Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Sure do.
Jesus was laughed at and scorned and ridiculed.
Why shouldn't His followers be as well?
Bozo the Clown gets paid to get people to laugh at him.You know, people also laugh at Bozo the Clown...
Bozo the Clown gets paid to get people to laugh at him.
Sure do.
Jesus was laughed at and scorned and ridiculed.
Why shouldn't His followers be as well?
When they do, they get forced underground or outright martyred?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?
Yes ... sure, Kylie.Sure, AV...
Yes ... sure, Kylie.
The Jews' martyrdom and displacement are well-documented throughout history.
They're called pogroms.
And for someone to compare them to a perpetual motion machine is immature.People have been martyred all throughout history without being right, AV...
And for someone to compare them to a perpetual motion machine is immature.
I'm sure if you really thought that, you'd stop "feeding the troll."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.
When they do, they get forced underground or outright martyred?
First, I have given you plenty of opportunities to correct my hypothetical, which you have refused to do.
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.)
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."
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.
You could correct the flaw you see. Do you not understand how this works?
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.
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.
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.
No. We could not be friends.
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.
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.
You have misrepresented my point from the very start. That is not the action of someone who cares for me in any way.
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.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 ?
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 ?
If this is supposed to be an analogy as to how Genesis 1 happened, you're way off.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.)"
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?