Graduate school

[jason_t]

Who in the forum is a graduate student or postdoc and can relate to the stress of qualifying exams, thesis writing and so on?

I am a PhD student in mathematics.

[The-Matador]

I did an M.Phil in philosophy and a Ph.d in mathematical logic and I can relate. It sucks so much. So very, very much.

[Hojglad]

I am starting my master's in electrical engineering next semester. While I don't have the experience to speak on a personal level about it, everyone I have talked to that has completed their dissertation defense and qualifying exam have nothing positive to say. Most seem to indicate that the qualifying exam is pretty much a survey of everything you have ever learned. They suggest starting to prepare for it roughly 3-4 months in advance. Review all your textbooks from various classes you took at the undergraduate level. As far as the oral defense goes - good luck. From what I hear, you will be asked every professor on the board's favorite trick question over material that you have long forgotten. It's supposed to be like hell, but hotter.

Once again, good luck. Hopefully you won't need it.

[kenberman]

[ QUOTE ]
I did an M.Phil in philosophy and a Ph.d in mathematical logic and I can relate. It sucks so much. So very, very much.

[/ QUOTE ]

that's funny, I thought you were a lawyer.

[Utah]

I have an MBA from the University of MN that I did at the same time I had a very stressful strategic planning job. 4 days a week I left the house at 5:30 and got home at 10:00.

It was ridiculous.

[The-Matador]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I did an M.Phil in philosophy and a Ph.d in mathematical logic and I can relate. It sucks so much. So very, very much.

[/ QUOTE ]

that's funny, I thought you were a lawyer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am. U of Toronto law school. See the thread entitled "What's Your Story" in the THE General forum if you want to know the details.

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I did an M.Phil in philosophy and a Ph.d in mathematical logic and I can relate. It sucks so much. So very, very much.

[/ QUOTE ]

that's funny, I thought you were a lawyer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Silly mortal, don't you know that you can be both a male/female while having an M.Phil, a Ph.D, and a J.D.?

Has it(I'm saying "it" because we don't really know what it is, if it's a male or female, etc.) told you about his M.D. yet? It got it back 5 years ago and then did a residency in neurosurgery followed by a fellowship in pediatric neurosurgery?

It's a genius, man!

[The-Matador]

I went to grad school and then went to law school. It's pretty godamn common.

[Dead]

I don't think you went to either. I think that opinion is pretty common around here.

[The-Matador]

Believe what you like.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
I did an M.Phil in philosophy and a Ph.d in mathematical logic and I can relate. It sucks so much. So very, very much.

[/ QUOTE ]

What were your theses topics?

[StevieG]

[ QUOTE ]
Who in the forum is a graduate student or postdoc and can relate to the stress of qualifying exams, thesis writing and so on?

I am a PhD student in mathematics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Physics. First year was a real grind. But I made some of the best friends of my life there, met my wife, and forged a career path (though not in Physics -- some people learn from grad school what they should not be doing).

So I'm feeling your flavor, picking up what you're laying down.

[The-Matador]

M.Phil was a critique St. Anselm's 2nd ontological argument for the existence of God and Ph.D was on Kurt Godel's modal version.

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
M.Phil was a critique St. Anselm's 2nd ontological argument for the existence of God and Ph.D was on Kurt Godel's modal version.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see that you know how to use Google.

[adamstewart]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I did an M.Phil in philosophy and a Ph.d in mathematical logic and I can relate. It sucks so much. So very, very much.

[/ QUOTE ]

that's funny, I thought you were a lawyer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am. U of Toronto law school. See the thread entitled "What's Your Story" in the THE General forum if you want to know the details.

[/ QUOTE ]


Wow, Undergrad...Master's....Ph.D. .... law school ... lawyer...

...all by the tender age of 29.


What a mintute!?!? Something's not adding up!!

[adamstewart]

One thing *is* for sure, though...

You're a liar.


(and that's be *proven*)


Adam

[Dead]

Bingo. We saw the screenshots of the Geocities web addresses Matador. You lied for months and months, and you expect people on here to believe you now?

Get real.

[The-Matador]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
M.Phil was a critique St. Anselm's 2nd ontological argument for the existence of God and Ph.D was on Kurt Godel's modal version.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see that you know how to use Google.

[/ QUOTE ]

Feel free to ask me any questions on either topic. I have both of my theses right here.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
M.Phil was a critique St. Anselm's 2nd ontological argument for the existence of God and Ph.D was on Kurt Godel's modal version.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tell me more about your PhD thesis. What original work did you produce on this topic?

[The-Matador]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I did an M.Phil in philosophy and a Ph.d in mathematical logic and I can relate. It sucks so much. So very, very much.

[/ QUOTE ]

that's funny, I thought you were a lawyer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am. U of Toronto law school. See the thread entitled "What's Your Story" in the THE General forum if you want to know the details.

[/ QUOTE ]


Wow, Undergrad...Master's....Ph.D. .... law school ... lawyer...

...all by the tender age of 29.


What a mintute!?!? Something's not adding up!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Just in case you were unaware, an M.Phil takes a year and a Ph.D takes 2 years in England. The University of Toronto is a JD school, not an LLB school, so it takes 3 years.

4 years undergrad, 3 years grad school, and 3 years law school is 10 years, in case you couldn't add that up.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
I see that you know how to use Google.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please give the guy a break. If he's lying, he is in over his head. If he is telling the truth, then I would like to have an interesting discussion with him without the whole forum giving him crap because of the s[/i]hit he pulled with CinnamonWind etc. He f[/i]ucked up, yes, and it's hard to give him respect, but don't go overboard with giving him a hard time. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
M.Phil was a critique St. Anselm's 2nd ontological argument for the existence of God and Ph.D was on Kurt Godel's modal version.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see that you know how to use Google.

[/ QUOTE ]

Feel free to ask me any questions on either topic. I have both of my theses right here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it impossible to satisfy Axiom II in Kurt Godel's ontological proof?

What is the main problem that most critics have with Axiom III?

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I see that you know how to use Google.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please give the guy a break. If he's lying, he is in over his head. If he is telling the truth, then I would like to have an interesting discussion with him without the whole forum giving him crap because of the s[/i]hit he pulled with CinnamonWind etc. He f[/i]ucked up, yes, and it's hard to give him respect, but don't go overboard with giving him a hard time. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

[/ QUOTE ]

He trolled these message boards for months. I'm just questioning a couple of his claims.

