chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

 
Chessgames.com User Profile Chessforum

johnlspouge
Member since Aug-25-07
For detailed instructions on downloading Toga, go to johnlspouge chessforum.

Being a control freak (just ask my kids!), I have moved my profile onto a page I can edit any way I want:

http://spouge.net/html.home/chess/i...

See you there!

>> Click here to see johnlspouge's game collections.

Chessgames.com Full Member

   johnlspouge has kibitzed 6263 times to chessgames   [more...]
   Jul-19-18 Kenneth S Rogoff (replies)
 
johnlspouge: "The Firm Suspicious quote" [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6l... ]
 
   Jun-02-18 Zagrebelny vs N R McDonald, 2000 (replies)
 
johnlspouge: < <offramp> wrote: Don Martin had a regular writer for his books. It was he who created Fonebone. > < His work probably reached its final peak of quality and technical detail in the late 1960s and early 1970s. In later years, particularly during the 1980s, he let ...
 
   May-21-18 Louis Stumpers (replies)
 
johnlspouge: Catalan numbers count binary trees of various kinds. It should not be hard to find them if you are looking ;>)
 
(replies) indicates a reply to the comment.

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 11 OF 11 ·  Later Kibitzing>
May-01-17  Nisjesram: Also, <abdel irada> , if I ask <good anarchist> physics and maths questions of class 12th , he won't be able to solve them , he would instead say 'i am not monkey to dance on your tune' I have asked <johnlspouge> and he can solve effortlessly.

And this idiot <good anarchist> was making such a dance and song "I laid a trap and <johnlspouge> fell in it. He made an error in freshman level calculus..."

He was sounding so juvenile while he was singing and dancing about it.

What are the options of <johnlspouge>:

1)either he lets it go and let <good anarchist> make a fool of himself.

Flip side is that these trolls and idiots -<big pawn> , <good anarchist> , <bobsterman3000> - get free run and increase the noise level 'i am king , you are number' , 'i won' and so on.

With their never ending idiocy , they ruin the forum.

So, let us consider option two.

2) don't give them free run.
'tangle' with them.
If one does that,
One ends up looking as stupid and immature as these crazy trolls without any pay off. Noise level of the forum does not come down even a tiny bit

Feb-20-18  Nisjesram: Valued and respected rogoff kibitzer :
1)yesterday , I refuted omv argument - once again.

2)earlier , <big pawn> used to say that god of omv argument is same as god of classical theism - Abrahamic god. And yesterday, <big pawn> , in effect , admitted that that was not so that god of omv argument may die one day and god of omv argument is not running affairs of world and world is running spontaneously on its own without any intervention/oversight.

3)I urge you people to ask <big pawn> to provide a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer to following three questions :

Question no 1 : may god of omv argument die one day ? Just a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer please.

Question no 2 : is god of omv argument running the affairs of world ? A simple 'yes' or 'no' answer please?

Question no 3: does omv argument imply that it is not possible that world is running spontaneously on its own without intervention/supervision/oversight ? A simple 'yes' or 'no' answer please.

Thank you

Namaste

Feb-22-18  Nisjesram: <big pawn> has given good explanation about basics of teachings of Jesus . I would like to say some about advanced teachings of Jesus.

2)well, I have presented a theory - that 'locus of omv , was created at the same time that universe was created and is not timeless i.e. it will dissolve/die if/when universe dissolves/dies - it has beginning and end , it is not timeless. More so , it has no say in running affairs of universe. Universe runs spontaneously on its own without any intervention/supervision/oversight.

And obviously it is not creator of universe either - it was created at the time universe was created.

Definition of classical theism as provided by <big pawn> has god as timeless and creator of universe. So, omv stands refuted.

