Kylie's Pool Challenge

[Kylie]

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.

So lemme get this straight...

I present an analogy about the cause of the universe, and you are telling me that there aren't any parts of the Bible that talk about the same thing?

 

[the iconoclast]

So lemme get this straight...

I present an analogy about the cause of the universe, and you are telling me that there aren't any parts of the Bible that talk about the same thing?

Hey there you amazing gem. How about you tell me?

Cause is an interesting word.

So lemme get this straight...

Your analogy includes a person - the source or the root - that gives rise to the formation of the universe?

Cheers hey

 

[Kylie]

Hey there you amazing gem. How about you tell me?

Cause is an interesting word.

So lemme get this straight...

Your analogy includes a person - the source or the root - that gives rise to the formation of the universe?

Cheers hey

Since my analogy was an ANALOGY, it means that what is a person in the analogy does not actually have to be a person in the thing that it is an analogy for.

I'm sorry if this concept is confusing.

 

[AV1611VET]

Since my analogy was an ANALOGY, it means that what is a person in the analogy does not actually have to be a person in the thing that it is an analogy for.

It's an excellent analogy of a cult.

 

[Kylie]

It's an excellent analogy of a cult.

How so?

 

[the iconoclast]

Since my analogy was an ANALOGY,

Hey hey kylie.

Player 2 and player 3 are beings , and are represented by humans. Player 1 is not a being but is non the less represented as a human - not staying the same throughout ie inconsistent.

I'm sorry if this concept is confusing. We have a catalyst ( .eg a person or thing that precipitates an event), unless you change player 1 to something which is a non being.

All this means is that Player 2 and 3 get the logistics wrong!

You have suggested player 1 is not crucial. Why do you not modify or eliminate player 1?

Please be a dear and tell me which book of the Bible you believe this to be an analogy of?

If we can prove no similarity between the document in your analogy and this biblical book, then your analogy is flawed.

We are at the crux. We will need to investigate how the formation of the universe in your analogy is similar to the biblical book in question?

It should not be that difficult of a request.

it means that what is a person in the analogy does not actually have to be a person in the thing that it is an analogy for.

I'm sorry if this concept is confusing.

My dear, i fear it may be you who seems confused.

An analogy is a comparison between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.

This analogy is being used as a process of arguing from similarity in known respects to similarity in other respects.





Im curious. What did you refer to as 'everything' being seen consistently here?


Cheers kylie.

Look forward to your reply, the anticipation is too much!!


Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer.

 

[Kylie]

Hey hey kylie.

Player 2 and player 3 are beings , and are represented by humans. Player 1 is not a being but is non the less represented as a human - not staying the same throughout ie inconsistent.

I'm sorry if this concept is confusing. We have a catalyst ( .eg a person or thing that precipitates an event), unless you change player 1 to something which is a non being.

All this means is that Player 2 and 3 get the logistics wrong!

You have suggested player 1 is not crucial. Why do you not modify or eliminate player 1?

Please be a dear and tell me which book of the Bible you believe this to be an analogy of?

If we can prove no similarity between the document in your analogy and this biblical book, then your analogy is flawed.

We are at the crux. We will need to investigate how the formation of the universe in your analogy is similar to the biblical book in question?

It should not be that difficult of a request.



My dear, i fear it may be you who seems confused.

An analogy is a comparison between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.

This analogy is being used as a process of arguing from similarity in known respects to similarity in other respects.





Im curious. What did you refer to as 'everything' being seen consistently here?


Cheers kylie.

Look forward to your reply, the anticipation is too much!!


Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer.

Still quibbling over this?

You are, I think, deliberately missing the point.

You know exactly what my analogy is intended to illustrate, how about we discuss that instead of quibbling over the minutiae of the way I phrased the analogy, mkay?

 

[the iconoclast]

Still quibbling over this?

You are, I think, deliberately missing the point.

You know exactly what my analogy is intended to illustrate, how about we discuss that instead of quibbling over the minutiae of the way I phrased the analogy, mkay?

Hey hey kylie my dear

Spotto 2 quibbles. Your quibble tally is 8 and wow 2 quibbles in one post. Very generous!

There you have it my delicious friends, kylie cannot defend her analogy. Looks like this one is officially busted.

It has been fun!

Cheers

 

[AV1611VET]

There you have it my delicious friends, kylie cannot defend her analogy. Looks like this one is officially busted.

She doesn't want to admit that it is indicative of how cults get started.

Her major flaw, in my opinion, is that she didn't credit Player 1 with writing it down.

 

[Kylie]

Hey hey kylie my dear

Spotto 2 quibbles. Your quibble tally is 8 and wow 2 quibbles in one post. Very generous!

There you have it my delicious friends, kylie cannot defend her analogy. Looks like this one is officially busted.

It has been fun!

Cheers

Yeah, get back to me when you can actually address the point I am making rather than having a hissy fit over the words I use for my analogy.

 

[the iconoclast]

Yeah, get back to me when you can actually address the point I am making rather than having a hissy fit over the words I use for my analogy.

Hey hey kylie

Dont worry, we will see each other around

 

[FredVB]

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. 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, even 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 others, which shows qualification to be that.

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

Not even wrong - Wikipedia.​

That doesn't matter to me. What I see matters is that there is disregard for dealing with logic when the thinking amounts to all that this universe is came from absolute nothingness. If there is not nothingness from which anything ever came, what is there that is existing eternally?

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?

I understand the balloon analogy already, I was not making an argument that would be against that, though I don't think it has to be the necessary conclusion. What are the contortions you think there are, that amaze you? As I just said above, there should be one being that explains all that we know of being here.

