Kylie's Pool Challenge, Mark II

[AV1611VET]

That God created the world in 7 days, isn't .. so its a belief.

Just out of curiosity, why did you say THAT and not IF?

(And it's six days, not seven.)

 

[Speedwell]

Just out of curiosity, why did you say THAT and not IF?

(And it's six days, not seven.)

Because it's a belief whether it is true or not.

 

[Kylie]

Joe walks into a bar and sees a pool table -- the balls on the table are lined up in fibinocci order and there is an extra 1 so then --> cue, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13

If one of the balls is out of order or missing the Pool table self-corrects the list by adding the missing billiard ball when needed and placing it at the right location.

Billiard tables of this type can reproduce themselves but the humans can't actually make one. All they can do is dump piles of wood and ceramic on the floor.

So then it is "sorta like" the vastly more complex system of regulation that happens in the cell to produce the needed proteins when needed, and cell division.

There is a document at the bar that claims that the game had just begin, but nobody actually broke. Rather, claims the document, the balls were found in their current locations and states that this is because an infinitely wise inventor built that feature into the table.

Extra credit: There are two people nearby. Neither of these people were there to watch how the balls got into position, but they have both looked at the positions of the balls and what happens if one is missing.

Creationist - observes what is going on with the pool table and says "well THAT certainly is not the result of highly unlikely random events all the way up mount improbable" -- turns to see a dust ball on the floor and says "ok.. well that IS a result of random events".

The other person "nearby" differs because after seeing the situation with the pool table he concludes "well that is EXACTLY what I would expect of a sequence of random events all the way up mount improbable"

Who should Joe listen to?

===================== DARWIN's blunder

Darwin tried to over-simplify the cell calling it all just "so much blob of protoplasm" in the cell so that a trivial event is all that might be needed to have them pop out of rocks and primordial soup and so the magic of protoplasm is what is at the core that gets everything to move along the path that evolution needs. given a cell "with protoplasm" to guide it and natural events of competition , random chance, survival of the fittest - that protoplasm based biosphere would generate rabbits, horses, humans, space ships given enough time and just-so random events.

================================



as well you should.

If indeed in that scenario every carpenter shop all up and down the street were able to produce said pool table with the observed Fibonacci effect then one could easily conclude that the table is one of the many that humans make... because in the lab the scientist just does the same as the carpenter and shows how easily the tables can be assembled.

Or a bit more true to life - if without any carpenters or shops - the scientists go into the lab and show that a pile of wood and ceramic will over time assemble into such a table no carpentry needed, they have at least a counter explanation.

because a scientific investigation of the real-world evidence of the basic elements assembling themselves to give the same results - shows that this is the other way it could well have happened.

I don't think you really understand Mount Improbable or evolution...

 

[Kylie]

Since this is CF, and I’m a Christian, we can trust the biblical account because it was given by God Himself.


For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.
— Exodus 20:11

This may be a Christian forum site, but I'm not aware of any rule that says that a non-Christian must accept the Biblical account of creation.

 

[Speedwell]

This may be a Christian forum site, but I'm not aware of any rule that says that a non-Christian must accept the Biblical account of creation.

Or even that Christians must accept it as an accurate historical account of creation.

 

[SelfSim]

Just out of curiosity, why did you say THAT and not IF?

Might just be a text medium misunderstanding there(?)
What I meant was: 'The notion (model) that God created the world in 7 days, isn't .. so its a belief'. Ie: it wasn't intended as a conditional 'if' statement deliberately because the idea (or notion, or model) isn't testable in the first place .. so therefore there's no point in stating it as a logical conditional statement when it can't be tested.

(And it's six days, not seven.)

I was just repeating BobRyan's claim of seven days ..
'Six' or 'seven' is neither here nor there as far as my point goes anyway .. (they are both untestable beliefs).

 

[Hammster]

This may be a Christian forum site, but I'm not aware of any rule that says that a non-Christian must accept the Biblical account of creation.

I never said you must. God says it’s true, though.

 

[AV1611VET]

.. (they are both untestable beliefs).

And why are they untestable?

 

[Kylie]

I never said you must. God says it’s true, though.

However, that leads to the reliability of the Bible being dependent on the reliability of the Bible, and that's circular reasoning.

Anyway, that's getting off topic, so I won't continue that discussion here. If you're interested in that discussion, please feel free to send me a PM (as alas there's no general apologetics section here that atheists can participate in).

 

[Kylie]

And why are they untestable?

Because they can't be tested. What evidence from reality is there that could be tested to show this?

 

[SelfSim]

'Nature' is defined in science, so it can be objectively testable ..

