Kylie's Pool Challenge

[AV1611VET]

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

I also assumed Charles ... what's your point?

 

[Kylie]

But we aren't trying to figure out if Charles is real, are we?

 

[AV1611VET]

But we aren't trying to figure out if Charles is real, are we?

We're not trying to assume God exists in that scenario either.

The scenario is about how the earth looks configured like it is.

 

[Kylie]

We're not trying to assume God exists in that scenario either.

Yes you are. The instant that you say God had a part in it, you are assuming that there is a God in order to show there is a God. You can't have God as one of your premises if God is also your conclusion.

 

[the iconoclast]

Okay, we'll go with your alternate wording.


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

Hey there kylie.


Please excuse my attention to detail, however my proposed and alternate wording would be the below statement.


"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?"


You have worded your premise as an unknown person or thing regarded as exerting power or influence. Either an agent, instrument, power or cause would fit this.

Unknown and unknowable are very interesting subjects. It also relates to what is unfamilair.

The word unknown introduces a new subject matter to discuss. If this force is unknown can it be knowable?

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?

Cool. Since we have changed player 1 to an unknown force. I want to change Joe's name to harry.

My answer would be. Sally is wrong. The balls were not placed.

They were broken by an unknown force and not placed by an unknown force.

Now can you FINALLY answer t

Was this the moment you were waiting for.

Cheers

 

[Kylie]

Hey there kylie.


Please excuse my attention to detail, however my proposed and alternate wording would be the below statement.


"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?"

You have worded your premise as an unknown person or thing regarded as exerting power or influence. Either an agent, instrument, power or cause would fit this.

Unknown and unknowable are very interesting subjects. It also relates to what is unfamilair.

The word unknown introduces a new subject matter to discuss. If this force is unknown can it be knowable?

I chose my wording because your wording makes it seem that there was absolutely no reason for the initial event. However, since science doesn't know what the initial event was or why it happened, I did not want to go that way. Hence, I said it was merely an unknown event, because that's what we know of the beginning of the universe.

Still, once again you are avoiding the issue. Answer the question:

Is Sally right to claim that the documentation MUST be right? Yes or no?

Cool. Since we have changed player 1 to an unknown force. I want to change Joe's name to harry.

No. Once again you are avoiding the issue. Answer the question:

Is Sally right to claim that the documentation MUST be right? Yes or no?

My answer would be. Sally is wrong. The balls were not placed.

They were broken by an unknown force and not placed by an unknown force.

Was that so difficult?

Was this the moment you were waiting for.

Yes, FINALLY.

 

[the iconoclast]

I chose my wording because your wording makes it seem that there was absolutely no reason for the initial event.

Hey hey kylie.

Are you suggesting there is a cause, explanation, or justification for this action or event?

If player 1 is now unknown how do we know the balls were broken?

However, since science doesn't know what the initial event was or why it happened, I did not want to go that way.

Is science your authority?

Hence, I said it was merely an unknown event, because that's what we know of the beginning of the universe.

Could this unknown become knowable?

Still, once again you are avoiding the issue. Answer the question:

Please do not be rash.

Is Sally right to claim that the documentation MUST be right? Yes or no

I would love to repeat my answer. My answer is. Sally is wrong. The balls were not placed.

They were broken by an unknown force and not placed by an unknown force.

No. Once again you are avoiding the issue. Answer the question:


Is Sally right to claim that the documentation MUST be right? Yes or no?

I would love to repeat my answer. My answer is. Sally is wrong. The balls were not placed.

They were broken by an unknown force and not placed by an unknown force.

So how do we relate this to the Bible?

Was that so difficult?

This reply lacks order and seems confused. NOW it seems I have answered the question!

Yes, FINALLY

Are you now sure my dear?

Cheers my treasure

 

[Kylie]

Hey hey kylie.

Are you suggesting there is a cause, explanation, or justification for this action or event?

There could be. Like I said, it's an UNKNOWN. Please do try to actually understand what I write.

If player 1 is now unknown how do we know the balls were broken?

Because everything we see is consistent with that, and assuming that someone placed the balls in that position introduces a complicated answer that simply isn't needed.

Is science your authority?

Not quite sure what you're asking here.

Could this unknown become knowable?

Sure, why couldn't it?

So how do we relate this to the Bible?

In the analogy, the Bible is represented by the documentation.

I thought this was quite clear.

This reply lacks order and seems confused. NOW it seems I have answered the question!

Yes, you have answered the question, but it was incredibly difficult to get you to, since you seemed to complain about every little detail in my post, even the ones that didn't matter!

 

[AV1611VET]

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

Stop right here a moment.

Notice the first person didn't document it, opening the door to confusion later?

... and then a second person wrote down a statement claiming that he had not broken,

God was certainly wise enough to document what He did, wasn't He?

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

This is exactly what science does: claim the opposite of what actually happened.

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.

He's not accountable though, since the first person neglected to document what he did.

In our courts, written documentation trumps no documentation.

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

Yes -- in our courts, written documentation trumps no documentation; and people have literally paid for not heeding this principle.

Is the third person right?

No. But the courts will judge him as such.

I know a man who got divorced and pail his ex-wife alimony by actually hand-carrying money to her whenever he went there to pick up his daughter (visiting rights).

Later, the wife sued him for not paying alimony, and because the man didn't pay through the courts, he didn't have a paper trail.

