Re: Godel Goofed? Nope.

[Roy and/or Janet Miller <millers@inetnebr.com>]

olcott wrote:

> 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.

You have made your allegation. You haven't made your case. Just because you have convinced yourself
about something doesn't make it so, and it certainly doesn't mean that others are convinced by your
assertions.

> 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,

There is where, by your definition, YOU lie. I wasn't commenting on ANY sequence other than your ad
hominem attack. You could have said, "You have misrepresented by position," or "you have
misunderstood my position," but you didn't. You called him a liar. That is ad hominem, and once you
were caught, you had to attack me personally for pointing it out. Like a child trying to hide the
fact that his hand is in the cookie jar. Why don't you grow up. Your rantings are very old, and
very tiring.

<snip>


>
> > 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.

Strange, you haven't admitted prior to this that you were in error, in fact, as I recall, you
defended your ridiculous position, and attacked me again. You seem to think that putting people
down makes your arguments stronger. It doesn't.

>
>
> >
> > >
> > > 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 know what you were saying. But it was so patiently silly that I replied with a joke. Seems you
missed it. Why am I not surprised by that?

As for judgment day, well, short answer is I'm confident on the outcome on that day, because I'm
not confident in my own goodness. Not that I expect you will understand what I'm referring to.

Roy