Kylie's Pool Challenge

[Bugeyedcreepy]

I believe you are missing the case pointed out that the analogy is not corresponding to what is to be considered with how the beginning of our universe is to be explained. The case of a pool table and the balls is only dealing with whether the balls came to a position with one shot played, breaking them. There aren't even players one, two, three or four. If there were, a game would have been continuing with any players there watching the play, and with no such discussion as this. But that there are a player or players, a pool table, balls, cue stick, and a place for them existing are all taken for granted without explanation.

Creationists are not, at least those serious about discussing it and studying about it and not certain exceptions you might encounter around here, simply saying that all that there is, with whatever arrangement is around, must have a Creator who already was around, evwn with using just a claim for that from something written that was around a long time because they will just believe that. This is what this case that was shown is to be analogous to, but that is not the actual case.

There is nothing established that you can show explains the microscopic form that existed to expand with space to be all this universe, but there is necessary existence, and only this necessary being, to explain this. If our universe is with highly ordered complexity, this is from the necessary being with the capacity to make that, with it necessarily unlimited capacity.

This whole chain of reasoning is so wrong, that it's not even wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong.​

 

[Kylie]

I believe you are missing the case pointed out that the analogy is not corresponding to what is to be considered with how the beginning of our universe is to be explained. The case of a pool table and the balls is only dealing with whether the balls came to a position with one shot played, breaking them. There aren't even players one, two, three or four. If there were, a game would have been continuing with any players there watching the play, and with no such discussion as this. But that there are a player or players, a pool table, balls, cue stick, and a place for them existing are all taken for granted without explanation.

Creationists are not, at least those serious about discussing it and studying about it and not certain exceptions you might encounter around here, simply saying that all that there is, with whatever arrangement is around, must have a Creator who already was around, evwn with using just a claim for that from something written that was around a long time because they will just believe that. This is what this case that was shown is to be analogous to, but that is not the actual case.

There is nothing established that you can show explains the microscopic form that existed to expand with space to be all this universe, but there is necessary existence, and only this necessary being, to explain this. If our universe is with highly ordered complexity, this is from the necessary being with the capacity to make that, with it necessarily unlimited capacity.

The intelligence we have, with which to reason about truth, to know it, is not explained from complexity from natural processes. The necessary being from which there is intelligent design, even if the universe came from the microscopic existence with the big bang, to have the parameters just right to still exist as it does, has intelligence for that, and then this is without limit, and does explain how we have ours, from that unlimited ability to create.

We expect such necessary being which provides for us to communicate with us who are created, as with possibly revealing our purpose here. As such communication would be made for us to understand, we would look at all the communications which exist claiming to be the revelation of this being. We have reason to say the Bible is the one, apart from orhers, which shows qualification to be that.

Wow.

The contortions you must go through to explain why my analogy doesn't work are amazing.

I once heard a balloon being inflated used as an analogy to explain why it looks like all the galaxies can be moving away from us, but we aren't in the center. It said that if we get a balloon and drew some small dots on it, and then inflated the balloon, the distance between all the dots would increase. If there was an ant on one of the dots, he'd see all the other dots moving away. But move that ant to any other dot, and he'd still see all the dots moving away from him. Thus, from each dot, it would look as though that dot was the center from which all other dots were receding.

Would you claim that analogy is wrong because the universe isn't made out of balloon?

 

[the iconoclast]

There could be. Like I said, it's an UNKNOWN. Please do try to actually understand what I write.

Hello kylie you absolute diamond.

Please excuse me.

Just so we know where we are.

Icon - Please excuse my attention to detail, however my proposed and alternate wording would be the below statement.


"The pool stick randomly hit the white ball into the triangular formation of balls. It did so for no reason and there was nothing behind the pool cue?"



Kylie - I chose my wording because your wording makes it seem that there was absolutely no reason for the initial event



Icon - Are you suggesting there is a cause, explanation, or justification for this action or event?



Kylie - There could be. Like I said, it's an UNKNOWN. Please do try to actually understand what I write.




Player 1 is unknown. You agree that player 1 is not random and meaningless, - or has nothing behind it.

Player 1 is not nothing. Player 1 is a thing. An unknown thing but not unknowable. Yet what player 1 did is knowable (.eg breaks the balls with a pool stick) - We will get to that next.

Why is player 1 not meaningless, random or nothing?

