Kylie's Pool Challenge

[AV1611VET]

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).

Nope.

QV please: My Pool Challenge

I welcome your comments.

 

[SelfSim]

QV please: My Pool Challenge

I welcome your comments.

Ok .. so in your original post you (the hypothesist) stated an untestable assumption:

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

.. an unverifiable assumption of 'truth' made by the poser of the hypothetical (aka: you).

Later, someone looking at it says, "Nice break."
Was he wrong?

It depends entirely on your initial, unverfiable assumption.
Other responses based on the (objective) observation of the table and following the rules of logic, are just as equally 'true', (with the added benefit of also being objectively true). So 'Nice break' is a consistent logical deduction, based on measurable observations that 'breaks' objectively occur, which can then be compared with your above initial unverifiable assumption.

PS: We can also show that your assumption may also be just another a belief .. because if we can't test it, we can then treat it as being a belief .. by objective definition.

 

[AV1611VET]

It depends entirely on your initial, unverfiable assumption.

Was ... he ... wrong?

You have a "bird's eye view" ... so to speak ... of what happened.

You have been given enough information to make an objective assessment.

Please do so.

(See why I call these "challenges" now?)

 

[SelfSim]

Was ... he ... wrong?

You have a "bird's eye view" ... so to speak ... of what happened.

You have been given enough information to make an objective assessment.

Please do so.

(See why I call these "challenges" now?)

See my response.
I'll be merciful .. and guess that you missed it.

or; It seems your 'challenges' are aimed at an outcome you desire (.. as opposed to an objective one)?

 

[AV1611VET]

See my response.
I'll be merciful .. and guess that you missed it.

or; It seems your 'challenges' are aimed at an outcome you desire (.. as opposed to an objective one)?

Have a nice day!

 

[SelfSim]

Have a nice day!

i) Does that mean you read it?
ii) Did you understand it?
iii) Did you accept it?
iv) Did you reject it?
v) Why?

 

[Kylie]

From your OP:
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.

First of all, this has nothing to do with the question I actually asked.

If there is a text that claimed that the balls were placed manually in that position, because the author of the text is the same person as the person who placed the balls there, then we have two options:

1. The balls were placed manually, the person who placed them wrote down what he did, and the text is correct.
2. The balls were broken by one person. Later, a second person came and (not understanding how balls can break) concluded that the only way the balls could have come to be at their positions was if they had been placed there manually. This second person writes a text claiming to be the person who placed the balls, and the text is incorrect.

Tell me, AV, if we come along later, how do we tell which of these texts is correct?

Secondly, your claim that the Devil is the second person is wrong. In the analogy I presented in my opening post, the second person is the one who wrote the text, and so represents the Biblical authors (whoever they were) and NOT the Devil.

I do not think you understand the analogy I presented.

 

[SelfSim]

This has turned out to be a classic example of why we should never forget (as a minimum) that:

i) when there is a mind conceiving a thought experiment, the influence that mind has, can directly influence any 'truth' or 'correctness' inferred from it and;

ii) there is peril in failing to recognise an untestable assumption being held as a logical posit.

 

[AV1611VET]

Secondly, your claim that the Devil is the second person is wrong. In the analogy I presented in my opening post, the second person is the one who wrote the text, and so represents the Biblical authors (whoever they were) and NOT the Devil.

Then you are making out the Biblical authors to be liars.

For about the third time, if you want this analogy to be what actually happened according to the Bible, then the one who broke is the one who should have written it down.

Breaking the balls, then just walking off and letting someone else write down what happened is akin to Deism, where God created the universe, then just sat back and let people write about it.

 

[SelfSim]

Then you are making out the Biblical authors to be liars.

For about the third time, if you want this analogy to be what actually happened according to the Bible, then the one who broke is the one who should have written it down.

Breaking the balls, then just walking off and letting someone else write down what happened is akin to Deism, where God created the universe, then just sat back and let people write about it.

Was Christ educated in how to write things down?
Is there evidence he ever wrote anything?

 

[AV1611VET]

Was Christ educated in how to write things down?
Is there evidence he ever wrote anything?

John 8:8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

 

[SelfSim]

John 8:8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

What did he write? Was it a drawing or words?

 

[AV1611VET]

What did he write? Was it a drawing or words?

My guess is the Ten Commandments that He wrote for Moses sometime back.

Exodus 31:18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.

Or maybe the handwriting on the wall He wrote to Belshazzar.

Daniel 5:5 In the same hour came forth fingers of a man's hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaister of the wall of the king's palace: and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote.

 

[SelfSim]

My guess is the Ten Commandments that He wrote for Moses sometime back.

Exodus 31:18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.

That was God's finger though .. ie: not Christ's.

Or maybe the handwriting on the wall He wrote to Belshazzar.

Daniel 5:5 In the same hour came forth fingers of a man's hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaister of the wall of the king's palace: and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote.

.. a doodle maybe? (Ie: not necessarily descriptive language).

 

[AV1611VET]

That was God's finger though .. ie: not Christ's.

.. a doodle maybe? (Ie: not necessarily descriptive language).

Have a nice day!

 

[SelfSim]

Have a nice day!

Someday, you might explain exactly why you do that .. (I don't have a clue as to why).

 

[AV1611VET]

Someday, you might explain exactly why you do that .. (I don't have a clue as to why).

It's my way of saying I don't want to discuss this line of questioning with you (or anyone) anymore, as I think you're trying too hard not to understand and succeeding.

When someone has to stoop to the level of differentiating Christ from God to try and keep his point going, it's time to stop.

Aren't you the one who said somewhere that you respect other people's beliefs ... or something to that effect?

And didn't I say I was Genghis Khan?

 

[Kylie]

Then you are making out the Biblical authors to be liars.

For about the third time, if you want this analogy to be what actually happened according to the Bible, then the one who broke is the one who should have written it down.

Breaking the balls, then just walking off and letting someone else write down what happened is akin to Deism, where God created the universe, then just sat back and let people write about it.

I don't think you really understand the point of this challenge.

The point is whether we can accept something as true just because there is some text which claims it happened that way. The claim, "The documentation says it, that settles it!" is not always justifiable. It seems that you missed that.

 

[AV1611VET]

The point is whether we can accept something as true just because there is some text which claims it happened that way.

But you used a liar to make your point.

Let's see you make the same point without using a liar as one of the players.

My pool challenge, on the other hand, didn't use any liars.

 

[SelfSim]

It's my way of saying I don't want to discuss this line of questioning with you (or anyone) anymore, as I think you're trying too hard not to understand and succeeding.

When someone has to stoop to the level of differentiating Christ from God to try and keep his point going, it's time to stop.

Aren't you the one who said somewhere that you respect other people's beliefs ... or something to that effect?

And didn't I say I was Genghis Khan?

Well; 'Thank You', for at least explaining your behaviour. Its better (more polite) to do that, than to just run away ..

(Note to self: A red line has to go through trying to grapple with this confusing, undistinguishable dualism notion, when it comes to conversations with AV1611VET ... at his request, alone ..)

I don't care much about beliefs .. even my own! That doesn't mean that I don't respect human thinking (which is more along the lines of what I said previously). Its just that we can't do anything useful with untestable beliefs.