[Styxx]

Right, I forgot - we'd have to prove the meaning of "pointless"...

[CP5670]

Pronunciation: 'point-l&s
Function: adjective
Date: 1582
1 : devoid of meaning : SENSELESS
2 : devoid of effectiveness : FLAT
- point·less·ly adverb
- point·less·ness noun

Well that didn't help much...

[Styxx]

Originally posted by CP5670
Don't worry; I am used to this, having done it my whole life.

Er, people have been messing with you your whole life, then? Sucks to be you.

[Styxx]

Originally posted by CP5670
Well that didn't help much...

Indeed, now we'll have to prove the meaning of all those words...

[CP5670]

Er, people have been messing with you your whole life, then? Sucks to be you.

LOL of course; when you have radical-sounding opinions on everything, that's what happens. It's become a daily routine now, though.

[Styxx]

Nah, your opinions are not radical. They're just... simple-minded.

[CP5670]

Pronunciation: 'mEn
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): meant  /'ment/; mean·ing  /'mE-ni[ng]/
Etymology: Middle English menen, from Old English m[AE]nan; akin to Old High German meinen to have in mind, Old Church Slavonic meniti to mention
Date: before 12th century
transitive senses
1 a : to have in the mind as a purpose : INTEND [she means to win] -- sometimes used interjectionally with I, chiefly in informal speech for emphasis [he throws, I mean, hard] or to introduce a phrase restating the point of a preceding phrase [we try to answer what we can, but I mean we're not God -- Bobbie Ann Mason] b : to design for or destine to a specified purpose or future [I was meant to teach]
2 : to serve or intend to convey, show, or indicate : SIGNIFY [a red sky means rain]
3 : to have importance to the degree of [health means everything]
4 : to direct to a particular individual
intransitive senses : to have an intended purpose [he means well]
- mean·er  /'mE-n&r/ noun
- mean business : to be in earnest

Pronunciation: 'flat
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): flat·ter; flat·test
Etymology: Middle English, from Old Norse flatr; akin to Old High German flaz flat, and probably to Greek platys broad -- more at PLACE
Date: 14th century
1 a : lying at full length or spread out upon the ground : PROSTRATE b : utterly ruined or destroyed c : resting with a surface against something
2 a : having a continuous horizontal surface b : being or characterized by a horizontal line or tracing without peaks or depressions pa flat EEG]
3 : having a relatively smooth or even surface
4 : arranged or laid out so as to be level or even
5 a : having the major surfaces essentially parallel and distinctly greater than the minor surfaces [a flat piece of wood] b of a heel : very low and broad
6 a : clearly unmistakable : DOWNRIGHT [a flat denial] b (1) : not varying : FIXED [a flat rate] (2) : having no fraction either lacking or in excess : EXACT [in a flat 10 seconds] (3) of a frequency response : not varying significantly throughout its range
7 a : lacking in animation, zest, or vigor : DULL [life seemed flat without her] b : lacking flavor : TASTELESS c : lacking effervescence or sparkle [flat ginger ale] d : commercially inactive; also : characterized by no significant rise or decline from one period to another [sales were flat] e of a tire : lacking air : DEFLATED f chiefly British, of a battery : DEAD 3c, DISCHARGED
8 a (1) of a tone : lowered a half step in pitch (2) : lower than the proper pitch b of the vowel a : pronounced as in bad or bat
9 a : having a low trajectory b of a tennis stroke : made so as to give little or no spin to the ball
10 of a sail : TAUT
11 a : uniform in hue or shade b : having little or no illusion of depth c of a photograph or negative : lacking contrast d of lighting conditions : lacking shadows or contours e : free from gloss [a flat paint] f : TWO-DIMENSIONAL 2
12 : of, relating to, or used in competition on the flat [a flat horse]
synonym see LEVEL, INSIPID

That was even less useful...

The English language is no good for this type of discussion, unfortunately.

Nah, your opinions are not radical. They're just... simple-minded.

Too unconvential for the non-mathematical person to fully grasp, so they are simple minded for everyone else.

[Styxx]

Originally posted by CP5670
That was even less useful...

Good to see you realize it - because I asked for semantic proof, not a bunch of silly dictionary definitions...

[CP5670]

There is no such thing as true semantic proof, really.

[Styxx]

Originally posted by CP5670
There is no such thing as true semantic proof, really.

Huh, there is. I see you never studied Formal Semantics then?

[CP5670]

I haven't studied that at all, but you yourself said that there is no such thing as an absolute proof, which I agree with as well.

[edit] whoa, eighth page already?

[Styxx]

Well, I was willing to accept perceptive proof... assuming that it was formal proof, of course.

[Styxx]

Originally posted by CP5670
[edit] whoa, eighth page already?

Damn, is this ironic or what? I have different posts-per-page settings, and the thread is on page 15 for me.