What do you mean by "I chose my wording because your wording makes it seem that there was absolutely no reason for the initial event"?

Reason implies purpose.

Why does there need to be a reason or purpose?

Because everything we see is consistent with that, and assuming that someone placed the balls in that position introduces a complicated answer that simply isn't needed.

What do you refer to as 'everything' being seen consistently here? What is seen?
(.eg that the pool balls were broken by a unknown person with a pool stick and not placed by an unknown person?)

Not quite sure what you're asking here.

Please excuse me.

By authority I mean what 'power' or a thing recognized as having knowledge - expert or an authority?

Authority is what influences your beliefs and opinion. In this case the formation of the universe.

What authority influences your position on the formation of the universe?

Do you trust in it?

Sure, why couldn't it?

I agree.

In the analogy, the Bible is represented by the documentation.


I thought this was quite clear.

Let's try a different tact. Let's reason together.

So this is an arguement from analogy. A matter of Logic. Analogy re logic - a process of arguing from similarity in known respects to similarity in other respects.

In case I misinterpret you. How is this fictional document written by player 2 similar in known aspects with the Bible?

Yes, you have answered the question, but it was incredibly difficult to get you to,

Please excuse me. I politely and respectfully disagree.

since you seemed to complain about every little detail in my post, even the ones that didn't matter!

I do want to express dissatisfaction with this analogy. Please enlighten me.

What little details dont matter?

Cheers hey.

 

[Jon Osterman]

There is a better reason why this is a poor analogy, in both the original and modified forms. Pool tables are things we know about and have previously experienced, while the creation of the universe (by whatever means) is a one time event.

So when we look at the pool table we are using our previous experience of pool tables (and indeed Newtonian dynamics) to make our assessment of what happened. And the obvious assumption to make is that this pool table isn't 'special' and the balls have reached their orientation by playing the game from the break. However, if you take away our knowledge of the game and our experience of other tables, then all bets are off, and no-one's guess to what happened is any better than anyone else's.

Taking this further, imagine that this pool table was all that existed and the observers were someone teleported in there with no knowledge of pool and no prior experience or memory of previous times. Then both hypotheses (that the configuration came from a break; and that the balls were placed by someone) become unreasonable. There is no 'truth' because there is no way of distinguishing what really happened. The past becomes as uncertain as the future.

This is at the heart of a misconception that non-scientists sometimes have about science. Science is not in the business of saying what happened in the past - it instead builds models, using patterns from the past, to predict future experimental results. In terms of the pool table, it would be perfectly consistent from the scientist to hypothesise a break of some kind and use the placement of the balls and knowledge of dynamics to figure out what the pre-break positions are. But this would be fully consistent with someone placing the balls in a configuration that would be possible from the break. In the one 'reality' the scientist is discerning the pre-break positions from the physicality of the table, but in the other he is discerning the pre-break positions from the revealed knowledge of the ball placer.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is a better reason why this is a poor analogy,

It depends on what the analogy is supposed to represent.

I think it's a good analogy of a cult.

Player One is a [false] god who created and instituted the Big Bang scenario; but didn't write down what he did, when he did it, etc. Probably a deist god, or an evolutionist god.

Player Two is simply a liar who is setting himself up, by way of writing, as some kind of authority over the pool table. Probably a Urantian or scientist of some sort. Definitely educated, definitely possessed.

Player Three is a gullible person. Probably the type that would read a fiction novel and believe it to be true. Probably a Urantian or Heaven's Gate follower or some sort. Definitely uneducated, definitely oppressed.

 

[the iconoclast]

Player Three is a gullible person. Probably the type that would read a fiction novel and believe it to be true. Probably a Urantian or Heaven's Gate follower or some sort. Definitely uneducated, definitely oppressed.

Or an atheist who just read Richard dawkins.

 

[Kylie]

Player 1 is not nothing. Player 1 is a thing. An unknown thing but not unknowable. Yet what player 1 did is knowable (.eg breaks the balls with a pool stick) - We will get to that next.

Why is player 1 not meaningless, random or nothing?

What do you mean by "I chose my wording because your wording makes it seem that there was absolutely no reason for the initial event"?

Reason implies purpose.

Why does there need to be a reason or purpose?

No, reason does not imply purpose.