3)this is a well known theory. In fact , many scholars including David godman believe that that is the correct interpretation of teachings of Jesus. Like this : 1)timeless source of universe is not 'personal god' but impersonal Absolute. 2)Absolute is locus of 'Brahman' which runs affairs of universe spontaneously. 3)when universe dissolves , Brahman dissolves and when universe is created Brahman is created 4)Absolute is eternal/timeless. 5)Absolute is continuously supplying some 'spiritual energy/light' (which is neither matter nor energy - something spiritual) and if that 'spiritual light' is not supplied , universe will collapse.

4) all those details are not needed for omv debate purpose.

Only thing that matters is a locus for omv which is not timeless and so on.

Here, people don't even understand even the basics of teachings of Jesus that <big pawn> explaining in his forum, so obviously I don't expect them to understand the advanced details.

Even <big pawn> had no clue what Absolute was let alone knowing the difference between 'personal god' and Absolute in detail/depth.

I had introduced <big pawn> for the first time to the 'concept' of Absolute and he was completely clueless. Later on I had provided some links on philosophy to study Absolute.

I had provided links on teachings of Jesus too in the rogoff forum, however, obviously , neither <big pawn> nor his mates are ready for that yet.

They all at very junior level.

Nonetheless, one should not have difficulty understanding that imv argument is nonsense and stands refuted without knowing teaching of Jesus in advance.

Let me know if anyone has any questions or needs any help

Feb-22-18  Nisjesram: <Pawn: < johnlspouge: < <ughaibu> wrote: Nisjesram: I think there are several ways to show that objective moral truths don't entail the existence of a god. > Of course. Once you show that objective moral values could exist without a god (and <Nisjesram> has demonstrated several alternative theories), the first premise of the moral argument is not only implausible but <false>.>

No one has given an argument or explanation on how moral values can exist objectively without God. Merely asserting that OMV can exist without God is not an explanation and expresses no justification to warrant a belief that it's true.

When <Nizzle> says omv was created at the same time of the universe, that is not an explanation of how OMV exist sans God, provides no justification and does not warrant rational belief>

You say so because you don't know the difference between 'personal god' and Absolute.

I had provided you two kind of sources to study this - links on philosophy as well as on teachings of Jesus to study that.

Apparently , you failed to learn anything.

Locus of omv was created at the same time by Absolute according to this well respected theory. In fact that is the correct interpretation of teachings of Jesus as explained by David godman and many other scholars of teachings of Jesus.

You are right <big pawn> in saying that *real* teachings of Jesus are understood by very few. And evidence of that is that no one of your mates is able to understand/appreciate basics of teachings of Jesus that you explained so well in your forum (<thegoodanarchist> is completely clueless). I am the only one who is able yo understand/appreciate those teachings of Jesus in your forum.

And you too don't know advanced teachings of Jesus as you demonstrate your cluelessness about Absolute , again and again.

This is a very well respected theory that locus of omv was created at the sane time universe was created and will dissolve/die when universe dissolves/dies.

Omv argument thoroughly refuted.

Rational belief - please don't talk of that <big pawn>. You have not earned it because You are still clueless about Absolute despite my trying to teach you about it again and again. Should I provide those lunks of philosophy and advanced teachings of Jesus again?

Feb-22-18  Nisjesram: : < ughaibu: <if anyone had finally refuted the moral argument> 1. moral facts, if there are any, are facts about interactions between at least two sentient beings> <big pawn><ig Pawn: < 1. moral facts, if there are any, are facts about interactions between at least two sentient beings> False.

Do not conflate moral acts, moral duties and moral values when you talk about moral facts.

Your logic is wanting in your line of reasoning and in your understanding of God.

God is the good and goodness is Godís nature, therefore moral values have always existed because Godís nature has always exist because God has always existed>

False.

Once again <big pawn> shows he has no understanding of difference between 'personal god' and Absolute.

<big pawn> is talking about 'personal god' because that is all he knows as timeless source. He has no clue about Absolute as timeless source.

Absolute is beyond all the attributes of 'goodness' , love etc.

Absolute has only three attributes which are not needed for present conversation of omv argument debate.

