Kylie's Pool Challenge

[Kylie]

Sure do.

Jesus was laughed at and scorned and ridiculed.

Why shouldn't His followers be as well?

Ah yes.

The Old, "They laughed at Galileo and he turned out to be right! And now they are laughing at me too!"

You know, people also laugh at Bozo the Clown...

 

[AV1611VET]

You know, people also laugh at Bozo the Clown...

Bozo the Clown gets paid to get people to laugh at him.

 

[Kylie]

Bozo the Clown gets paid to get people to laugh at him.

When I was studying music many years ago, I knew a guy who thought that if a volcano erupted underwater, the Earth would explode. The whole class laughed at him, and he got rather upset about it. Was he getting paid for it?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Sure do.

Jesus was laughed at and scorned and ridiculed.

Why shouldn't His followers be as well?

You'd think that after 2000 years, his followers would have had time to build an actual supported case for their beliefs. Can you explain why they haven't been able to?

 

[AV1611VET]

You'd think that after 2000 years, his followers would have had time to build an actual supported case for their beliefs. Can you explain why they haven't been able to?

When they do, they get forced underground or outright martyred?

 

[Kylie]

When they do, they get forced underground or outright martyred?

Ya huh.

And people have figured out how to make an infinite amount of energy using a perpetual motion machine, but they are always taken out by the government because the gov wants to maintain its hold on us via oil for as long as possible.

Sure, AV...

 

[AV1611VET]

Sure, AV...

Yes ... sure, Kylie.

The Jews' martyrdom and displacement are well-documented throughout history.

They're called pogroms.

 

[Kylie]

Yes ... sure, Kylie.

The Jews' martyrdom and displacement are well-documented throughout history.

They're called pogroms.

People have been martyred all throughout history without being right, AV...

Or do you think that no one would EVER die for a cause unless it was true?

 

[AV1611VET]

People have been martyred all throughout history without being right, AV...

And for someone to compare them to a perpetual motion machine is immature.

 

[Kylie]

And for someone to compare them to a perpetual motion machine is immature.

And, pray tell, when did I do that?

I said people who go for perpetual motion machine nonsense are laughed at, to illustrate that not everyone who is laughed at for their ideas is up there with Galileo.

It's very rude of you to put words into my mouth. And I know you are intelligent enough to know what you are doing. So why do you do it? Are you just trying to push things to see how far you can go? It's things like that which make me think you're a troll...

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you just trying to push things to see how far you can go? It's things like that which make me think you're a troll...

I'm sure if you really thought that, you'd stop "feeding the troll."

Which, by the way, you're more than welcome to do.

 

[Kylie]

I'm sure if you really thought that, you'd stop "feeding the troll."

Which, by the way, you're more than welcome to do.

Trouble is that some of the less scientifically literate people out there might actually be convinced by your posts. You know what they say happens when good people do nothing...

 

[AnotherAtheist]

When they do, they get forced underground or outright martyred?

No they don't. You even have your own forums where Christians can post arguments and nobody will be forced underground or martyred. In this and in a huge range of other possible platforms, you have the opportunity to post arguments with no risk of comeback.

There are Christians who post arguments purporting to support their views every minute of the day. Why aren't there any such arguments based upon objective verifiable evidence.

It makes no sense to claim that Christians post invalid arguments such as: 'It's true because this book says so' or 'it's true because I'm ignorant of any alternative', but that some mysterious previous unseen convincing argument cannot be posted because of the risk of martyrdom or persecution.

 

[the iconoclast]

First, I have given you plenty of opportunities to correct my hypothetical, which you have refused to do.

Hey hey kylie.

Thank you kindly.

You have given me plenty of opportunity to correct your hypothetical and I did in post #114

"Would it not suit your position to say 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?" - iconoclast May 29 2018

You gave me a chance to answer this flawed hypothetical as well and I did. We are now identifying who player 1.

I'll show you my cards.

The reason why I'm so adamant on player 1 is about context. Context is the circumstances that form the setting for this event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood.

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

Fully understood. Explanation. Clarification.