Thanks

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
I am starting my master's in electrical engineering next semester. While I don't have the experience to speak on a personal level about it, everyone I have talked to that has completed their dissertation defense and qualifying exam have nothing positive to say. Most seem to indicate that the qualifying exam is pretty much a survey of everything you have ever learned. They suggest starting to prepare for it roughly 3-4 months in advance. Review all your textbooks from various classes you took at the undergraduate level. As far as the oral defense goes - good luck. From what I hear, you will be asked every professor on the board's favorite trick question over material that you have long forgotten. It's supposed to be like hell, but hotter.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've taken two of my three qualifying exams. One of them was an entrance exam and was a review of everything I learned as an undergraduate. The second was insanely hard, and I studied for it for an entire summer. The morning of the exam, I took a wrong turn and got stuck in L.A. traffic, adding to the hell that the exam was. I'm taking my third exam next autumn, and will study the entire summer for it. I'm working on a thesis topic now and hope to be done in about two years; I don't even want to think about how stressful the defense will be. Nonetheless, graduate school is a very rewarding endeavor seeing that I have the opportunity to study and master whatever I want. I just wish it wasn't so damn difficult!

[ QUOTE ]
Once again, good luck. Hopefully you won't need it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Same to you in your Master's program.

[The-Matador]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
M.Phil was a critique St. Anselm's 2nd ontological argument for the existence of God and Ph.D was on Kurt Godel's modal version.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tell me more about your PhD thesis. What original work did you produce on this topic?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here was my table of contents:

1. Introductory Remarks - A Brief History of Modal Ontological Arguments 2

2. Hartshorne 6
2.1 Introductory Remarks 6
2.2 The Proof 7
2.3 Analysis 9
2.4 Summary 27

3. Malcolm 27
3.1 Introductory Remarks 27
3.2 Malcolm’s Principle 44
3.3 Atemporality, Eternity, and Necessity 49
3.4 Aristotle, Denyer, and Eternity 56
3.5 Denyer’s Principle Restricted 68
3.6 Summary 86

4. Plantinga 87
4.1 Introductory Remarks 87
4.2 Initial Criticisms 108
4.3 Reformulation and Further Analysis 134
4.4 Summary 133

5. Gödel 134
5.1 Introductory Remarks 134
5.2 Logical Structure 156
5.3 Use of S5 159
5.4 Scott 167
6.5 Sobel 169
5.6 Anderson 175
5.7 Adams 177
5.8 Oppy 185
5.9 Further Analysis 199
5.10 Summary 200

6. S5 and Metaphysical Modality 201
6.1 The Chisholm Problem 201
6.2 Stephanou, S5 and B 232
6.3 Can the Modal Arguments Survive? 267

7. Conclusion 268

Appendix 1 – Gödel’s Proof 269
Appendix 2 – Dana Scott’s version of Gödel’s proof 271
Appendix 3 – Sobel’s version of Gödel’s proof 273
Appendix 4 – Anderson’s version of Gödel’s proof 274
Bibliography 275



Here's a short excerpt (any symbols won't translate and come out garbled):

Faced with the invalidity of the argument, how might we rehabilitate it so as to render it valid while preserving as much of Malcolm’s original intent as possible? Generally, Malcolm wants to make the move from the eternity of the existence of God to the claim that if God exists, its existence is either necessary or impossible. Thus, another way for a supporter of Malcolm to argue his way out might be to adopt an argument that would have been badly out of fashion but for Denyer’s recent defence of a claim made by Aristotle.

In De Caelo, Aristotle argues against the Platonic cosmology and claims that it is absurd to say both that a thing (in this case, the motion of the heavens around the earth) will go on forever and that it can stop. We might restate this as the view that is a proposition will be true at all future times, it is necessarily true. One might extend Malcolm by claming that any proper conception of God must be such that it includes eternal duration as one of the attributes of God—that the duration of God’s existence, should God exist, is forevermore. Thus, if God exists, he must eternally exist. If one accepts that all things that eternally exist necessarily exist, then Malcolm has what he needs: an argument for the claim that if God exists, his existence is necessary (or, equivalently, that God’s existence is either necessary or impossible). The primary virtue of this strategy, other than avoiding the objections to Malcolm’s own conception of eternity, is that it avoids the Kantian objection. It does not imply that existence itself is a property, but rather ascribes another property to the conception of God that, when united with God’s existence, results in God’s necessary existence.

After formalizing Aristotle’s point satisfactorily, Nicholas Denyer argues for the following principle for any formula a:
DP: a ® (◊Ø a ↔ ◊ ( a & F Ø a)]

In this formulation, ◊ ( a & F Ø a) renders ‘it can cease to be the case that a, and so the entire principle, when cast in possible worlds terminology, reads: ‘if a is true, then there is a possible world in which a is not true just in case there is a possible world W in which both a is true and at some time in the future of W a fails to be true.’ Generally, the principle states that if and only if a proposition can at some time in the future fail to be true is it possible for the proposition to be false.

Denyer’s argument against the Platonic metaphysic is compelling, and the use to which his principle is put seems appropriate at first glance. It is not entirely implausible to suppose that if a proposition p obtains forevermore, there is some sense in which it is necessary that p obtains. If it will not come to be the case that p is false, Denyer tempts us to assert further that it cannot be the case that p will come to be false. This may be a temptation to be resisted.

If we stick to the level of ordinary language, Denyer’s principle is intuitively appealing. Though philosophers may want to believe that a proposition that is true forevermore can still be contingent, this may simply be incorrect. There are a number of permutations of Malcolm’s Principle for which a defender of Malcolm and/or Denyer might argue that eternally true propositions are necessarily true. In the first case, one might claim that any proposition true atemporally is necessarily true. A proposition can only change its truth-value by passing from truth/falsity into falsity/truth. The defender of Malcolm might here argue that in the case of an atemporally true proposition, this change is inconceivable, for there is no temporal medium (to put the point somewhat clumsily) through which the proposition can move to change truth-value. One might also argue that any atemporal proposition must be a proposition about atemporal objects, and that atemporal objects themselves cannot change (for again they cannot pass through a temporal “medium” to enable change).

In either case, the defender of Malcolm here might argue that the proposition “God exists” is either an atemporal proposition, a proposition about an atemporal object, or both. The key is that the Malcolm defender, with Denyer, claims that the proposition in question is not the type of proposition that can change its truth-value, and should thus, if true, be regarded as necessarily true and if false as necessarily false. In the case of the proposition “God exists,” Malcolm might claim that since this proposition cannot change its truth-value, it is either necessarily true or necessarily false. Faced with this, an opponent of Malcolm/Denyer might to argue that even if a proposition cannot change its truth-value within a possible world, this does not imply that there is no possible world in which is does not have a different truth-value.

However, this sort of move counterexample may rely on a sort of philosophical artificiality. Those who do not side with a Lewis-like picture of possible worlds generally conclude that they are a philosophical invention designed to model and clarify our talk about possibility and necessity. In the case of a proposition that will be true forevermore in the (only) actual world, the move toward claming such a proposition is necessarily true is natural. Should we insist on claming that such a proposition is still possibly false, we may be in danger of simply postulating a possible world and claiming without good reason that our world could have been like that one rather than the way it is. The fact remains that the proposition will be true forevermore in the actual world. The proposition will not be false, so in what meaningful sense can we then state that our world could have been such that the proposition is false?

