reward and punishment." 1950

"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.... This is a somewhat new kind
of religion." 1954


http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/lastthoughts.html
Just as he dotted the i's and crossed the t's of his scientific
beliefs during the last year or so of his life, so did he recapitulate
his religious convictions. To Dr. Douglas he stated: “If I were not a
Jew I would be a Quaker.” And in an interview with Professor William
Hermanns, he said: “I cannot accept any concept of God based on the
fear of life or the fear of death or blind faith. I cannot prove to
you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him I
would be a liar.”

As to what one could believe in, the answer was simple enough. “I
believe in the brotherhood of man and the uniqueness of the
individual. But if you ask me to prove what I believe, I can't. You
know them to be true but you could spend a whole lifetime without
being able to prove them. The mind can proceed only so far upon what
it knows and can prove. There comes a point where the mind takes a
higher plane of knowledge, but can never prove how it got there. All
great discoveries have involved such a leap.”

Einstein never said he didn't believe in God - but his ideas about
what god was or how important god was changed throughout his life. He
was agnostic, for all intents and purposes, when he died.

So your own belief system tells you that arguing the 'non-existence'
of things simply because they are 'unprovable' is a logic fallacy.

Your words again.

Of course they're 'my words', I typed them. They come from *your*
words, though, explaining your 'belief' in logic and proof, which you
just stated you'd 'like to think' is always there, but Gödel proved is
not.

You seem to think I have some doctrine I espouse. I have faith in
logic but that isn't blind faith. It isn't a dogmatic system of
beliefs - only one simple thought. Don't try to imply assume
categorize from a simple statement.

A belief system implies (to me) an interrelated or interlocking
collection of beliefs that form some doctrine - like a litany or
catechism.

I don't believe in god,

That was clear.

but that is only because I
see no proof

And that's the point. You basing it on 'no proof' is a logic fallacy
because it has been proved that "not all truths can be proven."

I agree with you 100% But that hardly means that there's a good reason
to believe IN god simply because the negative assertion can't be
proven.

You make a positive assertion. Most religions do that and then go on
to tell us about devils, satan, heaven, hell, the likes and dislikes
of god - and "oh by the way, you have to do this or that, or can't do
this or that, because my god doesn't like it." and finally: "I have a
duty to obey my god and that duty includes making you obey my god."

or reason to believe - that, while unlikely, could
change. And the unlikely part has more to do with the length of time
people have already had to prove it, not my bias.

But it *IS* your bias and 'belief' because you continue to insist that
'truth *must* be provable despite Gödel proving "not all truths can be
proven."

Truth doesn't have to be provable not my assertion - my assertion is
that this truth would have to be proven before I buy into it. AND by
extension I have trouble understanding why anyone would believe
something like god without a good proof.

God developed through the ages. Early rulers found god(s) convenient
to manipulate large groups of people. Did away with a lot of pesky
explaining and kept the deities under their control- they wouldn't
have to share power with the priests. Control the priests, control
the people.

Monotheism was an improvement. Give all the power to a single god
(there was a god and goddess - but the Jews ditched her when the bible
came out). Christianity and Islam were improvements on the Jewish god
(who went around smiting and acting all hissy when he didn't get his
juvenile way).

I don't "believe" that necessarily, but there's archeological support
of that idea and it makes more sense than the theistic ideas to me.
So I might conditionally believe it until or unless something more
believable comes along.

"length of time" has nothing to do with it.

Does to my way of thinking. Lot of way smarter folks than you and I
had a go at proving god and haven't done so. They have skin in that
game, I don't. Given motive and opportunity and time I would think
they could do better than "faith."


I don't have all the answers and I never will.

Men get all emotional about what they want to believe - it doesn't
have to make any sense at all from a rational point of view. Religion
offers security - men need security.

Those are your 'beliefs' and religious people believe in their truths
just as much as you believe in yours. They also argue that your
'logic' is insufficient to answer 'all things' which, ironically, is a
contention your own system of logic says is correct, that it cannot
prove or disprove 'all things'.