<ughaibu> is half right (and <big pawn> is completely wrong) in that when there was no universe , there was no such thing as 'good'/'bad' ,'moral/immoral' , 'love/hate' etc.

However, these things came into existence as soon as universe was created even before humans were created because locus of omv was created at that time.

This is a very well understood and respected theory and anyone who knows advanced teachings of Jesus knows this.

Or anyone who knows advanced concepts of theological philosophy knows this

Unfortunately , <big pawn> does not understand advanced teachings of Jesus.

Nor he understands advanced concepts if theological philosophy

He is completely clueless about the difference between 'personal god' and Absolute.

<big pawn> , should I provide you those links on philosophy and teachings of Jesus again ?

Feb-24-18  Nisjesram: <awn: <jessicafischerqueen: <Nitwit Jam Head> Will you please cease your inane, rambling, profoundly uneducated spamming. It is irritating beyond comprehension. You are and have always been the most addle minded nitwit ever to post at this website. Permanent ignore. Hopefully enough will follow suit so you get auto blocked.>

I knew someone was going to say this sooner or later, and it is spot on. <Tga> is not going to be happy that <Nizzle> left his dirty toilet paper all over his forum.>

I am leaving chessgames.com forever from today (as regular poster. I may post under special circumstances which I detail below) , because instead of thanks , I get insults.

I showed <big pawn> how stupid omv argument was , I also showed him that he did not know teachings of jesus or philosophy, he did not know difference between 'personal god' and Absolute (he did not even know what Absolute is till I mentioned this 'concept' to him)

And instead of thanks , I get such insults.

Today is my last day on chessgames.com. as regular poster.Now, I may post here only if someone insults me or thanks me or needs my help in physics/maths/economics etc. Or if I need to inform people that johnlspouge has endorsed my refutation of stupid omv argument.

Thank you
Namaste

Feb-24-18  Nisjesram: <amp: One of the problems with forums is that owners have a perpetual power of deletion. Sometimes posts are deleted which leave a string of incomprehensible posts>

True, <offramp>.

See , what is happening is that <thegoodanarchist> is playing a farce which I explain by his recent action - he commented on one of my posts in rogoff forum and said that I made an empty/bald assertion with circular logic etc. Now, that is usual stupidity of <thegoodanarchist> - the post he commented on was one of a series of posts and evidence/proof/test of the assertion mentioned by me was in other posts of mine. He does this all the time and then posts insulting remarks about me in his forum and implicitly invites <big pawn> (who is most obnoxious/notrious troll of this site) to insult me in his forum as well.

So, this time I posted all of my posts of the thread that he commented on in his forum so that he does not miss any - you see , in rogoof forum , so many people posting and therefore all posts of one thread get scattered and perhaps that is why <the good anarchist> missed other posts of mine and made a fool of himself. That is why I posted all those posts in his forum so that he does not miss any and does not make a fool of himself again.

I have always tried to help <thegoodanarchist> in physics/maths, teachings of jesus , spirituality and philosophy - all those areas where <thegoodanarchist> is very weak and almost always makes fool of himself.

And instead of thanks I get insults. That is why I decided to leave chessgames.com forever where ungrateful idiots like <thegoodanarchist> and <big pawn> keep on posting nonsense all the time.

From now on , I will post only under special circumstances.

Thank you
Namaste

Feb-25-18  Nisjesram: Part 1

<spouge: @<thegoodanarchist>: 1.If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.

If any entity possesses "God"'s ability to ground objective moral values, the first premise is not only implausible but false.

When you realize that the first premise is about the transcendental, and that people have mythologized about it for centuries (feel free to read that as "made stuff up"), it is absurd to think that the job specifically requires a maximal being>

1) That is absolutely correct , <johnlspouge>.

2)I think your theory and my theory is same in essence but for just one difference.

3)it is same in that in my theory the locus of omv was created by Absolute at the time universe was created and neither creator of universe nor locus of omv need any qualities/attributes of god of classical theism

In your theory also, locus of omv (which is Bob) , gets power to be locus of omv from Zeus and neither Zeus nor Bob need to have any qualities/attributes of god of classical theism.