Yet to commit to the view that there is no such meaningful sense, we seem to be additionally committed to asserting that a proposition will not be false just in case it cannot be false. That is to say that a proposition is true forevermore just in case it is necessarily true. When stated this way, propositions like ‘Caesar crossed the Rubicon’ are, once they become true, necessarily true, as propositions stating historical facts do not seem to be the sorts of propositions that can change their truth-value. This is, I believe, what imbues them with their apparent quasi-necessary status. Yet surely we want to express the (apparent) contingency of Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon by asserting that it is possible that he should not have.

The difference between such historical propositions and a proposition like ‘God exists’ is that a historical proposition acquires a truth-value at some particular time and cannot change it thenceforth, whereas Malcolm would claim that ‘God exists’ is the sort of proposition that has a truth-value at all times that cannot change. Thus, in every possible world, the proposition is either true or false and cannot change its truth-value. However, what he needs is an additional argument that the proposition ‘God exists’ cannot change truth-value across worlds. In both cases, the truth-value of the proposition cannot change within a world, but in the case of ‘God exists,’ Malcolm needs to argue that the truth-value is the same across all worlds.

The claims:

1. α is either true at all times or false at all times; and
2. α cannot change its truth-value;

do not entail the consistency of the truth-value of α across possible worlds. Yet to argue both for the claim that the proposition ‘God exists’ cannot change its truth-value and that it has the same truth-value in all possible worlds Malcolm might return to the claim that the proposition is true atemporally. As we have observed, an atemporal proposition does not seem able to change its truth-value, and so the question is then whether a proposition’s being atemporal entails a constant truth-value across all worlds.

The difficulty now is to pin down just exactly what is meant by “atemporal proposition.” If we are to distinguish an atemporal proposition from a non-atemporal proposition, we can either claim that an atemporal proposition expresses a fact about an atemporal object or that an atemporal proposition references an atemporal fact (unlike a non-atemporal proposition, which would presumably reference non-atemporal facts). It is not only unclear what an atemporal fact might be, but in both cases there is trouble for Malcolm.

Since ‘God exists’ is, for Malcolm a proposition about an atemporal object, the most natural way to interpret “atemporal proposition” might be the first way above. What we then ask about this proposition is if by virtue of it referring to an atemporal object its truth-value is consistent across worlds. This does not seem intuitive. Simply because a proposition references an atemporal object, this does not seem to entail that the proposition has a consistent truth-value across worlds.

In the second case above, Malcolm would have to claim that the atemporality of the fact referenced by the proposition ‘God exists’ entails a world-consistent truth-value for the proposition. Note that Malcolm cannot simply claim that the fact referenced exists in all possible worlds and therefore that any proposition referencing it has the same truth-value across all worlds, for this would be question-begging. I can see no good reason to believe that should a proposition reference an atemporal fact this entails a consistent truth-value across all worlds. To provide such a reason, one must furnish a proof that a) some facts are atemporal and others are not and b) the atemporal facts exist in all possible worlds. Further, if God does not exist, there is no fact for the proposition ‘God exists’ to refer to at all, and thus no way to establish the consistent truth-value via the atemporality of the referenced fact.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
I have an MBA from the University of MN that I did at the same time I had a very stressful strategic planning job. 4 days a week I left the house at 5:30 and got home at 10:00.

It was ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

From my undergraduate days, I can relate to this. I was an overloaded student, working on two majors and to pay for school I had a full-time job at a department store and a part-time job as a grader. I left for school at 6:00 AM, and returned from work at 12:00 midnight just in time to grade and do homework. If only I had discovered the profitability of Party Poker as an undergraduate. Sigh.

[jason_t]

This looks to me to be expository. Can you point out the original content? Thanks!

[The-Matador]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
M.Phil was a critique St. Anselm's 2nd ontological argument for the existence of God and Ph.D was on Kurt Godel's modal version.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see that you know how to use Google.

[/ QUOTE ]

Feel free to ask me any questions on either topic. I have both of my theses right here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it impossible to satisfy Axiom II in Kurt Godel's ontological proof?

What is the main problem that most critics have with Axiom III?

[/ QUOTE ]

Axiom 2 states that a property is either (exclusively) positive or not-positive.

There are two important points to note about this axiom. First, there is no provision for neutral properties in Gödel’s formulation. Next, the axiom is wholly objective, in the sense that there can be no context-dependant evaluations of the value of various properties. These two corollaries obviously carry important metaphysical consequences that may be controversial. But your question about whether the axiom is impossibly to "satisfy" simply does not make sense. It is either true or it is not true--there is no question of satisfaction.

As far as Axiom 3 goes, again your question is not a very bright one. According to this axiom, all properties that are positive are necessarily so (and so too for not-positive properties). Gödel remarks that the restated axiom (3a) “follows from the nature of the property,” though this is not entirely clear-cut. It is not obvious why properties could not be contingently positive. If Axiom 2 is meant to have an absolutely unrestricted domain (e.g., a domain over all possible worlds) then this explanation for Axiom 3 suffices, but this sort of domain fixture is neither present in the body of the proof nor in any accompanying notes. Of course, we may simply accept Gödel’s assumption that positive properties are so necessarily, but this may be to go too far.

Your question about what "most critics" think is misplaced, since there are only 4 major critics of the argument, and none of them take special issue with Axiom 3, except possibly Graham Oppy, who uses a modified version of the axiom to construct a parody argument.

Are you done being an ass now?

[Dead]

Meh.


You missed all of my questions. Then you asked me if I was done being an ass.

You were voted the biggest ass in one of OOT's frequent polls, so this is quite a funny question.

I am done with this thread. I have classes to attend tomorrow.

-Dead

[The-Matador]

[ QUOTE ]
This looks to me to be expository. Can you point out the original content? Thanks!

[/ QUOTE ]

First, I don't owe you a damn thing, since you're not my committee. But since it's so easy to cut and paste out of my thesis to make you look stupid, I'll provide another excerpt. Before I do though, I strongly suggest you re-read the one I posted, since it is clearly *not* expository.

Excerpt #2, discussing the aformentioned parody by Oppy:

Graham Oppy has recently presented a parody objection to the Gödelian argument based on the formulation given by Anderson. He states that the “problem – as with virtually all ontological arguments known to me – lies in the fact that there are parallel arguments which can be constructed, which seem no less acceptable to atheists and agnostics, but whose acceptance leads to absurd results.” There are two parody arguments Oppy makes. The first argument is constructed as follows (where a * and bold indicates a departure from the form of the proof given by Anderson):

Definition 1*: x is God*-like iff x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive, except for P1, …, Pn.
Definition 2: A is an essence of x iff for every property B, x has B necessarily iff A entails B.
Definition 3: x necessarily exists iff every essence of x is necessarily exemplified.
Axiom 1: Any property entailed by (= strictly implied by) a positive property is positive.
Axiom 2: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive.
Axiom 3*: The property of being God*-like is positive.
Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive.
Axiom 5*: Necessary existence is positive, and distinct from each of P1, …, Pn.
Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent (possibly exemplified).
Corollary 1*: The property of being God*-like is consistent.
Theorem 2*: If something is God*-like, then the property of being God*-like is an essence of that thing.
Theorem 3*: Necessarily, the property of being God*-like is exemplified.