To me "truth" implies a reason and proof.

I know. And that's the fallacy. Gödel proved "not all truths can be
proven."

Not all truths have been proven - some truths will never be proven -
all truths are provable. Gödel was expounding on truth that he
couldn't prove -

Their truths can be way off
the mark.

Could be but that's not at issue. The issue is your instance that only
things 'provable' can be 'true'. And that has been proven untrue.

They have neither truth or falsehood - just faith.

Never said or meant to imply that all truths have to "be proven" to
"be true." Just said I need proof of god before I will believe. I
find the whole concept very unlikely.

In your opinion based on your 'faith' of what constitutes 'truth'.
I.E., as you have repeated, 'provable'. But you have a bit of a 'faith
crisis' brewing because Gödel proved "not all truths can be proven."

Gödel had a philosophical theorem, based on mathematical concepts
which he couldn't prove or were un provable for all practical
purposes. He or you are extrapolating that into some idea that proof
isn't ever (my take on what you're writing) necessary or needed.

I need a proof - that doesn't include a lot of contradictory scripture
written by fearful superstitious people.

So your 'belief' in "rationality" demands you accept the possibility
there just might be some religious 'truths', lack of 'proof'
notwithstanding, because we (well,, Gödel) have proved "not all truths
can be proven."

Not all truths have be proven.

You've been claiming they do.

Read it again - this is one that would have to see proof before I
would buy into it.

Some things can be true and never
proven.

Not only that but some things can be true and UNprovable.

I don't agree there - I would agree that humans may not have the
capacity to prove some things but un provable is an un provable
assertion - and likely as not, the un provable truth is just that - an
assertion itself that is unproven - un provable in human terms
perhaps, but evolution hasn't necessarily stopped - we may yet evolve
further - but likely as not, not every thing that has a proof will be
proven - that doesn't mean it is "un provable."

All it means is that you gave up trying and found something better to
do with your time.

Not a reason to say a deity exists and far less to attribute
a character to it.

No one said 'that' was the reason and I dare say no religious person
would claim 'that' is the reason.

My assertion is that we not only created god, but gave him qualities
that we think he should have - stretches credulity IMO. The almighty
seems to have the same character traits and flaws of his imperfect
creations.

God may well exist - and be totally oblivious to the existence of
humans, unless god is omniscient which deals with the quality or
character of god. God may exist and be aware of humans but not care.
God may be incapable of awareness - as a natural force. Or perhaps
many gods.

We can play 'what if' forever. If we settle on god then we have to
decide which of the worlds religions got it right. The "true god."

I think of the unimaginable size of the universe and think that the
stage is much too large for the play.

You are free to have your own opinions. I'm just pointing out that
your previously stated 'reason' for railing against religion is
irrational, as defined by the logic you were calling upon. I.E. It is
irrational to argue unprovable truth does not exist when Gödel proved
it does.


Politics, street gangs, nations, religions, clubs, organizations, etc.
are similar in that respect - if you "belong" you tend to defend your
exclusive group, without rational, let alone skeptical, analysis.

That is a false equivalency and simply not true, as evidenced by, as
but one example, 'revolutions' because people reject the government.
Another is that people chose to join organizations, political parties,
street gangs, clubs, etc. and for you to claim there is never a
rational reason, and that they never engage in skeptical analysis, is
itself irrational.

There is a rational reason - it makes them feel secure. Humans
evolved to cooperate as a survival strategy - we are herd animals in
that respect. We feel most secure in a group. As population density
increases cooperation is supplanted with competition - but we still
join groups to compete with other groups.

Well, it's a theory, I suppose, but irrelevant because you had just
argued "without rational, let alone skeptical, analysis" but now have
decided to claim there's rational analysis.

There's rational analysis that would suggest human behavior is
predictable and follows some logic or underlying reason. When coming
up with a proof of god the science you need to turn to is psychology -
a poor paraphrase of something Einstein once said.

I think you're preoccupied with simple, superficial and convenient
'buzz word' analysis because, as one example, people compete even in
cooperative groups, and even when the group is a whole 2.