This is the first time I am reading your post about Bob and I have not read any other post about this.

Am I getting it right up to here , <johnlspouge> ?

Thank you.

About difference in next post

Feb-25-18  Nisjesram: Part 2
4)difference is that in your theory Zeus is 'personal god' but does not have qualities/attributes of 'personal god' of classical theism whereas in my theory creator of universe is not 'personal god' but Absolute which has no qualities/attributes what so ever.

And Absolute created locus of omv when it created universe.

Am I getting it right up to here , <johnlspouge> ?

Thank you

Feb-25-18  Nisjesram: <big pawn> < <thegoodanatchist> i think this particular round, with <jls>, has been overwhelmingly in favor of theism> Take note rogoff posters - <thegoodanarchist> ignored this point of <big pawn> . he did not want to embarrass himself apparently.

I can guarantee you people that <thegoodanarchist> will run away before long or he will admit that omv argument is one of most stupid argument ever.

How do I know ?

Because I had not seen this theory of 'Bob' given by <johnlspouge> so far and it is the sane theory in essence as my theory but for one difference which I mentioned above and I am ten thousand times smarter than <big pawn> and <thegoodanarchist> and I know they are busted.

And <johnlspouge> is ten thousand times smarter than me and therefore he can articulate my theory much, much better for these two idiots <big pawn> and <thegoodanarchist>.

So , it seems we have finally reached the climax of most stupid movie ever - 'omv argument'

Feb-25-18  Nisjesram: <goodanarchist: <johnlspouge: ďGodís nature is the standardĒ. How do we know Bob isnít God? > Spoiler alert! Stop reading if you don't want to know the answer. <jls> told us the answer.

<johnlspouge:

On the contrary, deliberately on my part, Bob does not meet the criteria for being God. >>

Like I told you guys repeatedly - <thegoodanarchist> is a childish , immature idiot.

He is jumping around "spoiler alert" as if he has said something very smart.

I have just entered this conversation , have not read previous posts of this thread and still I am almost certain that <thegoodanarchist> is making a fool of himself.

In all the probability , <johnlspouge> here means that <Bob> is not god of classical theism.

<thegoodanarchist> , grow up idiot.

You make fool of yourself all the time and while you make fool of yourself, you get excited too "look I am so smart - spoiler alert"

What a clown

Feb-25-18  Nisjesram: <hegoodanarchist: <BP: Quite the opposite. You come across as someone who's never given serious thought to the subject, winging it, shooting from the hip, and it's showing.> And I answered this earlier on the page, here:

Kenneth S Rogoff (kibitz #319094)

Basically, <jls> needs to state what his argument is.

Does he deny the conclusion of the moral argument? Is he trying to refute the first premise, or just show that the first premise is interchangeable with another first premise, of an entity that derives authority from god?>

1)like I told you guys earlier - <thegoodanarchist> is childish, immature, stupid.

2)fool , you have not understood the argument of <johnlspouge> so far? . I just entered this conversation and have not read previous posts and still I know what <johnlspouge> talking about.

3)idiot, argument of <johnlspouge> is that god of first premise does not need to have any qualities/attributes of god of classical theism.

<thegoodanarchist> and <big pawn> - these two clowns deserve each other

Feb-25-18  Nisjesram: <johnlspouge>: Here, in parallel to the role of God in the OMV argument, Bob is the locus of OMVs. Bob has all the properties of the God of classical theism including the ability to ground moral values (by fiat, he could even ground exactly the same moral values as God is supposed to, whatever they may be). Bob is subordinate to Zeus, however, and therefore not a maximal being, so the first premise is false. <Nisjesram> obviously understands my point, so at this stage, I will not belabor it, as it is clear. The OMV argument is worthless
Feb-25-18  Nisjesram: <big pawn> <ct is, most professional philosophers agree with the first premise, atheists and theists alike, as I showed <jls> here.> 1)can anybody be more stupid than <big pawn>?