This argument makes the case, provided one accepts Gödel’s proof, for the existence of any number of minor deities with various subsets of positive properties.

Oppy provides an initial objection to this parody by claiming that “one might take the view that any collection of positive properties which includes necessary existence entails each of the other positive properties.” This would be the view that any entity possessing some of the positive properties including necessary existence must possess them all. This is surely a controversial position to take, and would seem to require a substantial supporting argument. Oppy lends it some credence by formulating another parody argument in response to it, adding another axiom (axiom 6 below). Let † be some proper subset of the positive properties which includes necessary existence and say that a property is positive† just in case it belongs to this collection:

Definition 1†: x is God†-like iff x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive†.
Definition 2: A is an essence of x iff for every property B, x has B necessarily iff A entails B.
Definition 3: x necessarily exists iff every essence of x is necessarily exemplified.
Axiom 2†: Any property entailed by (= strictly implied by) a positive† property is positive†.
Axiom 1†: If a property is positive†, then its negation is not positive†.
Axiom 3†: The property of being God†-like is positive†.
Axiom 4†: If a property is positive†, then it is necessarily positive†.
Axiom 5†: Necessary existence is positive†.
Axiom 6†: Nothing which has some positive† properties including necessary existence fails to be God†-like.
Theorem 1†: If a property is positive†, then it is consistent (possibly exemplified).
Corollary 1†: The property of being God†-like is consistent.
Theorem 2†: If something is God†-like, then the property of being God†-like is an essence of that thing.
Theorem 3†: Necessarily, the property of being God†-like is exemplified.

Like its predecessor, Oppy’s second parody attempts to argue on Gödelian lines for the necessary existence of quasi-deities. And once again, Oppy presents an objection that the defenders of the Gödelian proof might make in response to this parody:

Of course, defenders of the original argument will object that Axiom 6† is false: nothing which is God-like is God†-like, even though anything which is God-like has some positive† properties including necessary existence. But I can’t see any reason why opponents of the original argument should be disposed to see any merit in this objection for it relies on the assumption that there is something which is God-like, i.e. it relies on the conclusion the original argument was supposed to demonstrate. If there is nothing which is God-like then at least for all that has been said so far it might be that there is something which is God†-like; i.e. it might be that Axiom 6† is true, while Axiom 6 is false.

This is both a weak objection and response. First, rejecting Axiom 6† does not commit one to the view that nothing which is God-like is God†-like. This is a misunderstanding of the objection. Rejecting Axiom 6† would commit one to saying nothing more and nothing less than that there is something that possesses some positive† properties including necessary existence yet nevertheless fails to be God†-like.

Notwithstanding this, any fuss about Axiom 6† is more trouble than it is worth, as it is contradicted by Definition 1†. Axiom 6† states that it is a sufficient condition for an object to be God†-like that it merely possess some positive† properties plus necessary existence. However, Definition 1† prescribes a necessary condition for objects that are God†-like – the object must possess all and only positive† properties as essential properties. One of Axiom 6† or Definition 1† will have to be jettisoned from this version of Oppy’s argument. Definition 1† cannot be purged without sacrificing the parody completely, and so it must be Axiom 6† that is abandoned. Note that the parody functions properly without Axiom 6†, as fundamentally both parodies are the same. The first simply excludes properties from the list of essential properties of the being under consideration, while the second includes only a subset of them.

However, recall that Axiom 6† was introduced in the second version to deal with an objection that is now outstanding. A theological response to the type of parody Oppy makes might be to claim that any being possessing necessary existence must also possess all other positive properties. This seems to be consonant with the general conception of the unity and completeness of God described by the major monotheistic faiths. Thus, a believing defender of the Gödelian argument might add an additional axiom to the effect that necessary existence necessitates the possession of all other positive properties:

Axiom 6`: Necessarily, nothing which has necessary existence fails to possess all positive properties.

The problem with a move of this kind, of course, is that the agnostic or atheist will have no reason admit this axiom. Given a sufficiently liberal conception of properties, and granting the underlying modal logic, the theorems of Gödel’s proof follow from axioms unfettered by theological implications. Axiom 6`, however, is clearly more theological in nature. Further, as Oppy notes, “those who are inclined to think that numbers and/or other abstracta are necessary existents will not find this acceptable.”

Are there other parody-related problems with Oppy’s argument? It does not seem so. Definition 1† is a appropriate modification of Gödel’s Definition 1, while Definition 2 and Definition 3 remain unchanged. Axiom 1† is suitable, as no positive property can imply a non-positive property, therefore no positive† property can imply a non-positive† property. Axiom 2† can be defended in the same way, as Gödel’s proof asserts that all positive properties, of which the set of positive† properties is a proper subset, have non-positive negations. Axioms 3†, 4†, and 5† could be rejected, but for precisely the same reasons as Gödel’s Axioms 3, 4, and 5 could be rejected, so there is no defect in the parody there. Theorem 1† cannot be rejected by a Gödelian defender, as no positive properties are inconsistent with one another, by Gödel’s lights. Theorem 1† verifies Corollary 1†. Theorems 2† and 3† follow from the axioms and definitions in the parody just as they follow in Gödel’s proof. Thus, without some sort of further axiom, like Axiom 6` above, Oppy’s parody of Gödel’s proof seems to establish that Gödel’s proof can be modified to prove the existence of any number of unique minor deities. The addition of such a controversial axiom would seem to compromise the spirit of the proof, which Gödel intended as a purely logical investigation (i.e., showing that a proof with classical assumptions like completeness, correspondingly axiomatized, is possible).

The remaining question is whether this is indeed a damning counter to Gödel. Parodies of this sort have typically put ontological arguments under, but there seems no obvious reason why this must be so. Perhaps it just so happens that there is an ontological proof available not only for the existence of a being possessed of all positive properties, but also for beings with every subset of the set of all positive properties. It may be slightly counterintuitive to accept such consequences, but this, in and of itself, is surely not a lethal blow to the argument.

However, one could strengthen Oppy’s parody so as to make the conclusion less general and more obviously absurd. Consider the following reformulation. Let # be the subset of the positive properties which includes necessary existence and each perfection that would be possessed by the perfect boiled egg. A property is positive# just in case it belongs to this collection:

Definition 1#: x is Egg#-like iff x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive#.
Definition 2: A is an essence of x iff for every property B, x has B necessarily iff A entails B.
Definition 3: x necessarily exists iff every essence of x is necessarily exemplified.
Axiom 1#: Any property entailed by ( = strictly implied by) a positive# property is positive#.
Axiom 2#: If a property is positive#, then its negation is not positive#.
Axiom 3#: The property of being Egg#-like is positive#.
Axiom 4#: If a property is positive#, then it is necessarily positive#.
Axiom 5#: Necessary existence is positive#.
Axiom 6#: Nothing which has some positive# properties including necessary existence fails to be Egg#-like.
Theorem 1#: If a property is positive#, then it is consistent (possibly exemplified).
Corollary 1#: The property of being Egg#-like is consistent.
Theorem 2#: If something is Egg#-like, then the property of being Egg#-like is an essence of that thing.
Theorem 3#: Necessarily, the property of being Egg#-like is exemplified.

