Re: Evolutionary Religion

On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 12:58:49 +1000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by j.wilkins1@xxxxxxxxx (John
Wilkins):

Free Lunch <lunch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 18:37:55 -0700, in talk.origins
Bob Casanova <nospam@xxxxxxxx> wrote in
<0neuv2pgbcf6frjm9rl17b6du7eu99o9pm@xxxxxxx>:
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:01:22 +1000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by j.wilkins1@xxxxxxxxx (John
Wilkins):

Bob Casanova <nospam@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 15:50:36 +1000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by j.wilkins1@xxxxxxxxx (John
Wilkins):

Bob Casanova <nospam@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 21:08:17 +1000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by j.wilkins1@xxxxxxxxx (John
Wilkins):

Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Josh Hayes wrote:
What I can't figure out is, why do the otherwise sensible people
in this froup persist in responding to this almost absurdly
obvious troll?

We're a full-service science/religion/origins newsgroup. No one
posts without a response from those who disagree.

I disagree. Nobody has atacked *your* post...

Thereby refuting your own claim. ;-)

<snip>

No it hasn't.

Will this be a five minute argument, or the full half hour?

Dunno; you judge (assuming disagreement is an "attack")...

You're in a classic "Catch-22" bind. By disagreeing with his
post you fulfilled his claim that all posts draw responses
which disagree with the post. The only way you could have
successfully refuted his claim (other than by ignoring it;
the safest course) would have been to agree with him; by
agreeing with him you show his claim to be false, while by
disagreeing you show it to be true.

And now I have a headache...

Are you calling me a Cretan or a Liar?

Sorry; you lost me. ???

I'm cofused by the alternative options. I thought all Cretans were
liars.

All Cretans are liars, apparently, but not all liars are Cretans. It's a
paradox.

OK, I got it. I'd never (IIRC) seen the Epimenides original,
but I've seen several variations, none using "Cretans", and
all using, instead of "All X are liars" (which implies, but
doesn't specifically claim, that all X are liars *all of the
time*, and is thus not specifically a paradox), the
statement "No X ever tells the truth" (which is).

And I don't think the statements are quite comparable.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Evolutionary Religion
    ... in talk.origins, posted by j.wilkins1@xxxxxxxxx (John ... Wilkins): ... posts without a response from those who disagree. ... All Cretans are liars, apparently, but not all liars are Cretans. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolutionary Religion
    ... in talk.origins, posted by j.wilkins1@xxxxxxxxx (John ... Wilkins): ... in this froup persist in responding to this almost absurdly ... posts without a response from those who disagree. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolutionary Religion
    ... in talk.origins, posted by j.wilkins1@xxxxxxxxx (John ... Wilkins): ... posts without a response from those who disagree. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Does violating the laws of physics require intelligence?
    ... posted by j.wilki...@xxxxxxxxx (John Wilkins): ... Assuming, of course, that such stimuli can be applied equally and ... tube amplifier is, however, something that you can discern. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Does violating the laws of physics require intelligence?
    ... posted by j.wilki...@xxxxxxxxx (John Wilkins): ... (since we know that there *are* internal differences between electronic ... Turing test *is* such a stimulus/response procedure, ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading