Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,alt.consciousness.mysticism,alt.consciousness,alt.paranormal.channeling,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.pagan,alt.atheism,talk.religion.newage
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!MathWorks.Com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!sunic!sics.se!torkel
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: rereRe: The end of god
In-Reply-To: kevin@swanlake.cs.ualberta.ca's message of 6 Oct 1994 20:05:46 GMT
Message-ID: <TORKEL.94Oct7134131@ganesha.sics.se>
Followup-To: talk.philosophy.misc
Sender: news@sics.se
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
References: <36vt2m$g6m@scapa.cs.ualberta.ca> <371epj$8gn@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM>
	<371lar$qsd@scapa.cs.ualberta.ca>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 1994 12:41:30 GMT
Lines: 10

In article <371lar$qsd@scapa.cs.ualberta.ca> kevin@swanlake.cs.ualberta.ca (Kevin Wiebe) writes:

   >Boolean logic and first-order predicate logic (without, say, the 
   >existential operator), are provably complete, as you say, but were
   >too weak to be relevant to the topic under discussion (set theory,
   >etc.)

  You're confusing different concepts of completeness. But this whole
logic thread is pointless in an "end of god" discussion. Follow-up,
if any, to talk.philosophy.misc only.