Correct me if I'm wrong. Your point seems to be that the 3rd person was not around to witness player 1 break the balls. Player 3 has only a document written by player 2 who also did not witness player 1 break the balls. Player 2 sees the pool tables and balls and assumes the explanation.

Player 1 is a set of processes.
Player 2 is a human.
Player 3 is a human.

Player 1 is represented by a conscious human being making a conscious/human decision.

Do you still not see the combination of ideas here which are contrasting and conflicting with one another.

A random set of processes with no guidance is represented by a conscious and decision making human being?
Player 2 and 3 who are conscious human beings are represented by humans. Player number 1 is conflicting.

This conflicting representation leads to my answer. Player 3 is incorrect however he retains points for guessing player number 1 is God.






Let's look at another point I would like to make.






The document hinted to (.eg in kylies pool analogy) is loosely represented as the Bible. The main purpose of the Bible is considered by Christian's as the inspired word of God (.eg History and morality).

Player 1 is either the Creator or - indelicate - a random set of processes.

So is player 3 arguing that a random set of processes placed the balls or broke them in this document?

Is player 3 someone who just read Richard Dawkins and infact is not a Christian?

Secondly, it shows you do not understand what my argument is. (Or perhaps you DO understand my argument, and know that if you actually try to address that instead of your strawman of it, you would quickly find yourself on the losing side.)

My treasure please do not be rash. Your arguement was established in post #106








Iconoclast post 106
Hey hey u marvel
Please excuse me and thank you for your patience.

Ok so i got 2 right. im guessing that the 2nd person represents the authors of the Bible and the 3rd person represents a Christian who refuses any other explanation then what is contained in this document.

Who is person number 1?

Cheers and thank you for taking the time to reply.

May 20 2018









It seems that you are the one who may be void of genuine discussion of the topic at hand. It seems more familiar to attack charachter and attack motive, of the person making the argument.

In my case trying to discuss player 1.

I'm willing to stand by my words, anyone who spectates our posts will be able to draw a conclusion.

But when you did so, you place your conclusion as one of your premises. That is circular logic and falls apart. I can just as easily prove that magical shoe elves exist by saying, "Imagine there are magical shoe elves that make shoes. Since we know shoes are made, that must mean that the shoe elves are real."

Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.

Please do not be rash. We are dissecting your analogy.

Now THAT was a statement. Please dont forget you said it Kylie and not me. I would like you to prove that since you know shoes are made, that must mean shoe elves are real?

I cannot wait to read you argue this point. Please do not rush your post. Give me something good!

Try it again without using your conclusion as a premise and then I'll pay attention. Until then, your lack of understanding how basic logic works means I can't hope to have a rational discussion with you.

Ok. Player 3 is a random set of process. Ill assume you read my first reply.

We are about to get into some logic. Keep reading further on.

You could correct the flaw you see. Do you not understand how this works?

Please see post #114

Like I said, you are putting your conclusion as one of your premises. That is bad logic and if you want to have a discussion that uses logic, you won't get far making such basic mistakes.

Answered at the beginning.

Also, the discussion was never about the nature of the catalyst that set the balls in motion. It was about whether person 3 was right to blindly accept the text that person 2 wrote about it.

That Person 3 is wrong to blindly accept the text written by Person 2.

What did you think about what I said re 2nd flaw?

I find your attempts at compliments completely at odds with the way you do not pay attention to the points that I make, instead quibbling over things that I have said don't matter.

Spotto! Quibble number 5!

No. We could not be friends.

That is truly a shame.

Would you prefer enemies?

I see no reason why I should allow someone to waste my time. If they do so, I will react with anger, and I'm not going to keep it bottled up just to avoid upsetting them.

Would you say you feel contempt for them who waste your time?

You call me your friend, you offer compliments such as "gem" "wonderful" etc, and yet you do not seem to care the slightest bit about what I actually have to say.

Are you not someone who matters? Are you not a diamond? Are you not a winner?

You have misrepresented my point from the very start. That is not the action of someone who cares for me in any way.

Check this out.

Are you grasping at straws? Get it? That one's probably my best!!!

And finally re logic. Are you familiar with Tu quoque?