This parody has a more obviously absurd conclusion. One might object to Axiom 3 by claiming that the property of being Egg#-like is not obviously positive, but I can see no reason for this objection that would not also apply to being God†-like. In fact, the proper subset of the set of all positive properties that renders a being Egg#-like would be one of the possible configurations of a properties that renders a being God†-like. In the example of the boiled egg, I have merely removed the word “God” and replaced it with “egg” to highlight the absurdity of the conclusion and provide more force to the parody.

However, even if it is then granted that the parody is potent, there are other, non-parody related logical concerns with the Oppy’s argument, and it can be shown to be inconclusive against Gödel. Oppy’s first parody contains a minor flaw which is corrected (though probably not intentionally) in the second version. If the set of all positive properties contains infinitely many members, then Definition 1 must be able to exclude infinitely many members, and as it stands in the first version it cannot. However, the prelude to the second version defines † as a proper subset of the set of all positive properties, thereby eliminating the difficulty.

There is another, much more serious, problem with Axioms 1 and 3 of the parody. Consider the second version, preferred by Oppy. It is clear in Gödel’s original argument that the set of all positive properties is closed under strict implication and closed under Axiom 3. Oppy’s parody likewise requires that the set † is closed under strict implication and under Axiom 3. This is not obvious. Perhaps, for example, the positive properties form a web of interconnected implication such that all proper subsets jointly imply all other positive properties. Perhaps there are some queer logical characteristics about positive properties that result in peculiar implication arrays. A given proper subset of the set of all positive properties thus may not be closed under strict implication or under Axiom 3 of the parody. Therefore, the parody does not work for just any subset of the set of all positive properties.

The problem is much deeper than this, however. There is no guarantee, and the burden is on Oppy to provide one, that any proper subset of the set of all positive properties can be closed under both strict implication and Axiom 3. For example, the smallest non-trivial set of positive properties closed under both strict implication and Axiom 3 might include every positive property. If this is the case, then Oppy’s argument does not work for any proper subset of the set of all positive properties, and the parody fails. Until Oppy can prove that some proper subset of the set of all positive properties can be closed under both strict implication and Axiom 3, I conclude that his parody is at best inconclusive.

/images/graemlins/heart.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif



And here's another one, where I briefly discuss whether old Kurt's preferred modal logic was S5 or not:

Gödel neither publicly pronounced definitively on his preferred modal semantics nor on his preferred modal logic. His ontological proof provides valuable clues to these questions, provided he held to the modal semantics contained in the proof. If this is granted, his preferred modal semantics were almost surely not that of possible worlds. He states that ◊($x)G(x) means that the system of positive properties is compatible, and this does not lend itself naturally to a possible worlds modal semantics.

Gödel also apparently did not endorse modal semantics of logical consistency. In his notes and writings on the ontological argument, he uses the German word kompatibel, which means “compatible” and not the German widerspruchfrei, meaning “consistent.” In his other writings, Gödel uses widerspruchfrei when he clearly means “consistent.” The natural conclusion is that he consciously chose to use kompatibel over widerspruchfrei in the ontological proof. Thus, if the proof can be considered to provide evidence on this matter, it seems likely that Gödel’s preferred modal semantics were of compatibility, not logical consistency or possible worlds.

Given this, one must decide what to make of his hesitations about the modal logic employed in his proof. Presumably he realized that S5 was needed, and the question then becomes whether he thought S5 was an inappropriate logic for his modal semantic, or whether he considered compatibility to be an inferior modal semantics, but endorsed S5. I contend that his concern was that S5 was not appropriate to his modal semantics.

First, a modal semantics of logical consistency supports reflexive, transitive, and symmetric classes of standard models, and thereby supports S5, yet Gödel consciously avoided the use of the word widerspruchfrei, indicating his favour was not with this modal semantics (one supported by S5). Next, there are some notions of compatibility on which S5 fails, certain ordinary language uses being the obvious cases. So we are again left with the evidence that Gödel clearly does not endorse logical consistency, semantics compatible with his proof. Instead, he actively prefers semantics that are in some cases incompatible with the logic of his proof.

Gödel’s own statement to White is in the singular, indicating a reservation about a single principle. Which principle in S5 he held reservations about is an open question. I tentatively conclude (until better evidence is presented) that the axiom Gödel was concerned about was 5. For if his reservation was regarding K or T, he would have constructed a proof relying on a very powerful normal logic (S5), all the while harboring concerns about weaker logics. Further, 5 is Euclidean, and thus commits one to a much more robust modality than T or K. Gödel may have preferred a weaker logic that only supported symmetric or transitive standard models (B or S4, respectively). However, if his concern was about T, this would indicate a reservation about reflexive standard models, which is a much more extreme position. A reservation about K is perhaps even more extreme, indicating a rejection of all standard models. This is not to say definitively that Gödel held reservations about 5, but simply that it seems more likely. Of course, Gödel may have endorsed a non-normal system, but this again seems rather improbable. I conclude that Gödel’s ontological proof presents some evidence to the effect that he cautiously supported S5, with reservations about axiom 5 of the system.

[The-Matador]

[ QUOTE ]
Meh.


You missed all of my questions. Then you asked me if I was done being an ass.

You were voted the biggest ass in one of OOT's frequent polls, so this is quite a funny question.

I am done with this thread. I have classes to attend tomorrow.

-Dead

[/ QUOTE ]

They clearly aren't philosophy or logic classes, and they clearly aren't on Gödel, since you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. It appears to me that you just made up a couple of questions without really bothering to think them through, and are now upset that I actually do know what I am talking about since I actually did get a Ph.D in precisely this topic.

I can see why you'd want to be done with a thread that you got owned so thoroughly on though, so have a nice sleep.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
He trolled these message boards for months.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know, and I understand the lack of respect that this has deservedly caused him. The guy is a proven liar, and an a[/i]ss, but he does sometimes say something interesting and correct.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm just questioning a couple of his claims.

[/ QUOTE ]

All you said was "I see that you know how to use Google." I think something more concrete may have been more productive.

[Dead]

What ... the [censored] ... are you guys on about?

I am a male lawyer from Toronto, Ontario. I can throw up a pic if you'd like. Who the deuce is Cinnamonwhatever?

[The-Matador]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He trolled these message boards for months.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know, and I understand the lack of respect that this has deservedly caused him. The guy is a proven liar, and an a[/i]ss, but he does sometimes say something interesting and correct.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm just questioning a couple of his claims.