I can say that the reason it rains is because the humidity rose to the point where the air was incapable of holding any more moisture without it precipitating as rain. That doesn't mean there's some conscious force behind it.

What do you refer to as 'everything' being seen consistently here? What is seen?
(.eg that the pool balls were broken by a unknown person with a pool stick and not placed by an unknown person?)

By "everything" I mean literally everything we can see about the universe. There's no point where we are forced to say, "And this is the bit God did..."

Please excuse me.

By authority I mean what 'power' or a thing recognized as having knowledge - expert or an authority?

Authority is what influences your beliefs and opinion. In this case the formation of the universe.

What authority influences your position on the formation of the universe?

Do you trust in it?

Science isn't an authority. It's a process of systematic investigation.

The "authority" I listen to when it comes to answers about how the universe came to be is the group of scientists who study this.

Let's try a different tact. Let's reason together.

So this is an arguement from analogy. A matter of Logic. Analogy re logic - a process of arguing from similarity in known respects to similarity in other respects.

In case I misinterpret you. How is this fictional document written by player 2 similar in known aspects with the Bible?

A person comes about and sees something, and he does not know how it came to be. He writes down something to provide an explanation for it.

Is this a guy thousands of years ago writing a book in the Bible, or is it Person 2 writing the documentation about how the balls came to be where they are?

I do want to express dissatisfaction with this analogy. Please enlighten me.

What little details dont matter?

Cheers hey.

The detail about why I had a person in the analogy representing something that was not a person in reality.

 

[AV1611VET]

I can say that the reason it rains is because the humidity rose to the point where the air was incapable of holding any more moisture without it precipitating as rain.

That is correct.

That doesn't mean there's some conscious force behind it.

If there was "some conscious force behind it," and you said there wasn't, you would be wrong ... wouldn't you?

Psalm 83:15 So persecute them with thy tempest, and make them afraid with thy storm.

30 October 1991: The Halloween Monster, a.k.a. The Perfect Storm, strikes the U.S. amid the "land-for-peace" Madrid peace talks; President Bush's ocean-side home destroyed.

23 August 1992: President Bush moves Madrid talks to U.S. soil; that very day, Hurricane Andrew devastates southern Florida.

16 January 1994: President Clinton meets with Syrian President Hafez Assad to discuss more "land for peace" arrangements; less than 24 hours later, a 6.9 earthquake pulverized southern California.

1 September 1993: President Clinton announces a meeting with Arafat for the Oslo peace accords, to be held on 13 September; after a week of meandering in the Atlantic Ocean, Hurricane Emily hits North Carolina on that very day.

21 January 1998: while waiting to meet with Arafat at the White House, President Clinton's sex scandal breaks out.

27 September 1998: Arafat is meeting with the president in Washington; Hurricane Georges hits Alabama and stalls. The hurricane stalls until Arafat leaves and then it dissipates. Parts of Alabama declared a disaster area.

17 October 1998: Arafat comes to the Wye Plantation meeting; incredible rains fall on Texas, which cause record flooding. Parts of Texas declared a disaster area.

3 September 1999: Secretary of State Albright meets with Arafat in Israel; Hurricane Dennis comes ashore on this very day after weeks of changing course in the Atlantic Ocean.

12-26 July 2000: Arafat at the Camp David meetings. Powerful droughts throughout the country. Forest fires explode in West into uncontrollable fires. By the end of August, 7 million acres are burnt.

9 November 2000, two days after the presidential election: Arafat meets with President Clinton at the White House to try and salvage the peace process; worst election crisis in over 100 years occurs.

 

[Kylie]

That is correct.If there was "some conscious force behind it," and you said there wasn't, you would be wrong ... wouldn't you?

That's a mighty big IF there...

Psalm 83:15 So persecute them with thy tempest, and make them afraid with thy storm.

30 October 1991: The Halloween Monster, a.k.a. The Perfect Storm, strikes the U.S. amid the "land-for-peace" Madrid peace talks; President Bush's ocean-side home destroyed.

23 August 1992: President Bush moves Madrid talks to U.S. soil; that very day, Hurricane Andrew devastates southern Florida.

16 January 1994: President Clinton meets with Syrian President Hafez Assad to discuss more "land for peace" arrangements; less than 24 hours later, a 6.9 earthquake pulverized southern California.

1 September 1993: President Clinton announces a meeting with Arafat for the Oslo peace accords, to be held on 13 September; after a week of meandering in the Atlantic Ocean, Hurricane Emily hits North Carolina on that very day.

