I am trying to point out you are wrong. It is quite the centerpiece of my arguement.
First, I have given you plenty of opportunities to correct my hypothetical, which you have refused to do. You seem more interested in just complaining about it rather than having a meaningful discussion about it, and as such, you appear to be wasting my time.
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.)
I explained why. Sounds to me that you were more interested to dodge the question of the catalyst until I identified Him as the Christian God.
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.
Before I entertain such a thing. Why do we need to rephrase your flawed analogy?
What will that accomplish? What would we rephrase?
You could correct the flaw you see. Do you not understand how this works?
We have a catalyst that either places the balls or "breaks" them. This character in your analogy is represented by a human being that gets the balls running (.eg the formation of the universe.
My amazing friend, Who else could it be?
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.
We could be.
I like you!
No. We could not be friends. 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.
In the case I am misinformed. What point do you wish to make?
That Person 3 is wrong to blindly accept the text written by Person 2.
Please excuse me. If someone wastes your time then that allows you to treat them different?
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.
Please excuse me friend. What words do I use that do not match my actions?
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.
