Somehow,somewhere,somewhen

[Oncedeceived]

No, you did not substantiate it. The question required a yes or no answer. Your "repeated answers" were nothing of the sort, were they?

Here you are projecting. It is not my argument.

Dishonest is saying that it was my argument when it is actually yours.

My argument was that the fine tuning was shown to be real and not perceived by me like bunny clouds. I posted the consensus of physicists and cosmologists and asked if they were seeing bunny clouds in their perception. That was the discussion. Your presumption was that my perception was why I could see fine tuning which I had proven wrong by showing the experts in their fields held that fine tuning was real. It is dishonest to claim that you stopped our conversation due to my lack of answering your question which is shown by the number of responses that I have posted to show it. The original argument was mine but the argument you used against it is the issue in which it all broke down. It was your argument not mine that finished the discussion.

Nothing at all. It does continue to speak of yours, though.

Matter of perspective.

Usually, when a theist here paints themselves into a corner, they just walk out over the wet paint and don't look back. Here, you are accusing me of leaving leaving those footprints in the paint, lol. Cognitive dissonance much?

Because it is true that it was your argument that was failing and the reason why you would not answer my question.

Let's take a look at this corner you find yourself in:

Do we know if the universal constants, as we observe them, could have been tuned to other values at the instantiation of the cosmos, yes or no?

To answer "yes" would require knowledge that we, to the best of my knowledge, do not have access to. As you would agree, we do not have other universes to explore.

An answer of "no" would leave your claim without a metaphysical leg to stand on, along the lines of "I don't know if the constants can actually be tuned, but I think they need to be tuned, and if that is the case, then a designer-deity is necessary, and <insert much hand-waving here> leads me to thinking that it is my deity of choice. ". I say, until we see that there can be tuning, why posit the need for a tuner?

I answered for this universe it is the case that they needed to be fine tuned for us to be here to discuss it. No hand waving necessary.

I can see why you refuse to answer, but calling me dishonest in the process was uncalled for, and I still expect you to retract. I thought better of you.

One thing I have learned in this discussion is your opinion of me and I don't think that was ever very high. So you refusing to answer is considered moral and right while I have answered yours numerous times and then I ask you a question about that and ask you to answer mine first and you claim I failed my argument. That is dishonest. That is how I see it. I thought you had more integrity than that. It was a disappointment.

 

[Papias]

Once wrote:


Originally Posted by Papias

OK, about the flat earth described in most Bibles:

Bible tells us that the earth is flat like a piece of clay stamped under a seal (Job 38:13-14), that it has edges as only a flat plane would (Job 38:13-14,.Psa 19:4), that it is a circular disk (Isa 40:22), and that its entire surface can be seen from a high tree (Dan 4:10-11) or mountain (Matt 4:8), which is impossible for a sphere, but possible for a flat disk. Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, any one of these passages shows a flat earth. Taken together, they are even more clear. And many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.

Nothing suggests otherwise. As we've seen, the only thing suggesting a sphere is a deliberate mistranslation of the word "chuwg", which means "flat disk", not sphere. The Hebrews have a word for "sphere", it is "dur". The writer would have used "dur" if he meant "sphere". This is clear in many other places in the Bibles where the world "dur" is used.

From a Christian standpoint, this is a good thing, because if Is 40 did read "dur" instead of "chuwg", then it would contradict all those other equally clear references to the earth as a flat disk.

Papias

I am going to just post a commentary that I think is a good illustration about this.

Dennis Jones Bible Commentary | Smile! You’re at the best WordPress.com site ever

I read that, and it doesn't seem to help you. For one thing, he seems to think that playing a word games with things like "extremity", when actually reading the passages shows that doing so doesn't help, and his discussion of dur, etc ignores the fact that if "sphere" was intended, dur would have been used. A siege operation can indeed rise above a flat circle, so that's hardly a surprise. It's essays like that which make us Christians look like morons - heck, this guy apparently doesn't even know the difference between a magnet and a battery.

He did, however, help by showing a long list of verses that show that Biblical authors though the earth was a flat area which could have its length measured, unlike a sphere.

