>
>Are you posing that scenario under the presupposition that "a
>person who can turn another into a rabbit" can exist? Or are
>you assuming out-of-hand that this type of person does not
>exist.

Nice try! The presupposition is quite clear; that this person does not exist.

>If you begin by allowing for the existence of such a person,
>100 false rabbit-prophets do not in ANY way effect the odds of
>number 101... all things being equal.
>
>
>See this?

Of course your point is clear. Person 101 is mutually exclusive from the 100 false prophets before him.

>You have to make explicit the presupposition you're beginning
>from.

However, the supposition was clear; that no individual can turn another into a rabbit. The mention of 'odds' was sarcasm and you know it!

>This is probably one of the most crucial issues and broadly
>misunderstood concepts in the materialist vs. supernaturalist
>discorse.

You tried to muddy the conceptual waters here, not Oldpro. In any case, it was jenNjuice who misunderstood the materialist/supernaturalist dichotomy (post 59.) by attempting to establish a similarity between 100 people stating that the sky is blue (materialist) and 100 people dreaming of the same premonition (supernaturalist)..