His ex-wife won the lawsuit.

My brother, when he got divorced, always paid his alimony at the courthouse and let them issue a check to his ex-wife, just so he would have a record of the payments.

 

[Kylie]

Stop right here a moment.

Notice the first person didn't document it, opening the door to confusion later?

Tell me, AV, which parts of the Bible did God write himself?

God was certainly wise enough to document what He did, wasn't He?

And which book of the Bible did God write himself?

This is exactly what science does: claim the opposite of what actually happened.

Now now now, what did I tell you about using your conclusions as a premise?

He's not accountable though, since the first person neglected to document what he did.

In our courts, written documentation trumps no documentation.

First of all, God left no documentation. None of the books in the Bible were written by him. All you've got is some idea that God "inspired" other people to write books on his behalf, and let's face it, no one really believes the two to be the same thing, do they?

Secondly, if you think evidence only consists of some text written down, then you are sorely mistaken.

Either you don't understand how evidence works, you intentionally ignore it (despite knowing full well I'm going to call you out on it), or you're a troll.

Yes -- in our courts, written documentation trumps no documentation; and people have literally paid for not heeding this principle.

And what if the documentation does not match a rigorous scientific examination of the table? What if we examine the balls and find traces of felt on the entire surface of many of the balls, suggesting that they rolled? Wouldn't this count as evidence against the idea that they were placed without rolling? What if our examination reveals slight indentations of the felt, suggesting the paths over which the balls might have rolled, and each path leads back to the position that the balls are generally placed in before they are broken? Wouldn't this also suggest that the balls were broken and rolled into position rather than just being placed in their final positions?

No. But the courts will judge him as such.

What is it with you and this "Any answer is better than no answer, even if it is wrong" attitude?

I'd rather an honest "I don't know" any day. To latch onto ANY answer just because you don't like the idea of appearing ignorant is to tell people that they should not strive to learn more than they already know.

I know a man who got divorced and pail his ex-wife alimony by actually hand-carrying money to her whenever he went there to pick up his daughter (visiting rights).

Later, the wife sued him for not paying alimony, and because the man didn't pay through the courts, he didn't have a paper trail.

His ex-wife won the lawsuit.

My brother, when he got divorced, always paid his alimony at the courthouse and let them issue a check to his ex-wife, just so he would have a record of the payments.

So what? I fail to see how this is relevant.

Oh, are you trying to make some point about having a paper trail? Well, in this case, we have a person inventing a paper trail rather than getting one through legitimate means. Are you suggesting that if this first guy had NOT paid alimony, but had created receipts to say that he did and forged his ex-wife's signature that he would have been in the right?

 

[AV1611VET]

Kylie, let's make Post 1 and Post 170 into a framework story, shall we?

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.

What if we examine the balls and find traces of felt on the entire surface of many of the balls, suggesting that they rolled? Wouldn't this count as evidence against the idea that they were placed without rolling? What if our examination reveals slight indentations of the felt, suggesting the paths over which the balls might have rolled, and each path leads back to the position that the balls are generally placed in before they are broken? Wouldn't this also suggest that the balls were broken and rolled into position rather than just being placed in their final positions?

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

Is the third person right?

No -- the third person is wrong.

 

[Kylie]

Kylie, let's make Post 1 and Post 170 into a framework story, shall we?




No -- the third person is wrong.

And yet, you are the third person, and your signature says, essentially, "The <<documentation>>says it, that settles it."

 

[AV1611VET]

And yet, you are the third person,

Who's the first?

 

[Kylie]

Who's the first?

The first person is a representation of whatever caused the universe to begin.

I thought this was quite clear. Do you find it a difficult concept?

 

[AV1611VET]

The first person is a representation of whatever caused the universe to begin.

Then he's not too bright, is he?

Breaking balls on a pool table, then walking away without even documenting what he did; leaving it up to us to play Sherlock Holmes and figure it out.

Fo shame, fo shame!

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Then he's not too bright, is he?

Breaking balls on a pool table, then walking away without even documenting what he did; leaving it up to us to play Sherlock Holmes and figure it out.

Fo shame, fo shame!

Agreed! Even worse, leaving the documentation of unknown Player 2 in place to represent themselves as if they were this "not too bright" Player 1's representative before we could sufficiently investigate the table is altogether embarrassing - it's also especially embarrassing for those Player 3s who power on and insist it is still literally accurate in the face of all the evidence to the contrary...

 

[AV1611VET]

Agreed! Even worse, leaving the documentation of unknown Player 2 in place to represent themselves as if they were this "not too bright" Player 1's representative before we could sufficiently investigate the table is altogether embarrassing - especially those Player 3s who power on and insist it is still literally accurate in the face of all the evidence to the contrary...

That is correct.

Player 2 is a liar.

All the more reason for Player 1 to have documented what he did.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

That is correct.

Player 2 is a liar.

All the more reason for Player 1 to have documented what he did.

Yep! too bad he didn't...

 

[AV1611VET]

Yep! too bad he didn't...

Yes, it is.

I feel sorry for Player 3, who will go through life believing a lie.

Player 1 should have come back and set the record straight.

(Assuming he cared.)

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Yes, it is.

I feel sorry for Player 3, who will go through life believing a lie.

Player 1 should have come back and set the record straight.

(Assuming he cared.)

Absolutely! You're surprisingly good at this objective abstract thought exercise, AV...