21 January 1998: while waiting to meet with Arafat at the White House, President Clinton's sex scandal breaks out.

27 September 1998: Arafat is meeting with the president in Washington; Hurricane Georges hits Alabama and stalls. The hurricane stalls until Arafat leaves and then it dissipates. Parts of Alabama declared a disaster area.

17 October 1998: Arafat comes to the Wye Plantation meeting; incredible rains fall on Texas, which cause record flooding. Parts of Texas declared a disaster area.

3 September 1999: Secretary of State Albright meets with Arafat in Israel; Hurricane Dennis comes ashore on this very day after weeks of changing course in the Atlantic Ocean.

12-26 July 2000: Arafat at the Camp David meetings. Powerful droughts throughout the country. Forest fires explode in West into uncontrollable fires. By the end of August, 7 million acres are burnt.

9 November 2000, two days after the presidential election: Arafat meets with President Clinton at the White House to try and salvage the peace process; worst election crisis in over 100 years occurs.

So what?

You have a book of old myths that talk about there being storms (Gasp, can't have those unless there's a God, there's no natural phenomenon that can explain storms!) and then give a bunch of examples?

And you expect me to find that convincing?

Star Trek spoke of the first manned mission to land on the moon being launched on a Wednesday. The Apollo 11 mission was indeed launched on a Wednesday - proof that Star Trek is real!

Same exact logic, AV. Your arguments are laughable. I can give you lots of examples that are just as much evidence of things you won't accept.

 

[Kylie]

Just for fun, let's look at these...

30 October 1991: The Halloween Monster, a.k.a. The Perfect Storm, strikes the U.S. amid the "land-for-peace" Madrid peace talks; President Bush's ocean-side home destroyed.

And yet this idea has been the basis for all peace talks since. And this storm would be more convincing an act of God if it had not occured right in the middle of storm season!

23 August 1992: President Bush moves Madrid talks to U.S. soil; that very day, Hurricane Andrew devastates southern Florida.

So God doesn't like what Bush is doing, and instead of sending an actual CLEAR message, he sends a storm and kills 65 people who have nothing to do with Bush's talks. You'd think God would at least target Washington where the talks were taking place, but no, God targets the other side of the country.

And again, it was the middle of the storm season. Why do think this was anything other than a result of that?

16 January 1994: President Clinton meets with Syrian President Hafez Assad to discuss more "land for peace" arrangements; less than 24 hours later, a 6.9 earthquake pulverized southern California.

Now, an earthquake isn't really a storm, is it, AV? And gasp! How surprising, an earthquake hit a region of the world known for experiencing earthquakes! There's no way that could be a natural event!

1 September 1993: President Clinton announces a meeting with Arafat for the Oslo peace accords, to be held on 13 September; after a week of meandering in the Atlantic Ocean, Hurricane Emily hits North Carolina on that very day.

Same old weak logic. It was hurricane season. Again, God decides not to punish Washington, but a completely unrelated part of the country. Also, why is it that in your other examples, God decides to attack on the day of the talks, but now he strikes on the day the talks are announced? Sounds to me like this is a case of, "Here's a destructive event, what event can I tie it with so I can say that this was God's punishment for something?" Little different to painting the bullseye around the arrow AFTER you've shot it. Weak logic.

21 January 1998: while waiting to meet with Arafat at the White House, President Clinton's sex scandal breaks out.

And yet, when Trumps "grab them by the p****" comments came out, God does nothing. I guess you think God doesn't mind sexual assault from a Republican politician.

And I'm sorry (no I'm not) but weren't you supposed to tell me about some storm or something? There was Cyclone Katrina, but that hit Queensland, not the USA. Maybe God made a mistake and punished Australia instead?

27 September 1998: Arafat is meeting with the president in Washington; Hurricane Georges hits Alabama and stalls. The hurricane stalls until Arafat leaves and then it dissipates. Parts of Alabama declared a disaster area.

Once again, a hurricane in hurricane season! learly an act of God, not a natural event! Also, God's aim is off again.

17 October 1998: Arafat comes to the Wye Plantation meeting; incredible rains fall on Texas, which cause record flooding. Parts of Texas declared a disaster area.

The Wye Plantation is in Maryland. Once again, God's aim needs some work.