[/ QUOTE ]

All you said was "I see that you know how to use Google." I think something more concrete may have been more productive.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do know how to use Google, but I defy anyone here to come up with virtually anything on this topic from there. My thesis was on a super obscure topic that only a handful of people have written on or understand (Gödel’s argument, not the general ontological argument, on which entirely too much has been written).

It's always nice to have people call you a liar and then have to eat their words. *smile*

[The-Matador]

[ QUOTE ]
What ... the [censored] ... are you guys on about?

I am a male lawyer from Toronto, Ontario. I can throw up a pic if you'd like. Who the deuce is Cinnamonwhatever?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh I've come clean about being a troll and having multiple identities. That little chestnut is old news now. The funny thing is that now dicks like you who decide to doubt everything I say end up looking like complete idiot douchebags when you try to prove it.

Go back to searching Google for intelligent things to ask me about my thesis. I'm sure you'll come up with something ... before bed.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
Who in the forum is a graduate student or postdoc and can relate to the stress of qualifying exams, thesis writing and so on?

I am a PhD student in mathematics.

[/ QUOTE ]

HA...

im an MBA at washington university in st.louis...

after reading your post i think MBAs are the kindergarteners of postgraduate work...its like naptime since they try to level the playing field for people without mathematical/statistical/analytical backgrounds....

but getting in wasn't easy, ...

and neither is getting an internship...so the internship/jobserach probably make up for the rest of the stress

-Barron

[Dead]

I have read Godel's ontological proof. I have never claimed to be an expert on it.

And, no, my classes are not in philosophy or logic.I never claimed that they were. In fact, they're in finance, because that is my major. Philosophy and logic bore me.

No, I was not owned. You clearly sidestepped my two questions.

-Dead

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He trolled these message boards for months.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know, and I understand the lack of respect that this has deservedly caused him. The guy is a proven liar, and an a[/i]ss, but he does sometimes say something interesting and correct.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm just questioning a couple of his claims.

[/ QUOTE ]

All you said was "I see that you know how to use Google." I think something more concrete may have been more productive.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do know how to use Google, but I defy anyone here to come up with virtually anything on this topic from there. My thesis was on a super obscure topic that only a handful of people have written on or understand (Gödel’s argument, not the general ontological argument, on which entirely too much has been written).

It's always nice to have people call you a liar and then have to eat their words. *smile*

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said what you attributed to me.

-Dead

[The-Matador]

[ QUOTE ]
I have read Godel's ontological proof. I have never claimed to be an expert on it.

And, no, my classes are not in philosophy or logic.I never claimed that they were. In fact, they're in finance, because that is my major. Philosophy and logic bore me.

No, I was not owned. You clearly sidestepped my two questions.

-Dead

[/ QUOTE ]

It's hard not to sidestep two idiotic questions.

The answer to your first question is that it DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. Axioms are either TRUE or FALSE. They cannot be "satisfied".

The answer to your second question is that Gödel’s critics have not focused on Axiom 3. There is a problem with it that could be met by assuming that Axiom 2 has an absolutely unrestricted domain, but it is impossible to tell you what the general criticism of most critics is since there ISN'T ONE. Therefore, it is also a stupid question.

Next.

[The-Matador]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He trolled these message boards for months.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know, and I understand the lack of respect that this has deservedly caused him. The guy is a proven liar, and an a[/i]ss, but he does sometimes say something interesting and correct.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm just questioning a couple of his claims.

[/ QUOTE ]

All you said was "I see that you know how to use Google." I think something more concrete may have been more productive.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do know how to use Google, but I defy anyone here to come up with virtually anything on this topic from there. My thesis was on a super obscure topic that only a handful of people have written on or understand (Gödel’s argument, not the general ontological argument, on which entirely too much has been written).

It's always nice to have people call you a liar and then have to eat their words. *smile*

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said what you attributed to me.

-Dead

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? So you didn't mean to call me a liar?

Is that what you're now claiming?

May I remind you that you told me I knew how to use Google, implying that this is what I had done to come up with my thesis topics, you then quizzed me (hamfistedly) on my thesis topic in an attempt to "out" me, and you said things like this:

"You lied for months and months, and you expect people on here to believe you now?

Get real."

Go to bed. You're dead here.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
First, I don't owe you a damn thing, since you're not my committee. But since it's so easy to cut and paste out of my thesis to make you look stupid, I'll provide another excerpt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nevermind. I just tried showing you some f[/i]ucking respect and displayed interest in your ideas and you come back as an a[/i]sshole.

[The-Matador]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
First, I don't owe you a damn thing, since you're not my committee. But since it's so easy to cut and paste out of my thesis to make you look stupid, I'll provide another excerpt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nevermind. I just tried showing you some f[/i]ucking respect and displayed interest in your ideas and you come back as an a[/i]sshole.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's okay. You came off as an a[/i]sshole too when you decided to tell me that the first excerpt I posted was expository when it clearly wasn't. I doubt you read it, you simply assumed I was lying, and you wanted to catch me. Too bad.

So I guess we're even.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
That's okay. You came off as an a[/i]sshole too when you decided to tell me that the first excerpt I posted was expository when it clearly wasn't. I doubt you read it, you simply assumed I was lying, and you wanted to catch me. Too bad.

So I guess we're even.

[/ QUOTE ]

Get off your f[/i]ucking high horse. If you read the other posts in this thread, I attempted to defend you. In light of those posts, the correct interpretation of my questions would be that I just didn't see the original content but was interested in learning what it was.

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He trolled these message boards for months.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know, and I understand the lack of respect that this has deservedly caused him. The guy is a proven liar, and an a[/i]ss, but he does sometimes say something interesting and correct.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm just questioning a couple of his claims.

[/ QUOTE ]

All you said was "I see that you know how to use Google." I think something more concrete may have been more productive.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do know how to use Google, but I defy anyone here to come up with virtually anything on this topic from there. My thesis was on a super obscure topic that only a handful of people have written on or understand (Gödel’s argument, not the general ontological argument, on which entirely too much has been written).

It's always nice to have people call you a liar and then have to eat their words. *smile*

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said what you attributed to me.

-Dead

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? So you didn't mean to call me a liar?

Is that what you're now claiming?

May I remind you that you told me I knew how to use Google, implying that this is what I had done to come up with my thesis topics, you then quizzed me (hamfistedly) on my thesis topic in an attempt to "out" me, and you said things like this:

"You lied for months and months, and you expect people on here to believe you now?

Get real."

Go to bed. You're dead here.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I never called you an ass. I did call you a liar.

And I am definitely going to bed now, but not because I got owned. I'm going because I wasted altogether too much time on you, troll.

You disrespected some of the longtime posters(Michael Davis, adamstewart, and many more) on this forum using multiple identitites and called them some awful things.

You think that your history will go away. It won't. You know why? Because you're the same person. The same [censored]. You haven't changed, Lansing. You still routinely disrespect people on here and that is why you are so strongly disliked by 90% of 2+2.