2)first, it does not matter a bit what other philosophers, experts etc. think about it .

Why?

Here : almost every physicist believed in 'ether' and their belief turned out to be false. Even someone as stupid a physicist as <thegoodanarchist> should know this . and there are many such cases in history of humans.

3)so, you don't have any evidence in support of your stupid theory ? Only support is invoking the authority of philosophers?

4)and there too you are wrong as I showed earlier - uncaused cause is not 'personal god' but Absolute , so believe many philosophers . I gave links to you, ignorant fool. However as <saffuna> says rightly , you not interested in truth.

5)and there is evidence in support of Absolute from spiritualists - those who live real teachings of jesus.

Whereas your stupid theory has no evidence

Feb-25-18  Nisjesram: <pawn: <Bob is subordinate to Zeus, however, and therefore not a maximal being, so the first premise is false.> IF Bob is not a maximally great being then his nature is not The Good and therefore his nature cannot be the foundation of moral values. Busted.

<ohio>, are you catching any of this>

Is <ohiochessfan> as stupid as you ?

Fool, who is talking about good? We talking about 'objective' moral values here - good or bad is judgement of idiots like you.

It does not matter whether you call an objective moral value good or bad. It is the way it is .

Do you even know what objective moral value means ?

This is your argument - objective moral value should be good and it can be good only if it comes from maximally great being .

Are you retarded?

Even if we assume that locus of omv is good , it does not have to be maximally great being.

In specific , it does not have to have those attributes of god of classical theism such as - timeless, spaceless , omnipotent, creator of universe.

<ohiochessfan> are you listening ?

Feb-25-18  Nisjesram: <johnlspouge: Here, in parallel to the role of God in the OMV argument, Bob is the locus of OMVs. Bob has all the properties of the God of classical theism including the ability to ground moral values (by fiat, he could even ground exactly the same moral values as God is supposed to, whatever they may be). > This point has already been refuted. <God doesn't have the "ability". It's God own nature that is The Good, as a maximally great being, that makes him uniquely qualified to be the foundation of morality.>>

<,big pawn> busted again.

This point of <big pawn> has been refuted many times.

<big pawn> says < <God doesn't have the "ability". It's God own nature that is The Good, as a maximally great being, that makes him uniquely qualified to be the foundation of morality>

Do you have any clue what <johnlspouge> is saying?

He saying it is your empty claim that nature of god of omv is nature of maximally great being. You have nothing to show for this empty claim other than call to authority of some philosophers (and many philosophers disagree with this claim as I showed earlier ).

God of johnlspouge is not maximally great being. It does not have to be.

Just if you see a word 'ability' and interpret in your own way that does not mean you have refuted. That means you are stupid.

Here 'ability' means god of theory of <johnlspouge> does not have nature of maximally great being and therefore not that ability either.

You catching on straws once again . using semantics instead of getting to the essence

Feb-25-18  Nisjesram: <big pawn: so it's not a matter of ability, yet you seem to not understand this, repeating it as you are and unable to respond to my refutation. This is why you say, <<Nisjesram> obviously understands my point, so at this stage, I will not belabor it, as it is clear. The OMV argument is worthless.>

Unable to refute either premise, by his own admission, and unable to cope with my defeating his try that God's ability grounds moral values by showing that it is God's nature itself that is The Good, <jls> simply says <The OMV argument is worthless.>

That's all he has.

<Tga>, do you see that this is all he has?

I mean, do you <really> see that?>

See my post above <thegoodanarchist> and <big pawn> where I addressed this point of 'ability'

Frankly, you two are embarrassing yourselves so badly that you can not expect someone of the stature of <johnlspouge> to bother with you.

Even I am finding it very difficult to tolerate nonsense of you clowns and still refuting your kindergarten level arguments.

