Every illustration is refutable. Why? Because it's just an illustration.

This is what happened to the atheists. They argue against theists with illustrations, then when denied by theists, they stretch the illustrations, likewise theists who are caught in the game unfold the illustrations, because it can be stretched - it's just illustration.

Simple example, the round one is more slippery than the jagged one. For example: an egg is smoother than a brick. This illustration is debatable
--- "How come the bricks are slippery, in my place those were mossy bricks ..."

Though the focus is not on illustration, but the focus is on its surface, patternless surface. This is where the two of them, atheist vs theist are fun to play in vain in the realm then say "I contemplate reasoning". They do not understand the essence of the parable

An example is even simpler, very familiar in everyday life ... "don't hurt if you don't want to be hurt. You hurt, definitely you'll get it back, right? This can be denied ... "if my friend is hurt he doesn't fight back, such patient"

There will be no end, then what is the use of a parable if it creates circular - unfinished - wasting time debate? It represents our weakness when it comes to data shortages.

We wanted to describe the wonderful atmosphere of the vacation spot we just visited. We tried to explain to people who have never visited, then we did using everyday examples known to that person so they could imagine how we felt, but somehow they didn't like the example then they refused to understand. hehe

Now here we need to understand the function of the parable which is not actually the equivalent of the one being compared

That is why the enlightened people, they are confused in facing situations that are different from the everyday dimension. There were gaps but those were facts. Their mind demanded an explanation for themselves.

Then they searched for parables for themselves. Sadly ... They were also trapped by flexible parables

Finally, some of them were deceived (thought they were God) because they tried to understand for themselves. I say they are drunk with parables, intoxicated by parables

Then how to harden the parable so that even though it is flexible it remains strong. So that we ourselves are not trapped by the rubber game in logic?

First ...
- Avoid parables because they tend to lack data
- Better to throw yourself in the experience itself ... finished?

Not really ... lots of obstacles
- High cost
- Beyond the capability
{busyness and so on ...}

Here an axiom is required to be accompanied by a parable. As thought goes on, we will see the right angle to the parable which is in harmony with reality. How could this happen?

How can a flexible one look hard and stay flexible? The parable must be accompanied by axioms ...

Now back to the problem of parables. The function of parable ...
- To show that something is possible, it's that simple
- Later, over time, with the axiom, the parable will frozen

Suddenly hard stiffness cannot be turned from a different direction.
© Seremonia