-Dead

[The-Matador]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He trolled these message boards for months.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know, and I understand the lack of respect that this has deservedly caused him. The guy is a proven liar, and an a[/i]ss, but he does sometimes say something interesting and correct.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm just questioning a couple of his claims.

[/ QUOTE ]

All you said was "I see that you know how to use Google." I think something more concrete may have been more productive.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do know how to use Google, but I defy anyone here to come up with virtually anything on this topic from there. My thesis was on a super obscure topic that only a handful of people have written on or understand (Gödel’s argument, not the general ontological argument, on which entirely too much has been written).

It's always nice to have people call you a liar and then have to eat their words. *smile*

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said what you attributed to me.

-Dead

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? So you didn't mean to call me a liar?

Is that what you're now claiming?

May I remind you that you told me I knew how to use Google, implying that this is what I had done to come up with my thesis topics, you then quizzed me (hamfistedly) on my thesis topic in an attempt to "out" me, and you said things like this:

"You lied for months and months, and you expect people on here to believe you now?

Get real."

Go to bed. You're dead here.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I never called you an ass. I did call you a liar.

And I am definitely going to bed now, but not because I got owned. I'm going because I wasted altogether too much time on you, troll.

You disrespected some of the longtime posters(Michael Davis, adamstewart, and many more) on this forum using multiple identitites and called them some awful things.

You think that your history will go away. It won't. You know why? Because you're the same person. The same [censored]. You haven't changed, Lansing. You still routinely disrespect people on here and that is why you are so strongly disliked by 90% of 2+2.

-Dead

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't call anyone any names, just fyi.

And I did own you, as another fyi.

And I am quite pleased with my "history", as a further fyi.

Have a pleasant sleep, sunshine.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
You still routinely disrespect people on here and that is why you are so strongly disliked by 90% of 2+2.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sign me up in the 90% crew. I tried giving him a break, but apparently I was a fool for thinking he'd be decent in return.

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You still routinely disrespect people on here and that is why you are so strongly disliked by 90% of 2+2.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sign me up in the 90% crew. I tried giving him a break, but apparently I was a fool for thinking he'd be decent in return.

[/ QUOTE ]

Duly noted.

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't call anyone any names, just fyi.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes you did.

You routinely called posters names like "idiot" and "internet nerd". It's all there in the search history. You can't escape it.

[The-Matador]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I didn't call anyone any names, just fyi.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes you did.

You routinely called posters names like "idiot" and "internet nerd". It's all there in the search history. You can't escape it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please find the posts where I called Adam or Michael names (particularly undeserved ones) that were not simply in relation to my persona change denials.

Are you having a good sleep?

[jason_t]

You are a d[/i]ick (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=1376273&page=&view=&s b=5&o=).

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I didn't call anyone any names, just fyi.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes you did.

You routinely called posters names like "idiot" and "internet nerd". It's all there in the search history. You can't escape it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please find the posts where I called Adam or Michael names (particularly undeserved ones) that were not simply in relation to my persona change denials.

Are you having a good sleep?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=holdem&Number=1303650&Foru m=,,All_Forums,,&Words=&Searchpage=2&Limit=25&Main =1302285&Search=true&where=bodysub&Name=21461&date range=1&newerval=1&newertype=y&olderval=&oldertype =&bodyprev=#Post1303650

"You're idiots. Seriously. You don't know anything about the game and you assume I made some gigantic error by "missing" a 5 dollar bet preflop when it would have done nothing to help me win and a great deal to limit what I could have won"

Other posts of yours from that thread contain these gems:

"I posted the beat because it was a funny example of a fish playing wretchedly and dragging a huge pot. But of course I should have known that all the internet know-it-alls would cream all over themselves trying to look smart, when they really don't know what the hell they're talking about."

" If you think you can judge the merit of the play simply based on the hand history, having seen NONE of the action at the table, you're arrogant *and* stupid."

"This thread had devolved into a pissing contest with idiots who can't understand the obviously correct strategy behind my play."


And I'm the ass, Matador? I've never talked like that to anyone on these forums.

Those are just a few examples. I'll try and find the more name-specific ones tomorrow. PM me if I forgot.

Night sweetie.

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
You are a d[/i]ick (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=1376273&page=&view=&s b=5&o=).

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol I love one of his/her line from that thread:

"I did and it paid off. It doesn't matter to me whether you believe it or not. Maybe I'm just a better player than you."

Yeah, maybe. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[The-Matador]

[ QUOTE ]
You are a d[/i]ick (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=1376273&page=&view=&s b=5&o=).

[/ QUOTE ]

No ... CinnamonWind is a dick. I'm a ray of sunshine up your ass.

[jason_t]

This one (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=1376595&page=&view=&s b=5&o=&vc=1) is money:

"I want to like you, but could you be any more of a pedantic a-hole? I mean seriously, do you ever have a social interaction that ends well? I can't even imagine what you must be like in real life."

[The-Matador]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are a d[/i]ick (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=1376273&page=&view=&s b=5&o=).

[/ QUOTE ]



Lol I love one of his/her line from that thread:

"I did and it paid off. It doesn't matter to me whether you believe it or not. Maybe I'm just a better player than you."

Yeah, maybe. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no maybe about me being a better player than you though, kid. I am.

Are you having a peaceful sleep or have you decided to take out your frustrations on the micro limit players?

[Dead]

I think a poll about the Matador is in order.

[The-Matador]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a poll about the Matador is in order.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do that before you go to bed, because it's funny to have someone this obsessed with me.

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are a d[/i]ick (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=1376273&page=&view=&s b=5&o=).

[/ QUOTE ]



Lol I love one of his/her line from that thread:

"I did and it paid off. It doesn't matter to me whether you believe it or not. Maybe I'm just a better player than you."

Yeah, maybe. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no maybe about me being a better player than you though, kid. I am.

Are you having a peaceful sleep or have you decided to take out your frustrations on the micro limit players?

[/ QUOTE ]

I freely admit to being a newbie having only played limit hold em off and on for 3 months.

You, on the other hand...

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
No ... CinnamonWind is a dick. I'm a ray of sunshine up your ass.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't take d[/i]icks up my a[/i]ss, f[/i]ag.

[The-Matador]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are a d[/i]ick (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=1376273&page=&view=&s b=5&o=).

[/ QUOTE ]



Lol I love one of his/her line from that thread:

"I did and it paid off. It doesn't matter to me whether you believe it or not. Maybe I'm just a better player than you."

Yeah, maybe. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no maybe about me being a better player than you though, kid. I am.

Are you having a peaceful sleep or have you decided to take out your frustrations on the micro limit players?

[/ QUOTE ]

I freely admit to being a newbie having only played limit hold em off and on for 3 months.

You, on the other hand...

[/ QUOTE ]

Have played for years and would destroy you?

Yes, you're quite correct, I would.

[Dead]

I pointed out lots of insults you made to posters on this forum. You denied insulting anyone in one of your posts above.