I do like simple. Ockham's razor and all.

Pardon the pun but "makes them feel secure" is just a convenient
opinion that makes you feel secure. The 'secure' feeling that "I have
a good reason for my beliefs and they don't" (mainly because you
conveniently assigned to them a rationale you consider insufficient).

That is true. I feel secure when I can posit an explanation for the
seemingly illogical. Doesn't mean its the only one but it does make
sense.

The same 'security' rationale can be argued for a belief in logic and
the sciences, as in "boy, I've got the world figured out" or, at
least, enough of it to feel 'secure'.

No I had a heavy childhood indoctrination into religion - I was always
going to hell for daring to question my teachers on those points. So
yes, I do feel more secure with an explanation that doesn't include
heaven (don't want to be around those people) or hell (supposed to be
worse).

I also see the evil religion visits on the world "in the name of God
Almighty!" More like men using religion - but that's what its there
for.

Now, you might counter that, no, you're interested in the 'truth' and
'real' nature of things.

I dare say they'd say the same thing.

Reality has a lot to recommend it, but that's not the point your 're
going for.

Once they join and are welcomed into a group there's usually a lot of
acceptance of the leaders without rational examination. THATS a
generalization not meant to apply universally in every situation.

It's a generalization that I don't think applies much at all. People
'accept' leaders as long as they perceive the relationship as
beneficial but history tells us they'll turn on them in an instant if
not, unless restrained by other factors like force or principle (as
in, we're a democracy so we wait till the next election rather than
storm the Bastille)..

Turn on them in an instant???? No people value their comfort and are
complaisant and lazy (probably a good survival trait at one time)

". . .all Experience hath shown, that Mankind are more disposed to
suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by
abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long
Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object,
evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their
Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide
new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient
Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which
constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The
History of the present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated
Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the
Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this,
let Facts be submitted to a candid World."
--

In message , Michael A.
Terrell writes
The fact that they are dressed as nuns doesn't prove anything, does
it?

Ahh, you misunderstand me, nobody said the virgins in paradise that are
waiting for the martyrs had to be female.

I've seen some fairly impressive facial hair on some nuns....
--
Clint Sharp

Clint Sharp wrote:

In message , Michael A.
Terrell writes
The fact that they are dressed as nuns doesn't prove anything, does
it?

Ahh, you misunderstand me, nobody said the virgins in paradise that are
waiting for the martyrs had to be female.

I've seen some fairly impressive facial hair on some nuns....


Why else do you think they were virgins?

BTW, I've head that virgin wool comes from British sheep.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

In message , Michael A.
Terrell writes
I've seen some fairly impressive facial hair on some nuns....


Why else do you think they were virgins?
Lol, you have a point...

BTW, I've head that virgin wool comes from British sheep.
Hard to say, I doubt you'd get it from Welsh sheep....




--
Clint Sharp

Clint Sharp wrote:

In message , Michael A.
Terrell writes
I've seen some fairly impressive facial hair on some nuns....


Why else do you think they were virgins?
Lol, you have a point...

BTW, I've head that virgin wool comes from British sheep.
Hard to say, I doubt you'd get it from Welsh sheep....


They Welsh on everything. ;-)

i heard the sheep were so ugly that the farm workers had to wear bags
over their heads while they sheared the sheep. It sounds like Phil got
to them.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

In message , Michael A.
Terrell writes
i heard the sheep were so ugly that the farm workers had to wear bags
over their heads while they sheared the sheep. It sounds like Phil got
to them.
Phil, you shearing that sheep mate? Nah, get yer own...



--
Clint Sharp

Clint Sharp wrote:

In message , Michael A.
Terrell writes
i heard the sheep were so ugly that the farm workers had to wear bags
over their heads while they sheared the sheep. It sounds like Phil got
to them.

Phil, you shearing that sheep mate? Nah, get yer own...