Cheers

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Hey hey kylie.

Thank you kindly.

You have given me plenty of opportunity to correct your hypothetical and I did in post #114

"Would it not suit your position to say 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?" - iconoclast May 29 2018

You gave me a chance to answer this flawed hypothetical as well and I did. We are now identifying who player 1.

I'll show you my cards.

The reason why I'm so adamant on player 1 is about context. Context is the circumstances that form the setting for this event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood.

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

Fully understood. Explanation. Clarification.

Correct me if I'm wrong. Your point seems to be that the 3rd person was not around to witness player 1 break the balls. Player 3 has only a document written by player 2 who also did not witness player 1 break the balls. Player 2 sees the pool tables and balls and assumes the explanation.

Player 1 is a set of processes.
Player 2 is a human.
Player 3 is a human.

Player 1 is represented by a conscious human being making a conscious/human decision.

Do you still not see the combination of ideas here which are contrasting and conflicting with one another.

A random set of processes with no guidance is represented by a conscious and decision making human being?
Player 2 and 3 who are conscious human beings are represented by humans. Player number 1 is conflicting.

This conflicting representation leads to my answer. Player 3 is incorrect however he retains points for guessing player number 1 is God.






Let's look at another point I would like to make.






The document hinted to (.eg in kylies pool analogy) is loosely represented as the Bible. The main purpose of the Bible is considered by Christian's as the inspired word of God (.eg History and morality).

Player 1 is either the Creator or - indelicate - a random set of processes.

So is player 3 arguing that a random set of processes placed the balls or broke them in this document?

Is player 3 someone who just read Richard Dawkins and infact is not a Christian?



My treasure please do not be rash. Your arguement was established in post #106








Iconoclast post 106
Hey hey u marvel
Please excuse me and thank you for your patience.

Ok so i got 2 right. im guessing that the 2nd person represents the authors of the Bible and the 3rd person represents a Christian who refuses any other explanation then what is contained in this document.

Who is person number 1?

Cheers and thank you for taking the time to reply.

May 20 2018









It seems that you are the one who may be void of genuine discussion of the topic at hand. It seems more familiar to attack charachter and attack motive, of the person making the argument.

In my case trying to discuss player 1.

I'm willing to stand by my words, anyone who spectates our posts will be able to draw a conclusion.



Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.

Please do not be rash. We are dissecting your analogy.

Now THAT was a statement. Please dont forget you said it Kylie and not me. I would like you to prove that since you know shoes are made, that must mean shoe elves are real?

I cannot wait to read you argue this point. Please do not rush your post. Give me something good!



Ok. Player 3 is a random set of process. Ill assume you read my first reply.

We are about to get into some logic. Keep reading further on.



Please see post #114



Answered at the beginning.





What did you think about what I said re 2nd flaw?



Spotto! Quibble number 5!



That is truly a shame.

Would you prefer enemies?



Would you say you feel contempt for them who waste your time?



Are you not someone who matters? Are you not a diamond? Are you not a winner?



Check this out.

Are you grasping at straws? Get it? That one's probably my best!!!

And finally re logic. Are you familiar with Tu quoque?

Cheers

Not to complicate things, but I do believe you are misunderstanding the point of this thread. That is to say, Player 1 in this analogy (borrowed from AV's use first for relevance) represents the person who either struck the white ball to break the set (as in natural), or alternatively, may have placed all the balls on the table and in pockets as if to look like they were broken normally (as in God), so Player 1 is just a placeholder for how the universe began, God or not.

Perhaps the analogy would better be represented if Player 3 were in another room (i.e. not there to see it), heard a break set, walked into the room to see the balls slowly rolling to their destinations on the table in exactly the way he knows of first breaks in the game to do so (which is a much better analogy for how science knows of the deep past and earth's history of life via evolution, etc), then was presented with Player 2's postulation that they were set there by Player 1's hand, and not broken.

Given everything Player 3 knows about Pool along with the evidence he witnessed for himself (i.e what Science and the scientific method tells us about the universe), all the available evidence contradicts what Player 2 presents, which is that it was all put there by Player 1 by hand to look like it was broken (i.e. Fundamentalists YEC postulation).