[CP5670]

What is the distinction between a formal and an informal proof?

So a semantic proof makes sense to you but a logical/mathematical one doesn't? Cool!

I would like to have everything on one page, but the maximum is 50, so I just have it set to that.

[Styxx]

Er... the semantic proof I asked is a mathematical proof...

[CP5670]

So math is indeed useful there!

Well, I have no idea what a semantic proof looks like or what it is supposed to prove (or for that matter, whatever the heck we're trying to prove here ); why don't you post one?

[edit] This is my usual time to get off the computer, but I will be back later as usual.

[Styxx]

Here, check this, you might like it (it's the first article in english I found about it, may not be complete - all reference material I have is in portuguese):
http://www.cuni.cz/~peregrin/HTMLTxt/sl&fs.htm

And I did only minor work on it - my most extensive proof was of the semantics of a simple text-editing language. Proving the semantics of a spoken language would require more time that I have to waste, or anyone has to waste, for that matter.

[Top Gun]

Originally posted by sandwich
God is far far more active in this world than you think. I'll give you an example of the most "classic" way God is active in the world today: Acts of God, a.k.a. natural disasters. I can't give you the specifics at this very moment, since my dad is the one who's keeping track and he's out for another 2-3 hours or so, but the gist of it is this: When the US in particular or any other nation moves (usually politically) to urge Israel to give away the Land that has been given her to be a steward over (it's God's land, biblically speaking), a natural disaster strikes that nation.

Oh Please, this is borderline racist. Firstly Natural disasters are happening all of the time. The only reason that they're interpreted as acts of god is because the spotlight is on them at that particular time. When the US isn't urging Isreal to hand over land to the Palestinians they go un-nuticed. The US covers a huge geographical area with perhaps a greater array of climates than any other nation. If you'r interested in studying freak wheather conditions and their causes go to www.metoffice.co.uk (that's the UK's one, there's probably ones more specific to particular regions). This shows you the causes of such thins and it uses that little thing called evidence. I suppose you share Dr Falwell's belief that "god" allowed the WTC attacks to take place?

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Originally posted by Styxx

And that's exactly my point if you didn't notice it. Sandwich starts from the assumption that his faith is irrevocable proof that God exists, the same way that you assume that 1+1=2 is the basis for your whole knowledge of mathematics. You're as much right as he is, inside your very own frame of reference, and for each of you it is impossible to admit otherwise.

On the colours thing. Research has showed that everybody sees green the same way you or me do.

It's called 'prototypical colours'

read 'Berlin, Brent/Kay, Paul (1969/1991): Basic colour terms. Their Universality and Evolution, Berkeley/Los Angeles/Oxford: California University Press.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by CP5670
Are we assuming an absolute or perceptive truth here? By the first rule of problem-solving, the absolute one should be taken into account first because using the perceptive one, more than one independent thinking unit will not progress anywhere, rendering civilization useless. Going by the absolute truth, that statement makes no sense, since with the given variables, it violates the transitive property of quantities. But if we are using a perceptive one, nothing can be proved outside an independent thinker and any attempts to do so are meaningless.

If you can't convince 'em, confuse 'em, eh?

Originally posted by CP5670
Actually natural disasters in the world are common enough for just about any country to say this if they keep a very close watch of what is happening. Again, the effect should be reproducible under similar controlled conditions by anyone else. Also, since this god is so powerful, why does he feel the need to remain in secrecy by using only natural disasters (which do not appear to be made by a god) and not simply killing off all the offenders instantly by using some uh...special god powers? Besides, we will reach a point sometime in the next 200 or so years where natural disasters will not be able to harm us at all, so what would happen then?

THey are "common", but when you look at them occuring alongside Israel-related events, it's more than a coincedence.

As for God remaining secret?   I never said He only uses natural disasters - and even so, why are they also known as Acts of God, hmm?

Originally posted by Styxx
And that's exactly my point if you didn't notice it. Sandwich starts from the assumption that his faith is irrevocable proof that God exists, the same way that you assume that 1+1=2 is the basis for your whole knowledge of mathematics. You're as much right as he is, inside your very own frame of reference, and for each of you it is impossible to admit otherwise.

My faith is not irrevocable proff that God exists - it isn't even revokable proof! I don't know where you got that idea.

You want irrevocable proof of God's existance? Go outside and look at creation. Don't glance - look. Then tell me honestly that we're accidents.

Originally posted by an0n

1+1=2

There, easy.

ROTFLMAO!!! I was going to post the exact same thing!!

Wait a sec - me and an0n thought the same....  You must be a Great Mind™!!

Originally posted by Styxx
You might not know, but any and all truths are derived from perceptive knowledge. You may try to mask it some way or another, but that's the inescapable truth.

Sucks, eh?

Yup.