- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,107
- 52,639
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
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.
I also assumed Charles ... what's your point?Ah, but then you are assuming God in order to show there is a God!
We're not trying to assume God exists in that scenario either.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.
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 t
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?
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.
Was this the moment you were waiting for.
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
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?
Was that so difficult?
Yes, FINALLY
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?
Is science your authority?
Could this unknown become knowable?
So how do we relate this to the Bible?
This reply lacks order and seems confused. NOW it seems I have answered the question!
Stop right here a moment.Let's say someone broke, and then a second person ...
God was certainly wise enough to document what He did, wasn't He?Kylie said:... and then a second person wrote down a statement claiming that he had not broken,
This is exactly what science does: claim the opposite of what actually happened.Kylie said:... and then a second person wrote down a statement claiming that he had not broken, but had simply placed the balls in this position.
He's not accountable though, since the first person neglected to document what he did.Kylie said: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.
Yes -- in our courts, written documentation trumps no documentation; and people have literally paid for not heeding this principle.Kylie said:The third person refuses to consider any alternative, and claims, "The documentation says it, that settles it!"
No. But the courts will judge him as such.Kylie said:Is the third person right?
Stop right here a moment.
Notice the first person didn't document it, opening the door to confusion later?
God was certainly wise enough to document what He did, wasn't He?
This is exactly what science does: claim the opposite of what actually happened.
He's not accountable though, since the first person neglected to document what he did.
In our courts, written documentation trumps no documentation.
Yes -- in our courts, written documentation trumps no documentation; and people have literally paid for not heeding this principle.
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.
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?
No -- the third person is wrong.The third person refuses to consider any alternative, and claims, "The documentation says it, that settles it!"
Is the third person right?
Kylie, let's make Post 1 and Post 170 into a framework story, shall we?
No -- the third person is wrong.
Who's the first?And yet, you are the third person,
Who's the first?
Then he's not too bright, is he?The first person is a representation of whatever caused the universe to begin.
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...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!
That is correct.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...
Yep! too bad he didn't...That is correct.
Player 2 is a liar.
All the more reason for Player 1 to have documented what he did.
Yes, it is.Yep! too bad he didn't...
Absolutely! You're surprisingly good at this objective abstract thought exercise, AV...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.)
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?