Kylie's Pool Challenge

[Kylie]

If you're talking about the Bible, someone wrote it.

I believe God wrote it, you don't.

That's why I'm a Christian and you're an atheist.

And Person 3 could very easily say the same thing. "I'f you're talking about the documentation, someone wrote it. I believe Person 1 wrote it, you don't."

Don't you see how it's the same thing?

It's more than just a feeling.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
1 Thessalonians 2:14a For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus:

Call it a "sixth sense," if it will help you understand.

Except it is completely unreliable. You have no way of knowing if your hunch is correct or not.

Isn't that what your OP said happened?

You said:

This means person one broke, and person two documented otherwise.

In your scenario, he wouldn't because person one, who broke, didn't document what he did, when he did it, who the eyewitnesses were, etc.

Actually, you could take it as person 2 saying that Person didn't break, or you could take it as Person 2 PRETENDING to be Person 1 and saying, "I, Person 1, didn't break."

In this analogy, Person 1 is whatever natural cause started the universe.

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually, you could take it as person 2 saying that Person didn't break, or you could take it as Person 2 PRETENDING to be Person 1 and saying, "I, Person 1, didn't break."

In this analogy, Person 1 is whatever natural cause started the universe.

Have a nice day.

 

[Kylie]

Have a nice day.

Why do you do that? You do realise that it seems to me (and I would assume most other people reading) that you've got a question that you can't answer, so you just up and go?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Why do you do that? You do realise that it seems to me (and I would assume most other people reading) that you've got a question that you can't answer, so you just up and go?

He does that when he gets cornered on something and he knows he's wrong about.

 

[Kylie]

He does that when he gets cornered on something and he knows he's wrong about.

I have to say, @AV1611VET this certainly seems to be the case. It's not true, is it?

 

[Ancient of Days]

Or, maybe he is tired of the same old atheistic circle jerk... Its a perpetual merry go round...

 

[Kylie]

Or, maybe he is tired of the same old atheistic circle jerk... Its a perpetual merry go round...

I think I asked a legitimate question.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Or, maybe he is tired of the same old atheistic circle jerk... Its a perpetual merry go round...

....or he could just answer the legitimate question in the first place. For it to be a circle jerk, there's gotta be a circle. AV doesn't want to complete the circle, probably for the logical place it leads to.

I tell you what, why don't you answer for him?

 

[pgp_protector]

Why do you do that? You do realise that it seems to me (and I would assume most other people reading) that you've got a question that you can't answer, so you just up and go?

Well he can't have the Mods close it at the OP's request so only other option is to leave.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Why do you do that? You do realise that it seems to me (and I would assume most other people reading) that you've got a question that you can't answer, so you just up and go?

Don't worry about it. He'll resurrect this in 10 years with a one line non sequitur.

 

[the iconoclast]

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

Is the third person right?

Hello Kylie.

Can we ask you to answer the above challenge? - please correct me if you have already done so.

Is the third person correct?

Cheers

 

[Kylie]

Hello Kylie.

Can we ask you to answer the above challenge? - please correct me if you have already done so.

Is the third person correct?

Cheers

I think I spelled out the situation quite clearly in the opening post. The third person believed the claim made by the documentation: namely, the claim that the first person had placed the balls there and had did not in fact break. But the claim made in the documentation was wrong. Thus, any person who believed the claim made in te documentation would believe something that was not true.

 

[the iconoclast]

I think I spelled out the situation quite clearly in the opening post. The third person believed the claim made by the documentation: namely, the claim that the first person had placed the balls there and had did not in fact break. But the claim made in the documentation was wrong. Thus, any person who believed the claim made in te documentation would believe something that was not true.

Thank you for the reply, Hope you had a wonderful day.

In this challenge, what do we know about the 2nd persons intention re incorrect statement. Do we know why he did what he did?

Also am I the forth person viewing the actions of all 3 people? Is the 1st person still in the room?

Cheers

 

[Kylie]

Thank you for the reply, Hope you had a wonderful day.

In this challenge, what do we know about the 2nd persons intention re incorrect statement. Do we know why he did what he did?

Also am I the forth person viewing the actions of all 3 people? Is the 1st person still in the room?

Cheers

I suppose that in order to accurately represent reality, each person would come, do their thing, and then leave.

 

[the iconoclast]

I suppose that in order to accurately represent reality, each person would come, do their thing, and then leave.

Hey you diamond

Do we know why the 2nd person documented incorrect info?

Cheers

 

[Kylie]

Hey you diamond

Do we know why the 2nd person documented incorrect info?

Cheers

Maybe they did not know about pool cues and thus could not conceive that one could have been used to get the balls into that particular arrangement.

 

[the iconoclast]

Maybe they did not know about pool cues and thus could not conceive that one could have been used to get the balls into that particular arrangement.

Hello Kylie

Nice. So the man could not conceive how the balls arranged themselves and gave his best explanation ie they were put there.

Interesting. Whether the balls were broken or placed, the arrangement involves a catalyst. Someone that triggers the arrangement.

So would I be correct in assuming the pool table and balls are a representation of the universe and the document written by the 2nd person is symbolic to the Bible?

Thank you my new friend.

 

[Kylie]

Hello Kylie

Nice. So the man could not conceive how the balls arranged themselves and gave his best explanation ie they were put there.

Interesting. Whether the balls were broken or placed, the arrangement involves a catalyst. Someone that triggers the arrangement.

So would I be correct in assuming the pool table and balls are a representation of the universe and the document written by the 2nd person is symbolic to the Bible?

Thank you my new friend.

Pretty much.

Honestly, I thought it was all pretty clear...

 

[redleghunter]

I like that. Usually what creationists say is more along the lines of "The Bible says what I tell you it says, whether you agree with me or not, and that settles it."

Your own church confirms God as Creator:

I. Of Faith in the Holy Trinity.
There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts or passions; of infinite power, wisdom and goodness; the Maker, and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

1. Faith in the Holy Trinity

There is only one living and true God, who is eternal and without body, indivisible and invulnerable. He is of infinite power, wisdom and goodness. He is the maker and preserver of all things both visible and invisible. Within the unity of the Godhead there are three persons who are of one substance, power and eternity - the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

W H Griffith-Thomas "The Principles of Theology" chapter on Article 1



II. Of the Word or Son of God, which was made very Man.

The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took Man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance: so that two whole and perfect Natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God, and very Man; who truly suffered, was crucified, dead and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men.

2. The Word, or Son of God, who became truly man

The Son, who is the Word of the Father, was begotten from eternity of the Father, and is the true and eternal God, of one substance with the Father. He took man's nature in the womb of the blessed virgin Mary, of her substance, in such a way that two whole and perfect natures, the Godhead and manhood, were joined together in one person, never to be divided. Of these two natures is the one Christ, true God and true man. He truly suffered, was crucified, died, and was buried, to reconcile the Father to us and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt but also for all actual sins of men.

Church Society - 39 Articles - 01-05​

 

[redleghunter]

From AV's Pool Challenge thread...

​

Now, I looked at this and thought that the situation wasn't taking into account everything it should have. So I presented an alternative situation...

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. Later, a third person comes in, reads the documentation and concludes that the documentation MUST be right, and anyone who says the balls reached this position as a result of regular play is terribly wrong. The third person refuses to consider any alternative, and claims, "The documentation says it, that settles it!"

Is the third person right?

Who made the pool table and who owns the pool hall?