<johnlspouge> is ten thousands smarter than me . you can not expect him to respond to your kindergarten level questions. He has explained everything so elaborately and he said in effect : everything is s clear. <nisjesram> just entered the conversation and without reading any previous post understood everything so quickly. Why can not you understand after two three days ? How much time of his you guys want? You are at kindergarten level or you are retarded?

-----

You two should be grateful that I am answering your kindergarten level questions/comments

Feb-25-18  Nisjesram: <biig pawn>< Pawn: <Feb-25-18 Premium Chessgames Member john barleycorn: < Nisjesram: ... Idiot, show me which conversation of mine in this debate is stupid. ...> Holy cow, go to your first post. and then it got worse.> He is begging for respect, <jbc>, but instead he is made sport of. ....

Indeed, he is VERY upset about this, but Iím afraid he just doesnít understand.

Does this sound like a plausible explanation to you?>

So , every one sees <big pawn> is running away by joining <johnbarleycorn> in substance less clowning.

All their arguments refuted.

If and when they make any argument again, I will respond even if it is kindergarten level as usual.

Thank you guys

Namaste

Feb-25-18  Nisjesram: <Focus: And today, for the first time in CeeGee history, every post said the same dang thing: <Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah OMV blah blah blah idiot blah blah machine guns blah blah blah blah liar blah blah blah blah blah freaking blah.> Multitude that by 100 posts of the same.

It was like watching a gaggle of bald men arguing over a comb>

1)<thefocus> , this is the last scene of the most stupid movie ever ,'omv argument' and after that I am leaving cg.com forever. Perhaps, I would visit your forum sometime if and when I am ready to ask you some questions about martial arts, if you please

2)well, <thefocus> , you put me on ignore earlier (I tested just now - I am not on your ignore list any more) and said that you were not interested in omv

3)and I said "every time I trounce <big pawn> in omv , you say things like 'it is great to see <big pawn> mow down every one in omv debate' , or <nisjesram> has man crush on <johnlspouge>' or 'no contribution by <nisjesram> to omv debate'"

4)not this time. This time it is very clear that <big pawn> and <thegoodanarchist> have been trounced badly and by me , by my theory.

5)I had said that I was ten thousand times smarter than <big pawn> and <thegoodanarchist> and <johnlspouge> is ten thousand times smarter than me. And despite all stupid tricks of <big pawn> , omv debate has reached climax due to my persistance and today I will make these two clowns run away in no time. And I delivered. All their kindergarten level arguments refuted effortlessly by me and the two clowns ran away like scalded dogs.

6)you are a good man <thefocus> but sometimes you can be a jerk when you join elite idiots comedy of <big pawn>.

Well, any way....take care...

Thank you

Namaste

Feb-25-18  Nisjesram: 1)<johnlspouge> , I am reposting your last comment from today and my comments of today in your forum for future reference, if you please. Please feel free to delete them if you wish so.

2)after thoroughly refuting stupid omv argument, I felt no need to respond to substanceless , stupid trash talk of <big pawn> , <johnbarleycorn> , <moronovich>.

3)<thegoodanarchist> is as stupid as <big pawn> , however, I am waiting to see if <thegoodanarchist> too is as dishonest as <big pawn> or he has honesty to accept/admit that stupid omv argument has been thoroughly refuted.

4)if <big pawn> , <thegoodanarchist> or anyone else makes some argument about this conversation again , I may respond or else I am gone from this site forever.

Thank you
Namaste

Feb-25-18  Nisjesram: <jolspouge: < <thegoodanarchist> wrote: Zeus can override Bob, therefore Bob is not the locus. > Zeus can decide to override Bob, but in my mythology, he has decided to leave the universe to Bob, to run it exactly as Bob sees fit. Bob is the relevant locus for our universe. Being in charge has nothing to do with being the locus relevant to our universe. They are separate functions of a deity.

The model of a computer simulation may work for you. (Models may not be real but they serve as an excellent aid to imagination, to understand the possibilities, of which there are too many for the first premise to be true.) The movie the Matrix illustrates some of the concepts.

