Kylie's Pool Challenge

[redleghunter]

So, once again, we are agreed that a person can believe the documentation and be wrong

Why would the assumption the documentation is wrong?

Perhaps the original author demonstrated they were the true author?

 

[Kylie]

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

Do you know what an analogy is?

the definition of analogy

 

[Kylie]

Why would the assumption the documentation is wrong?

Perhaps the original author demonstrated they were the true author?

Did you even read my opening post?

 

[redleghunter]

Do you know what an analogy is?

the definition of analogy

Of course. The one you pose is terrible frankly.

 

[redleghunter]

Did you even read my opening post?

Indeed. It was revealing.

 

[the iconoclast]

Honestly, I thought it was all pretty clear..

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.

 

[Kylie]

Of course. The one you pose is terrible frankly.

In what way is it terrible?

 

[Kylie]

Indeed. It was revealing.

Care to elaborate? Or are you just going to post vague things in an attempt to sound mysterious?

 

[Kylie]

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.

Person number 1 represents the processes which actually formed the universe.

 

[the iconoclast]

Person number 1 represents the processes which actually formed the universe.

Hey Kylie hope you are well. God bless you and your family friend.

Player 2 represents a person or persons who writes a document - human.

Player 3 represents a person who agrees with the document - human.

It seems inconsistent for player 1 to be a process - as players 2 and 3 represent humans?

How does player 1 decide to 'break' the balls and follows the rules of pool?

Cheers

 

[Kylie]

Hey Kylie hope you are well. God bless you and your family friend.

Player 2 represents a person or persons who writes a document - human.

Player 3 represents a person who agrees with the document - human.

It seems inconsistent for player 1 to be a process - as players 2 and 3 represent humans?

How does player 1 decide to 'break' the balls and follows the rules of pool?

Cheers

I don't see why this is a problem. I never said that all the people in my analogy MUST represent people in reality.

 

[the iconoclast]

I don't see why this is a problem.

Hey hey you magnificent diamond.

An analogy shows similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump. similarity or comparability.

A comparison between things that have similar features, often used to help explain a principle or idea: He drew an analogy between the brain and a vast computer.

I never said that all the people in my analogy MUST represent people in reality.

Reality is the core to your arguement. You don't need to say all people. The analogy must reflect a similarity for comparison.

Ok. Why have you represented these processes with a human? What similarities exist here? Explain why you see no error?

Cheers and thank you for your replies.

 

[Kylie]

Hey hey you magnificent diamond.

An analogy shows similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump. similarity or comparability.

A comparison between things that have similar features, often used to help explain a principle or idea: He drew an analogy between the brain and a vast computer.



Reality is the core to your arguement. You don't need to say all people. The analogy must reflect a similarity for comparison.

Ok. Why have you represented these processes with a human? What similarities exist here? Explain why you see no error?

Cheers and thank you for your replies.

I said that a person broke because that's the easiest way to explain how it happened. If you want, replace it with some complicated gadget that reacts to sunlight to trigger a robot that moves the pool cue.

Stop making this a big deal. The opening post is quite clear. I've found that the only people who tend to quibble about minutiae like this are those who don't want to actually address the point because they know they disagree with it yet can't show where it is wrong.

 

[the iconoclast]

I said that a person broke because that's the easiest way to explain how it happened.

Hey Kylie. Wow fast reply.

Why do you continue to ignore that player number 1 is a person that precipitates an event?

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?

If you want, replace it with some complicated gadget that reacts to sunlight to trigger a robot that moves the pool cue.

This new condition does not change the fact that there is still a thing behind the cue. It opens up new questions however, Who is the being that invented such a gadget before He set the balls in motion?

Stop making this a big deal. The opening post is quite clear.

It is quite important to your challenge. Player 1 is catalyst. Do you believe there was a catalyst who 'got the ball running' in relation to the universe?

What do you believe?

Do you like my puns?

I've found that the only people who tend to quibble about minutiae like this are those who don't want to actually address the point because they know they disagree with it yet can't show where it is wrong.

Please excuse me. Is this remark aimed at me or other people you have encountered?

Cheers you gem.

