Re: Godel Goofed? Nope.

[olcott <olcott@qwest.net>]

Roy and/or Janet Miller wrote:

> olcott wrote:
>
> > A Christian minister defending an atheist Liar,
>
> 1. I don't know that QC is an atheist, and I wouldn't take your word for it....
> 2. Even if he is an atheist, that doesn't mean that he always lies (or that Christians, even
> ministers, always tell the truth.)
> 3. I haven't seen any lies by QC in his posts

I have specifically quoted his lie in the last few
posts in this same sequence, the same sequence
that you have been responding to. I said that
the INFINITELY RECURSIVE nature of
both Godel's Incompleteness Theorem and
the Liar Paradox, invalidates that they are
statements. Here is the LIAR'S restatement
of this...

>>>You forget.  You don't like recursive specifications.  :D
That invalidates everything!  <<<

My statement is not at all like his restatement of what
I said. Since I made my word-for-word statement
several times (about six), there is no way that his
fraudulent misstatement is unintentional...  This could
be characterized as the Straw man Fallacy, except
that did not misunderstand what I said, he intentionally
misrepresented what I said.... Since you have been
specifically commenting on this sequence, therefore
you have been following it, thus you are specifically
accountable for supporting a LIAR in his lies.

>
> 4. Which leads me to question your veracity, especially by someone with as little modesty has
> you have.
>
> >
> > in his lies, What is wrong with this picture?
> > Of course you remember who is the father of lies.
>
> Yes, I do. However, since you have claimed that statements of Christ, as recorded in
> scripture were the words of the evil one, that means that you are a son of the father of
> lies. Or, in words from playground, "Takes one to know one."
>

No, I did not calim that this IS true, I claimed that
it might possibly be true. As I recall you correctly
corrected me on these errors of mine. You described
the context of these statements, and this described
context changed my view.

>
> >
> > I myself would certainly not place myself on
> > the side of the goats... (There could be
> > consequences to this alignment)...
>

What I am saying here is that to intentionally place
yourself in the position of supporting a LIAR in
his LIES, might get you on the wrong side at judgment day...
You might (for this reason) be on the side of al those
condemned...

>
> I would. It was a goat that was sent into the wilderness bearing the sins of Israel - the
> scapegoat. A type of Christ. By all means, don't stand beside the goats - may I suggest you
> place yourself in front of them... and keep and eye on them by looking back between your
> legs... I'm sure you'll enjoy that alignment.
>
> Roy
>
> >
> >
> > Roy and/or Janet Miller wrote:
> >
> > > olcott wrote:
> > >
> > > > No hypocrisy at all LIAR...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You are a LIAR, imagine that, someone with such low self-esteem, that
> > > > they even choose to cheat at conversation...  I bet you cheat at cards
> > > > and checkers too.
> > >
> > > Did anyone else notice his descent to the ad hominem? The last refuge of the loser. And
> > > here he had the brass to chide me for being snide. I guess this means that you won QC,
> > > and Matthew, and Lumni Tech et al.
> > >
> > > Roy