 

[Kylie]

I understand the balloon analogy already, I was not making an argument that would be against that, though I don't think it has to be the necessary conclusion. What are the contortions you think there are, that amaze you? As I just said above, there should be one being that explains all that we know of being here.

The contortion is that you are saying that if the cause of things in the analogy is a conscious entity, then it must also be a conscious entity in reality.

 

[FredVB]

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. 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, at least those serious about discussing it and studying about it and not certain exceptions you might encounter around here, are not simply saying that all that there is, with whatever arrangement is around, must have a Creator who already was around 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 others, which shows qualification to be that.

What I see matters is that there is disregard for dealing with logic when the thinking amounts to all that this universe is came from absolute nothingness. If there is not nothingness from which anything ever came, what is there that is existing eternally?

I understand the balloon analogy already, I was not making an argument that would be against that, though I don't think it has to be the necessary conclusion. What are the contortions you think there are, that amaze you? As I just said above, there should be one being that explains all that we know of being here.

The contortion is that you are saying that if the cause of things in the analogy is a conscious entity, then it must also be a conscious entity in reality.

It seems that you are confusing posts of someone else with mine, or that you are not reading all that I was saying to follow the logic. Though I did mention players from your analogy, what I said was not referring to any of them as the basis to this logic. Your analogy starts with what a first player might have done. But there is neglect of where did it all come from. The pool table analogy is not dealing with nothingness before. If there wasn't nothingness before, what was there? Do you not have capacity to see, there is some necessary existence, or there would be nothing, and never anything but nothing? With there being necessary existence, to explain anything more existing, such would have qualities for it, and being necessary, not have any limitations in such.

There are no contortions seen in thinking any of this.

 

[AV1611VET]

Let's say someone broke, and then a second person wrote down a statement claiming that he had not broken, but had simply placed the balls in this position.

And here's where your analogy fails to meet the standards of Genesis 1.

The person who broke should have written it down.

In fact, if you really want to compare it to Genesis 1 in-depth, then the person who broke should have put in writing what he did, how he did it, where he did it, what order he did it in, how long it took him to do it, why it took him that long,* and who the eyewitnesses were.**

* Okay, that one's in Exodus, not Genesis.

** Okay, that one's in Job, not Genesis.

 

[Kylie]

And here's where your analogy fails to meet the standards of Genesis 1.

The person who broke should have written it down.

In fact, if you really want to compare it to Genesis 1 in-depth, then the person who broke should have put in writing what he did, how he did it, where he did it, what order he did it in, how long it took him to do it, why it took him that long,* and who the eyewitnesses were.**

* Okay, that one's in Exodus, not Genesis.

** Okay, that one's in Job, not Genesis.

Of course, if we had a text that claimed to be from the guy who broke, how could we be sure?

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course, if we had a text that claimed to be from the guy who broke, how could we be sure?

From your OP:

Let's say someone broke, and then a second person wrote ...

The third person refuses to consider any alternative, and claims, "The documentation says it, that settles it!"

Here's the mistake: the second person wrote, not the one who broke.

And he lied at that, causing the third person to go astray.

In your scenario, God is the first person.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

The Devil is the second person.

John 8:44b When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

The third person is a cult leader.

Proverbs 16:25 There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

 

[SelfSim]

The clear issue at stake in the hypothetical, is the plausibility or otherwise, of the two proposed scenarios (both are equally plausible). What persons #2 and #3 say or do, is completely irrelevant.

The person doing the 'Let's say' part, (ie: the speaker), can be observed as controlling the entire thought experiment (ie: two plausible scenarios were cited to 'prime', thus 'skew', or 'guide' our thinking).. and thus their influence (or biases) cannot be excluded from any conclusions drawn (they are part and parcel of the hypothetical scenario I'm seeing).

In fact, the speaker (doing the hypothesising) doesn't have a clue, themselves, about what happened .. otherwise they wouldn't be forced into having to make untestable assumptions about the event:

Let's say someone set these balls down this way ..

Let's say' someone broke ..

There is no way to neutralise the speaker's influence, other than by making the observations I have just made.

But what about my (the observer's) influence over the conclusions? I can be better assured that the speaker and myself share a common mind type because I can understand the meanings behind the words used in the hypothetical. Different minds think in different ways, but it still takes a mind to conceive the reality of the scenario being portrayed. The mind dependency of the visualisation of the reality of the scenario, is what forms the basis of objective analysis and not some universal 'truth' about the cause behind how the balls got the way we see them.

Persons #2 and #3 are thus completely irrelevant to the investigation and the cause of how the balls got that way, itself, depends on a belief in a deterministic property of the universe (all of which also takes a human mind to visualise as 'existing', or 'being real'). The problem is that we visualise multiple deterministic causes for events, and often have no objective way of distinguishing between them .. and we have no alternative other than allowing beliefs to lead us, in deciding which scenario is plausible, and which isn't.

 

[AV1611VET]

What persons #2 and #3 say or do, is completely irrelevant.

But the OP wants to know if person #3 is right or not.

The scenario goes this way:

Person #1 breaks.

Person #2 lies and documents that Person #1 did not break, but put the balls in that position.*

Person #3 reads that document and bases his belief on the document.

Thus Person #3 is wrong.

* Did you see my pool challenge thread that predicated this one?

 

[SelfSim]

But the OP wants to know if person #3 is right or not.

The scenario goes this way:

Person #1 breaks.

Person #2 lies and documents that Person #1 did not break, but put the balls in that position.*

Person #3 reads that document and bases his belief on the document.

Thus Person #3 is wrong.

Person #3's recordings can be false, assuming the truth of the initial statement of 'broke' .. but the only objective truths here, are the state of the table (and the observation of minds at play).

* Did you see my pool challenge thread that predicated this one?

Nope.