Correct me if I'm wrong @Kylie ?

 

[the iconoclast]

Not to complicate things, but I do believe you are misunderstanding the point of this thread. That is to say, Player 1 in this analogy (borrowed from AV's use first for relevance) represents the person who either struck the white ball to break the set (as in natural), or alternatively, may have placed all the balls on the table and in pockets as if to look like they were broken normally (as in God), so Player 1 is just a placeholder for how the universe began, God or not.

Perhaps the analogy would better be represented if Player 3 were in another room (i.e. not there to see it), heard a break set, walked into the room to see the balls slowly rolling to their destinations on the table in exactly the way he knows of first breaks in the game to do so (which is a much better analogy for how science knows of the deep past and earth's history of life via evolution, etc), then was presented with Player 2's postulation that they were set there by Player 1's hand, and not broken.

Given everything Player 3 knows about Pool along with the evidence he witnessed for himself (i.e what Science and the scientific method tells us about the universe), all the available evidence contradicts what Player 2 presents, which is that it was all put there by Player 1 by hand to look like it was broken (i.e. Fundamentalists YEC postulation).

Correct me if I'm wrong @Kylie ?

Hey bugs you star.

Thank you for your post. I don't think kylie needs your help or for you to speak on her behalf.

Anyways you and I already have a huge discussion. Please be patient.

Cheers my friend.

 

[Kylie]

...

Okay, we'll go with your alternate wording.

Let's say some unknown force caused the balls to break.

Then, later on, a person named Joe wrote down a statement claiming that the balls had not broken, but had simply been placed in this position.

Later, a person named Sally 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. Sally refuses to consider any alternative, and claims, "The documentation says it, that settles it!"

Is Sally right?

Now can you FINALLY answer the question?

 

[Kylie]

Not to complicate things, but I do believe you are misunderstanding the point of this thread. That is to say, Player 1 in this analogy (borrowed from AV's use first for relevance) represents the person who either struck the white ball to break the set (as in natural), or alternatively, may have placed all the balls on the table and in pockets as if to look like they were broken normally (as in God), so Player 1 is just a placeholder for how the universe began, God or not.

Perhaps the analogy would better be represented if Player 3 were in another room (i.e. not there to see it), heard a break set, walked into the room to see the balls slowly rolling to their destinations on the table in exactly the way he knows of first breaks in the game to do so (which is a much better analogy for how science knows of the deep past and earth's history of life via evolution, etc), then was presented with Player 2's postulation that they were set there by Player 1's hand, and not broken.

Given everything Player 3 knows about Pool along with the evidence he witnessed for himself (i.e what Science and the scientific method tells us about the universe), all the available evidence contradicts what Player 2 presents, which is that it was all put there by Player 1 by hand to look like it was broken (i.e. Fundamentalists YEC postulation).

Correct me if I'm wrong @Kylie ?

Nope, not wrong at all!

 

[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.

If this is supposed to be an analogy as to how Genesis 1 happened, you're way off.

It should read:

"Let's say God placed the balls in the configuration you see here, then creates Adam, who documents that God placed the balls in the configuration you see here. Later, a minor earthquake moves things around, and Charles comes in and sees the new configuration and claims the balls had to have been broken, since they show signs of having moved.

If others believe Charles' claim over Adam's documentation, are they wrong?

(Remember, Charles can show that the balls were in motion at one time, in spite of Adam's documentation.)"

 

[Kylie]

If this is supposed to be an analogy as to how Genesis 1 happened, you're way off.

It should read:

"Let's say God placed the balls in the configuration you see here, then creates Adam, who documents that God placed the balls in the configuration you see here. Later, a minor earthquake moves things around, and Charles comes in and sees the new configuration and claims the balls had to have been broken, since they show signs of having moved.

If others believe Charles' claim over Adam's documentation, are they wrong?

(Remember, Charles can show that the balls were in motion at one time, in spite of Adam's documentation.)"

Ah, but then you are assuming God in order to show there is a God!

Do you always have so much trouble with logic?