 

[Kylie]

Why do you continue to ignore that player number 1 is a person that precipitates an event?

Because it doesn't matter in this analogy!

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?

And that would create the false idea that there must have been NOTHING that caused the formation of the universe, which the creationists would jump all over and then they would ignore the important part of it.

This new condition does not change the fact that there is still a thing behind the cue. It opens up new questions however, Who is the being that invented such a gadget before He set the balls in motion?

But my post isn't about that, is it?

Are you trying to derail the thread?

It is quite important to your challenge. Player 1 is catalyst. Do you believe there was a catalyst who 'got the ball running' in relation to the universe?

This is irrelevant to the question that I am asking, which is, "Is Person 3 right or wrong to believe what Person 2 wrote?"

Please excuse me. Is this remark aimed at me or other people you have encountered?

It is directed at ANYONE who wants to quibble about irrelevant details instead of actually answering the question I posed: "Is Person 3 right or wrong to believe what Person 2 wrote?"

 

[the iconoclast]

Hello kylie. Hope you are having a wonderful and happy life.

Because it doesn't matter in this analogy!

Please excuse me. You have a random and uninspired set of processes represented by a conscious - and self aware - human making a conscious decision. You do not see any error here my friend?

An analogy shows similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump. similarity or comparability.

How is player one similar to a set of - supposedly - random and meaningless processes?

And that would create the false idea that there must have been NOTHING that caused the formation of the universe, which the creationists would jump all over and then they would ignore the important part of it.

Hold up.

Kylie - 'And that would create the false idea that there must have been NOTHING that caused the formation of the universe'

Do you believe that there is something behind the creation of the universe?

But my post isn't about that, is it?


Are you trying to derail the thread?

My dear. You mentioned this 'high tech gadget', not me. YOU changed the conditions for this challenge.

This is irrelevant to the question that I am asking, which is, "Is Person 3 right or wrong to believe what Person 2 wrote?"

Player 1 is irrelevant to this challenge?

It is directed at ANYONE who wants to quibble about irrelevant details instead of actually answering the question I posed: "Is Person 3 right or wrong to believe what Person 2 wrote?"

These people should be reprimanded immediately.

That may be the question you posed but what if the question you posed was flawed?

Please excuse me. Why do you ignore player 1?

Cheers. I hope you and your family are well.

 

[Kylie]

Hello kylie. Hope you are having a wonderful and happy life.



Please excuse me. You have a random and uninspired set of processes represented by a conscious - and self aware - human making a conscious decision. You do not see any error here my friend?

An analogy shows similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump. similarity or comparability.

How is player one similar to a set of - supposedly - random and meaningless processes?



Hold up.

Kylie - 'And that would create the false idea that there must have been NOTHING that caused the formation of the universe'

Do you believe that there is something behind the creation of the universe?



My dear. You mentioned this 'high tech gadget', not me. YOU changed the conditions for this challenge.



Player 1 is irrelevant to this challenge?



These people should be reprimanded immediately.

That may be the question you posed but what if the question you posed was flawed?

Please excuse me. Why do you ignore player 1?

Cheers. I hope you and your family are well.

Dude, it's an ANALOGY.

Now, do you want to answer the question or waste time quibbling about irrelevant details because you've got nothing better to say?

 

[the iconoclast]

Dude, it's an ANALOGY.

Now, do you want to answer the question or waste time quibbling about irrelevant details because you've got nothing better to say?

Hey Kylie

My dear it' a flawed and inconsistent analogy!!!! Dude!!!

You just don't like being proven wrong!

Cheers my inconsistent friend.

 

[Kylie]

Hey Kylie

My dear it' a flawed and inconsistent analogy!!!! Dude!!!

You just don't like being proven wrong!

Cheers my inconsistent friend.

lol, if that's how you want to justify your inability to answer the question, whatever makes you happy. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

 

[the iconoclast]

lol, if that's how you want to justify your inability to answer the question, whatever makes you happy. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

Hey hey you diamond

Lol dude!!! You seem you to have the inability to create a plausible analogy . Please don't lose sleep over this.

You seem angry. Is everything ok?

Cheers friend and stay safe