God created Nature
God created Trees

God caused the virgin birth - the incarnation of the Son of God

But the meaning you assign to 'nature', 'trees', virgin', 'birth' and 'son', doesn't follow the same process by which science assigns its meanings to those words.
Regardless of which of the two processes is used, (scientific or belief), it takes a mind to assign meaning (of any kind) to knowledge .. and the way science does it, is by testing models and then have the meaning assigned directly by the results of those tests. Any other mind can then arrive at those same meanings by following the same process .. (that's what objectivity means).

When we asssign meanings to knowledge via beliefs, you'll find the same disagreement we're seeing in this thread (and many others). That's because science accepts that different minds arrive at different meanings when its process isn't followed.

But God did not give us lab text books for how we too can do things that God can do.

Yes .. it appears he left us on our own to reach that conclusion (I'm attempting to follow your theme there) .. and what we came up with, inspires consensus (objectivity) .. and not divisiveness an exclusions from amongst other competing beliefs .. and what results, is enormously useful for us humans.

It does not mean that the virgin birth did not happen. It is a real event in real history... even without a lab book to reproduce it.

Possibly an unlikely instance of human parthenogenesis, or just by way of simply believing it.

It does not mean that the bodily resurrection of Christ is not a real event in real history.

And if I objectively test for how you arrived at your meaning there, I'll almost guarantee I'll find the belief process being followed by you, in coming up with your meaning for 'real event' and 'real history', which you then hold closely and unswervingly to, which would then demonstrate my objective definition of 'a belief'.

 

[SelfSim]

I never said you must. God says it’s true, though.

Are we allowed to objectively test how God arrived at what he means by 'true'?
Please understand, I don't mean that in an offensive way and I'm more than happy to apologise if its taken that way .. its more like I'm intensely curious about that, so I just have to ask .. (particularly of a moderator).

 

[Hammster]

However, that leads to the reliability of the Bible being dependent on the reliability of the Bible, and that's circular reasoning.

Anyway, that's getting off topic, so I won't continue that discussion here. If you're interested in that discussion, please feel free to send me a PM (as alas there's no general apologetics section here that atheists can participate in).

If that’s not the discussion, then what is the discussion? If it’s pool tables, then the thread is off topic.

 

[Hammster]

Are we allowed to objectively test how God arrived at what he means by 'true'?
Please understand, I don't mean that in an offensive way and I'm more than happy to apologise if its taken that way .. its more like I'm intensely curious about that, so I just have to ask .. (particularly of a moderator).

Scripture says that you already know God exists, but you suppress that knowledge because of unrighteousness. So I’m not sure what there is to test.

 

[Kylie]

If that’s not the discussion, then what is the discussion? If it’s pool tables, then the thread is off topic.

The discussion is about the logic and reasoning we use when we are faced with a source that says one thing, yet evidence from reality does not support that claim.

 

[Kylie]

Scripture says that you already know God exists, but you suppress that knowledge because of unrighteousness. So I’m not sure what there is to test.

I have to disagree with Scripture's claim.

And I'm not sure how nice it is to accuse others of being unrighteous just because they disagree with your own religious views.

 

[SelfSim]

Scripture says that you already know God exists, but you suppress that knowledge because of unrighteousness. So I’m not sure what there is to test.

@Hammster:
Thanks kindly for your above response.

Hmm .. I decided to look up 'unrighteousness' in the dictionary .. it gave some synonyms and antonyms, which I think might give me a better understanding of the meaning of that term:

Synonyms & Antonyms for unrighteous
Synonyms:
bad, black, dark, evil, immoral, iniquitous, nefarious, rotten, sinful, unethical, unlawful, unsavory, vicious, vile, villainous, wicked, wrong

Antonyms:
decent, ethical, good, honest, honorable, just, moral, right, righteous, sublime, upright, virtuous

I'm not quite sure how that term wouldn't be taken by most humans as being divisive and exclusionary, though?

Oh well, either way, its certainly consistent with what I concluded in my response to BobRyan (post #31):

Yes .. it appears he left us on our own to reach that conclusion (I'm attempting to follow your theme there) .. and what we came up with, inspires consensus (objectivity) .. and not divisiveness and exclusions from amongst other competing beliefs .. and what results, is enormously useful for us humans.

 

[SelfSim]

.. And I'm not sure how nice it is to accuse others ..

I see it as more of a 'challenge' directed at the core principles of human ethics, myself (the link and diagram are just one example adopted in businesses ... but captures the essence of the concept, I think)..

 

[SelfSim]

And why are they untestable?

Because I'm apparently either:
i) 'unrighteous' or;
ii) 'God' is not operationally definable.

 

[Hammster]

The discussion is about the logic and reasoning we use when we are faced with a source that says one thing, yet evidence from reality does not support that claim.

What does that have to do with creation or evolution?