Also, the area where the floods occurred is known for how bad the flash floods can be...

3 September 1999: Secretary of State Albright meets with Arafat in Israel; Hurricane Dennis comes ashore on this very day after weeks of changing course in the Atlantic Ocean.

Yawn. Maybe one of these will be a surprise and it will be about a hurricane that appears spontaneously OUTSIDE hurricane season...

12-26 July 2000: Arafat at the Camp David meetings. Powerful droughts throughout the country. Forest fires explode in West into uncontrollable fires. By the end of August, 7 million acres are burnt.

Wow, what a surprise. Hot weather in summer... Well, colour me surprised...

9 November 2000, two days after the presidential election: Arafat meets with President Clinton at the White House to try and salvage the peace process; worst election crisis in over 100 years occurs.

Come on, these were supposed to be storms or tempests. In any case, that election gave us Bush, which was indeed a terrible tragedy, wasn't it?

So, when you have actually managed to stick to the topic and talk about storms and tempests which you claim were signs from God, each and every one of them happened exactly when we would have expected them to. No out of season storms, no earthquakes away from fault lines...

Terrible arguments, AV.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's a mighty big IF there...

That's right. God is bigger than any "if".

So what?

Storms.

You have a book of old myths that talk about there being storms ...

Either that or I have a Bible that talks about God sending storms at will.

(Gasp, can't have those unless there's a God, there's no natural phenomenon that can explain storms!)

Anything mother nature can do, God can do; but there are things God can do that mother nature cannot do.

... and then give a bunch of examples?

Coincidences.

And you expect me to find that convincing?

No comment.

Star Trek spoke of the first manned mission to land on the moon being launched on a Wednesday. The Apollo 11 mission was indeed launched on a Wednesday - proof that Star Trek is real!

Star Trek also mentions "1 to the 4th power." Proof that mathematics is real!

Same exact logic, AV. Your arguments are laughable.

Jesus was "laughed to scorn" by the Kylie's of His day.

I can give you lots of examples that are just as much evidence of things you won't accept.

No argument there.

 

[AV1611VET]

Now, an earthquake isn't really a storm, is it, AV?

An earthquake is a tempest.

Psalm 83:15 So persecute them with thy tempest, and make them afraid with thy storm.

From dictionary.com:

1. a violent windstorm, especially one with rain, hail, or snow.
2. a violent commotion, disturbance, or tumult.

 

[the iconoclast]

No, reason does not imply purpose.

Hey hey my dear.

Purpose. The reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.

Reason. A cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.


Kylie - I chose my wording because your wording makes it seem that there was absolutely no reason for the initial event

Please consider the above statement you made. What do you mean by reason?

I can say that the reason it rains is because the humidity rose to the point where the air was incapable of holding any more moisture without it precipitating as rain. That doesn't mean there's some conscious force behind it.

So rain does not have a purpose?

By "everything" I mean literally everything we can see about the universe.

Please forgive me however, my eyes may not work as well as yours. I do not see what you can so blatantly see.

What do you refer to as 'everything' being seen consistently here? What is seen?
(.eg that the pool balls were broken by a unknown person with a pool stick and not placed by an unknown person?)

There's no point where we are forced to say, "And this is the bit God did..."

A little bit about myself. I like cats and birds. I love the winter weather. I like the quiet life. I like to boogie.

I like banana milkshakes too.
What's your favourite???

Anyways how r u? I hope you are healthy and safe with somewheres warm to go to, amongst people who love you.

Science isn't an authority. It's a process of systematic investigation.

The "authority" I listen to when it comes to answers about how the universe came to be is the group of scientists who study this.

Scientists are your authority?

Do you have complete trust in these people you refer to?

A person comes about and sees something, and he does not know how it came to be. He writes down something to provide an explanation for it.

Is this a guy thousands of years ago writing a book in the Bible, or is it Person 2 writing the documentation about how the balls came to be where they are?

Do I only get 2 choices?

The detail about why I had a person in the analogy representing something that was not a person in reality.

I'm curious as to why you believe player 1 and what he represents in such a minor detail?

You included him. He is now intergal. How about we modify your analogy some more and discard player 1?

Cheers

 

[Kylie]

That's right. God is bigger than any "if".

I know you know exactly what I mean, so don't do that.

Storms.

Which happen quite easily enough without God using them to wreak vengeance.