There seems to be an inconsistency here, honey.

[The-Matador]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No ... CinnamonWind is a dick. I'm a ray of sunshine up your ass.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't take d[/i]icks up my a[/i]ss, f[/i]ag.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um ... I said "ray of sunshine", sunshine. I'm not sure why you started thinking about dicks up your ass, but I'm Canadian, and we're all for equal rights. So you go girlfriend!

[Dead]

And I fully support your right to be a transsexual, btw. It must be tough in a world with such bigotry.

[The-Matador]

[ QUOTE ]
I pointed out lots of insults you made to posters on this forum. You denied insulting anyone in one of your posts above.

There seems to be an inconsistency here, honey.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where did you point these out? I, the Matador, have been quite pleasant, as I recall.

And please don't call me "honey". I support your lifestyle choice, but I'm not interested in a homosexual relationship with you. Your friend Jason on this thread would probably be a better person to hit on, given his preoccupation with dicks in the ass.

[jason_t]

Trannie.

[Dead]

I think you have psychological issues that need to be addressed.

Matador, CinnamonWind, Lansing, Sophia- they're all you. You wrote all of the posts under each of those names.

Just because you haven't insulted people that much under this name doesn't mean that you didn't as recently as last month(repeatedly).

I'm sorry that you can't understand this, darling. Canada is truely blessed to have you as a citizen. Please don't ever come down south.

[The-Matador]

No, only The-Matador is really me. Those other posters are merely *versions* of me.

Do you see why?

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
No, only The-Matador is really me. Those other posters are merely *versions* of me.

Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why I recommended you make a post in the psychology forum.

Maybe they can help you with what could be multiple personality disorder.

You need help.

Bye sweetie.

[jason_t]

Please go here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=1670081&page=&view=&s b=5&o=&vc=1). Maybe you'd like to take Michael up on his challenge?

[The-Matador]

[ QUOTE ]
Please go here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=1670081&page=&view=&s b=5&o=&vc=1). Maybe you'd like to take Michael up on his challenge?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have already declined, as was explained in the thread.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
I have already declined, as was explained in the thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Chicken s[/i]hit.

[Dead]

If you think homosexuality is a choice then you are even dumber than I thought.

Now it's bedtime.

[The-Matador]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have already declined, as was explained in the thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Chicken s[/i]hit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll take you on though. How about it?

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll take you on though. How about it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I get it. You act all big and bad towards the strong players like Michael et al. but when faced with a challenge from them you back down like a little b[/i]itch. Now you see the chance to pick on a weaker player and it's time for you to act like you're the s[/i]hit again.

Unlike you, I don't have delusions of being an amazing player. I'm barely beyond ABC, only now starting make correct value bets and solid laydowns and even getting a good feel for when middle pair and A high are good. I'm a winning player, but I know that I have a long long long way to go before I am a strong player.

And finally, when I post and read on this forum, I'm trying to learn and I take in and think about what everyone says. You however, a just a d[/i]ick to anyone criticizes your ideas or play. This forum has been a valuable asset to me; you however, are not.

I may accept your challenge; I will think about it. I don't expect to win, but I know you won't pwn me. I'd take the challenge as a learning opportunity.

[The-Matador]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll take you on though. How about it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I get it. You act all big and bad towards the strong players like Michael et al. but when faced with a challenge from them you back down like a little b[/i]itch. Now you see the chance to pick on a weaker player and it's time for you to act like you're the s[/i]hit again.

Unlike you, I don't have delusions of being an amazing player. I'm barely beyond ABC, only now starting make correct value bets and solid laydowns and even getting a good feel for when middle pair and A high are good. I'm a winning player, but I know that I have a long long long way to go before I am a strong player.

And finally, when I post and read on this forum, I'm trying to learn and I take in and think about what everyone says. You however, a just a d[/i]ick to anyone criticizes your ideas or play. This forum has been a valuable asset to me; you however, are not.

I may accept your challenge; I will think about it. I don't expect to win, but I know you won't pwn me. I'd take the challenge as a learning opportunity.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, those were not the reasons I didn't accept Michael's challenge at all. Go and read the post if you're unclear.

I don't have delusions about being a great player either, but since you called me a chicken s[/i]hit and I know I'm better than you, I figured I'd see if it was merely the pot calling the kettle black.

Edit: Btw, my challenge to you is not an open challenge to anyone else, so anyone reading this can just forget about that. Further, I am not challenging you to some crummy little small stakes 1-2 game. I am challenging you to a freezeout for at least $500 at at least 10-20.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
No, those were not the reasons I didn't accept Michael's challenge at all. Go and read the post if you're unclear.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your reasons (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=1670493&page=&view=&s b=5&o=&vc=1).

[ QUOTE ]
I am challenging you to a freezeout for at least $500 at at least 10-20.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Because I don't feel comfortable playing 15-30 heads up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?

[The-Matador]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, those were not the reasons I didn't accept Michael's challenge at all. Go and read the post if you're unclear.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your reasons (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=1670493&page=&view=&s b=5&o=&vc=1).

[ QUOTE ]
I am challenging you to a freezeout for at least $500 at at least 10-20.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Because I don't feel comfortable playing 15-30 heads up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?

[/ QUOTE ]

I feel perfectly comfortable playing any stakes with you, my new friend. It's strictly about money right now. I want yours, and I think you might be dumb enough to give it to me.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
I feel perfectly comfortable playing any stakes with you, my new friend. It's strictly about money right now. I want yours, and I think you might be dumb enough to give it to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I said, you are too chicken s[/i]hit to face a real challenge and you choosing me only because I'm not one of the bada[/i]sses of SS.

[The-Matador]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I feel perfectly comfortable playing any stakes with you, my new friend. It's strictly about money right now. I want yours, and I think you might be dumb enough to give it to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I said, you are too chicken [censored] to face a real challenge and you choosing me only because I'm not one of the bada[/i]sses of SS.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, once again my reasons for not accepting Michael's challenge had nothing to do with being scared. I simply had no interest in it, didn't feel my skills were up to it at the time, and knew that it proved nothing. Maybe you should reread the post.

But you, my new friend, have called me a chicken s[/i]hit. Ergo, I'd like to take your money from you to thank you for your name calling. My question to you is: Are you too chicken s[/i]hit to accept my challenge or not?

[MortalNuts]

Yeah, my quals (in astrophysics) were pretty hellish. We had a written exam on various topics in physics and astronomy; later (before you could advance to candidacy) you had to defend a paper and then be subjected to grilling by a panel of faculty.

It's hardly the worst thing ever, but scarring enough that even years later, everyone I know in academia can still remember their qualifiers/comps, often in exquisite detail. On the plus side, this remembrance means that you should have no shortage of people buying you drinks after you take the various exams. The saying goes that you're never as knowledgeable as the day you take comps, and never as dumb as the day afterwards.

good luck, if you haven't already passed this particular hurdle.

later,

mn