Kylie's Pool Challenge, Mark II

[Hammster]

If you are actually capable of understanding what this thread is about, why are you derailing it into a general apologetics discussion?

If you can't confine your discussion to the OP, then please don't participate.

You keep responding to posts that came about as part of the discussion. I have tried to get you to see how your argument is faulty (at least as far as pool tables are concerned). Yet you won’t admit where you are wrong.

 

[Kylie]

You’re the one who keeps replying. I’m just answering your objections.

You're a staff member. You should have known better than to begin derailing the thread in the first place.

 

[Hammster]

This may be a surprise for you, but as an atheist, I really don't care about the threats your holy book makes regarding me, since I don't believe it's anything more than fiction to begin with.

And again, I ask that you don't derail the thread with your general apologetics.

Then stop responding.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah, and you don't get that it is extremely rude to come in and say, "My book tells me that your beliefs are actually different to what you claim they are, so I don't care what you say, because I know better than you."

Oh ... kinda like someone saying I believe in Last Thursdayism or Omphalos, after I explained Embedded Age Creation to them?

 

[Hammster]

You're a staff member. You should have known better than to begin derailing the thread in the first place.

I’m not the one who started the derail. It was the natural progression of the discussion.

 

[Kylie]

You keep responding to posts that came about as part of the discussion. I have tried to get you to see how your argument is faulty (at least as far as pool tables are concerned). Yet you won’t admit where you are wrong.

Given that you you think your faith is a better source of information about atheists than actually asking the atheists, and since you refuse to consider any viewpoints other than your own, you'll find that I really don't care what you think.

 

[Hammster]

Given that you you think your faith is a better source of information about atheists than actually asking the atheists, and since you refuse to consider any viewpoints other than your own, you'll find that I really don't care what you think.

Your replies to my posts imply otherwise.

 

[Kylie]

I’m not the one who started the derail. It was the natural progression of the discussion.

There is no part of the OP that requires you to tell me that the Bible says that atheists secretly know God exists but are motivated to deny it.

 

[Hammster]

So anyway, I think it’s safe to conclude that the documentation of why the balls were in the position they were in is indeed possibly true. I’ve played thousands of games of pool, and each break is different. Some are good, some are bad. So if the balls were randomly flung around the table, while it may look like a break, it wouldn’t be one.

 

[Hammster]

There is no part of the OP that requires you to tell me that the Bible says that atheists secretly know God exists but are motivated to deny it.

I know.

 

[Kylie]

Not really. That wasn’t in the OP. The OP was about a pool table and how the balls were arranged.

And maybe the magical pixies just blinked the whole table into existence half a second before you looked at it, and that's how the balls got there.

If you are going to say that we must consider a possibility because there is nothing to prove it couldn't happen that way, then we must consider ALL such possibilities, including magical pixies.

 

[Hammster]

And maybe the magical pixies just blinked the whole table into existence half a second before you looked at it, and that's how the balls got there.

If you are going to say that we must consider a possibility because there is nothing to prove it couldn't happen that way, then we must consider ALL such possibilities, including magical pixies.

But that’s not what I said. For some reason, you won’t deal with my actual argument.

 

[Kylie]

But that’s not what I said. For some reason, you won’t deal with my actual argument.

No, you narrow-mindedly insist on a false duality. Either the note is correct when it says the balls were placed manually, or the balls were broken. When you talked about whether something was possible, I suppose you meant only the two options you wish to consider, and somehow you have ignored all the other things that could have happened but you don't want to consider.

 

[Hammster]

No, you narrow-mindedly insist on a false duality. Either the note is correct when it says the balls were placed manually, or the balls were broken. When you talked about whether something was possible, I suppose you meant only the two options you wish to consider, and somehow you have ignored all the other things that could have happened but you don't want to consider.

No, what I wanted to know was if it was possible that the note is correct. It is possible, but you won’t acknowledge that.

 

[Hammster]

So you've missed the point...

No, you moved the goalposts.

Let me ask you this. Why isn’t it possible that the documentation is correct?

 

[SelfSim]

Let me ask you this. Why isn’t it possible that the documentation is correct?

If you admit the concept of uncertain possibility, you also admit logic and objective testing .. it all comes as part and parcel of being a human onlooker.
Scientific tests verified, with consistency, Joe's objectively testable hypothesis that the balls were likely broken in the regular way without being manually placed.
The test results outweigh the uncertainty of the possibility.

 

[Hammster]

If you admit the concept of uncertain possibility, you also admit logic and objective testing .. it all comes as part and parcel of being a human onlooker.
Scientific tests verified, with consistency, Joe's objectively testable hypothesis that the balls were likely broken in the regular way without being manually placed.
The test results outweigh the uncertainty of the possibility.

So it is possible. Thanks.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm going to go into a pool hall, rent two tables, break the balls on one table, set the balls up on the second table according to how the balls end up on the first table, write a note and leave it on the second table that the balls were placed there by design, then leave.

 

[Hammster]

I'm going to go into a pool hall, rent two tables, break the balls on one table, set the balls up on the second table according to how the balls end up on the first table, write a note and leave it on the second table that the balls were placed there by design, then leave.

That will just prove that the note is wrong.

 

[SelfSim]

So it is possible. Thanks.

I never ruled it out .. Others do though .. which is their prerogative .. because that also comes along with the (human) concept of free will (which you admitted).