An old Daffy Duck line would be more appropriate:

"It's mine, you understand? Mine! All mine! Get back in there! Down,
down, down! Go, go, go! Mine, mine, mine! Mwa-ha-ha-ha!
"


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

To All:

I got a kick out of the guy who said, "I'll trade the 72 virgins for
one 30-year-old slut who knows what she's doing"!

DaveinFLL

UltimatePatriot wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 19:20:55 -0400, default
wrote:

Politics, street gangs, nations, religions, clubs, organizations,
etc. are similar in that respect - if you "belong" you tend to
defend your exclusive group, without rational, let alone skeptical,
analysis.


One of man's biggest faults.

All the retards that voted for Obama, then watched him say one thing
out of one side of his mouth, and something else out the other, ALL
are wearing horses blinders, because the ******* that cried about
Bush's debt TRIPLED IT!

A lie. Bush is responsible for $5.5 trillion in debt, and the
responsibility for the bailout money goes straight to Phil Gramm and
Clinton's 1999 republican congress.

Obama is doing what republican deregulation forced on him. Without that
necessity his expenditures so far would be miniscule.

On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 00:06:48 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 09:26:45 -0700, Fred Abse
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 20:01:13 -0500, flipper wrote:

So, are you operating in the highest order logic? Can't be, because
there are always unprovable theorems in "any" consistent system of
logic. Or, to use the oft cited compression of it: "not all truths can
be proven."

AIUI, a theorem *has* to be provable, otherwise it's not a theorem. It
would otherwise be an axiom, a postulate, or a conjecture.

True and for precision I probably should have said "statement" instead
of theorem. I'm not sure, though, but what that might lead to a
misunderstanding of 'statement'.

To wit, your quite correct argument that a "theorem," as defined in
the mathematic system, *must* be provable, in the mathematical system,
in order to be called a theorem, by the mathematical system, is a
circular requirement when the point is one of unprovable truths. I.E.
it presumes the matter of truth must be internally resolvable, which
is what Godel proved isn't necessarily true.

Your complaint is valid, as far as the system's own definition, but,
in my defense, I could ask "in which mathematical system?" since it's
provable in one of a higher order. So we have the situation where it
isn't a "theorem" in system A but it is a "theorem" in system B.

Btw, a good example of 'theory abuse' is, so called, 'Global Warming."
It doesn't, as of yet anyway, qualify as a scientific theory for a
number of reasons.

1. It doesn't explain known observations. Anomalies are simply
dismissed as 'irrelevant'.

That's not necessarily a killer because theories are seldom 'complete'
but, in this case, there are some pretty big holes that go to the core
of the conjecture. Like explaining why ice ages, and their end, begin
with temperature change before CO2 changes. They say "don't know" what
started it BUT the 'rest' was CO2. Well, if you don't know what
started it then you don't know it didn't continue to drive it (or if
something else did).

They may be right but "don't know" is not an explanation of known
observations and since the "don't know" is precisely the kind of
temperature change they are supposedly concerned with then it goes to
the core of the speculation.

2. It makes no new, testable, predictions. That might seem
nonsensical, considering there are hundreds of 'dire predictions', but
'predicting' dern near any and everything isn't a 'prediction' in the
scientific sense. E.g. Einstein's Theory of Relativity didn't say
light 'might get bent if ' in a gravity field by, well, whatever
magnitude and direction we 'might see' in the future. It said light
will bend by exactly this much, now go measure it to see if I'm right.

If global temperature is the 'measurement' then we have to, at least,
get them to make a 'prediction' that doesn't change every time they
rerun the model and explain why the last 10 years have seen no
increase, but a slight decrease, in global temps.

That makes the next one virtually moot...

3. It isn't testable, partly because there are no 'theory' predictions
made. Find a 'contradiction' to one 'dire prediction' and it's simply
replaced with another 'dire prediction', which is easy to do as
they're simply wild speculations loosely derived, to be kind, from a
core speculation that changes, pardon the pun, more often than the
climate.

Maybe one of those 'unprovable truths', or not, eh?

Look spud. You are wasting your typing time. Post some electronics.