Either that or I have a Bible that talks about God sending storms at will.

And the Book of Kylie tells that farts are the Invisible Pink Unicorns way of letting you know that you've been naughty.

It's very easy for a book to claim that something that's going to happen anyway is some kind of vague message.

Anything mother nature can do, God can do; but there are things God can do that mother nature cannot do.

Such a shame that they never happen. Where are the dead bodies coming back to life? The blind having their sight restored?

Coincidences.

So why bother posting them?

No comment.

So why do you waste my time? Just like your posts in the number threads, the quality is rather lacking.

Star Trek also mentions "1 to the 4th power."

Written by a fallible man, of course. The Great Bird of the Galaxy makes no such mistakes.

Proof that mathematics is real!

Is this something you doubted?

Jesus was "laughed to scorn" by the Kylie's of His day.

Comparing yourself to Jesus now?

No argument there.

So once again you play your old song: "These things are evidence for my religion, but when other religions have the same things, they don't count."

You couldn't defend it before, why are you trying it again now? Glutton for punishment?

 

[Kylie]

Hey hey my dear.

Purpose. The reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.

Reason. A cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.


Kylie - I chose my wording because your wording makes it seem that there was absolutely no reason for the initial event

Please consider the above statement you made. What do you mean by reason?




So rain does not have a purpose?



Please forgive me however, my eyes may not work as well as yours. I do not see what you can so blatantly see.

What do you refer to as 'everything' being seen consistently here? What is seen?
(.eg that the pool balls were broken by a unknown person with a pool stick and not placed by an unknown person?)



A little bit about myself. I like cats and birds. I love the winter weather. I like the quiet life. I like to boogie.

I like banana milkshakes too.
What's your favourite???

Anyways how r u? I hope you are healthy and safe with somewheres warm to go to, amongst people who love you.



Scientists are your authority?

Do you have complete trust in these people you refer to?



Do I only get 2 choices?



I'm curious as to why you believe player 1 and what he represents in such a minor detail?

You included him. He is now intergal. How about we modify your analogy some more and discard player 1?

Cheers

Is English your first language? I ask because some aspects of your sentence construction suggest that it is not.

 

[the iconoclast]

Is English your first language? I ask because some aspects of your sentence construction suggest that it is not.

Hey hey kylie

It was never a problem before. Say if English is my second language, that reply could be deemed insensitive and a form of mockery.

Attack the man rather than his arguments. Good luck with that approach!

Is this a guy thousands of years ago writing a book in the Bible, or is it Person 2 writing the documentation about how the balls came to be where they are?

I would to address this statement. Which book of the bible would be more specific? Proverbs may not meet the criteria. Epistle of john may not as well.

Cheers my dear.

 

[Kylie]

Hey hey kylie

It was never a problem before. Say if English is my second language, that reply could be deemed insensitive and a form of mockery.

Attack the man rather than his arguments. Good luck with that approach!

I'm just asking a question. It's not an attack.

I would to address this statement. Which book of the bible would be more specific? Proverbs may not meet the criteria. Epistle of john may not as well.

Cheers my dear.

Well, since the analogy is about how the pool table got to that set up, and it's an analogy for the formation of the universe, why don't you tell me what parts of the Bible it could be an analogy of. It's not that difficult.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, since the analogy is about how the pool table got to that set up,

We know how the pool table got to that set up:

Let's say someone broke,

We don't need an analogy.

 

[Kylie]

We know how the pool table got to that set up:
We don't need an analogy.

Tell me, AV, how hard did you have to turn the steering wheel to intentionally miss the point by that much?

 

[the iconoclast]

Hey hey kylie.

I'm just asking a question. It's not an attack.

Fair enough my dear English is my mother tongue. Now we have established this fact, what do you deduce?

Well, since the analogy is about how the pool table got to that set up, and it's an analogy for the formation of the universe, why don't you tell me what parts of the Bible it could be an analogy of. It's not that difficult.

Please excuse me. It is not a matter of difficulty, its a matter of presumption and misrepresentation that is built into this flawed analogy.

I cannot answer such a question. That would mean i accept this misrepresentation. It is an obvious trap and i aint that green.

How about you tell me what you believe?

Dont worry my treasure. I have not forgotten about the issue of player 1. We shall take a break and see how this one plays out.

I look forward to your reply. Give me something good.