Classically, along with other functions, God updated a clockwork universe. Nowadays, a computer simulation of the universe can do something similar. Imagine our universe as a computer simulation, and us as agents within the simulation. Zeus is upstairs, still in charge, but the moral values underlying the universe are written <objectively> in the source code running on the computer

Feb-25-18  Nisjesram: nlspouge: < <thegoodanarchist> wrote: Zeus can override Bob, therefore Bob is not the locus. > Zeus can decide to override Bob, but in my mythology, he has decided to leave the universe to Bob, to run it exactly as Bob sees fit. Bob is the relevant locus for our universe. Being in charge has nothing to do with being the locus relevant to our universe. They are separate functions of a deity> It is a shame that such simple things have to be explained to <thegoodanarchist>.

Any smart student of class 12th would agree with me.

Like I said - "i am thousands time smarter than <big pawn> and <thegoodanarchist> and <johnlspouge> is thousands time smarter than me. I will make <big pawn> and <thegoodanarchist> run away like scalded dog in no time"

Feb-25-18  Nisjesram: <<thegoodanarchist><Bob is subordinate to Zeus, however, and therefore not a maximal being, so the first premise is false.> No, you haven't falsified the first premise. You've merely employed a trick used by car dealerships. The sales manager ultimately decides if the salesman can agree to a customer's price offer. The salesman is merely the conduit for the decision. >>

Now, very clearly <thegoodanarchist> has no clue what the point is .

Let me explain first what <thegoodanarchist> is saying :

1)<thegoodanarchist> is saying that instead of Bob , Zeus is maximal greatest being. So what is the difference? God still exists and omv argument establishes that.

------
Now let me explain why <thegoodanarchist> is making a fool of himself. Here.

2)like I said many times that teachings of jesus are the only way to know creator of universe and we can not know creator of universe through stupid omv argument.

3)so , if locus of omv is neither maximal greatest being nor creator of universe, then we can not know creator of universe through omv argument.

4)and further as <johnlspouge> said - in his theory , <bob> has full autonomy which though can be overridden by zeus

4)hence <thegoodanarchist> is making a fool of himself by claiming that if creator of universe is maximal greatest being in theory of <johnlspouge> then omv argument is correct/useful.

Again :it is a shame that such simple things have to be explained to <thegoodanarchist>.

Any smart student of class 12th would agree with me.

Like I said - "i am thousands time smarter than <big pawn> and <thegoodanarchist> and <johnlspouge> is thousands time smarter than me. I will make <big pawn> and <thegoodanarchist> run away like scalded dog in no time"

Feb-25-18  Nisjesram: <<goodanarchist> wrote: Zeus can override Bob, therefore Bob is not the locus. > Unbelievable.

As anyone can see , <thegoodanarchist> has no clue what Absolute is and what is the difference between 'personal god' and Absolute is despite my giving links many times that alone should disqualify <thegoodanarchist> from this conversation for being an ignorant fool

In that theory which is so well established and endorsed by so many philosophers, Absolute is 'creator' of universe as well as creator of locus of omv and can kill locus of omv any time.

Like I said - "i am thousands time smarter than <big pawn> and <thegoodanarchist> and <johnlspouge> is thousands time smarter than me. I will make <big pawn> and <thegoodanarchist> run away like scalded dog in no time"

Feb-25-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  thegoodanarchist: <*Now* I can invoke that elementary plane geometry theorem that sin x ≈ x for small values of the angle x when it is measured in radians...>

That is my favorite plane geometry theorem.

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 11)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 11 OF 11 ·  Later Kibitzing>
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous, and 100% free--plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No posting personal information of members.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.


NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific user and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.

You are not logged in to chessgames.com.
If you need an account, register now;
it's quick, anonymous, and free!
If you already have an account, click here to sign-in.

View another user profile:
  


home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | contact us
Copyright 2001-2018, Chessgames Services LLC