I want to ask you as well, if the Biblical authors thought the world flat as you say, but that it was a circle how do you explain that there were four corners?

Um, because the last time I read my Bible, it was composed by different authors. Some apparently thought it was a flat disk, others thought it was a flat square, but it was obvious to all of them that it was flat.

How was the earth that was built upon pillars and the foundation hung from nothing? What were the pillars and foundation resting on if the earth was "hung" on nothing?

Um, because the last time I read my Bible, it was composed by different authors. Some apparently thought it was a flat expanse on a foundation, others thought it was a flat expanse on nothing (or was wide enough to have a foundation in the middle, and edges that stuck out in space, like a table), but it was obvious to all of them that it was immobile.

I'm glad that others have handled the discussion about seeing the whole earth from a tree or mountain. The key there is not whether it is someone one can actually do, but rather that the bronze-age nomads who wrote those verses saw it as plausible. Using a flat earth model (especially with the smaller world they imagined, they had no knowledge of, say, the Americas), works fine, while imaging a sphere makes it immediatly obvious that it won't work.

Papias

 

[Oncedeceived]

Once wrote:


Originally Posted by Papias I read that, and it doesn't seem to help you. For one thing, he seems to think that playing a word games with things like "extremity", when actually reading the passages shows that doing so doesn't help, and his discussion of dur, etc ignores the fact that if "sphere" was intended, dur would have been used. A siege operation can indeed rise above a flat circle, so that's hardly a surprise. It's essays like that which make us Christians look like morons - heck, this guy apparently doesn't even know the difference between a magnet and a battery.

He did, however, help by showing a long list of verses that show that Biblical authors though the earth was a flat area which could have its length measured, unlike a sphere.




Um, because the last time I read my Bible, it was composed by different authors. Some apparently thought it was a flat disk, others thought it was a flat square, but it was obvious to all of them that it was flat.




Um, because the last time I read my Bible, it was composed by different authors. Some apparently thought it was a flat expanse on a foundation, others thought it was a flat expanse on nothing (or was wide enough to have a foundation in the middle, and edges that stuck out in space, like a table), but it was obvious to all of them that it was immobile.

I'm glad that others have handled the discussion about seeing the whole earth from a tree or mountain. The key there is not whether it is someone one can actually do, but rather that the bronze-age nomads who wrote those verses saw it as plausible. Using a flat earth model (especially with the smaller world they imagined, they had no knowledge of, say, the Americas), works fine, while imaging a sphere makes it immediatly obvious that it won't work.

Papias

Well I guess we are at odds with how we see it as well. I will agree to disagree. I see your points and feel that it is understandable to see it that way.

 

[Papias]

Once wrote:

I posted the consensus of physicists and cosmologists and asked if they were seeing bunny clouds in their perception. That was the discussion. Your presumption was that my perception was why I could see fine tuning which I had proven wrong by showing the experts in their fields held that fine tuning was real.

Showing that some hold that position is NOT showing a consensus. Looking into it, it seems there are plenty on both sides, some seeing fine tuning, and other not seeing fine tuning.

However, even those who see fine tuning are not arguing in favor of a god. One of the biggest proponents of fine-tuning is Dr. Steven Weinbergy, who writes:

Finally, I have heard the objection that, in trying to explain why the
laws of nature are so well suited for the appearance and evolution of life,
anthropic arguments take on some of the flavor of religion. I think that
just the opposite is the case. Just as Darwin and Wallace explained how
the wonderful adaptations of living forms could arise without supernatural
intervention, so the string landscape may explain how the constants of nature
that we observe can take values suitable for life without being fine-tuned by

a benevolent creator.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Papias

 

[Davian]

My argument was that the fine tuning was shown to be real and not perceived by me like bunny clouds. I posted the consensus of physicists and cosmologists and asked if they were seeing bunny clouds in their perception. That was the discussion. Your presumption was that my perception was why I could see fine tuning which I had proven wrong by showing the experts in their fields held that fine tuning was real. It is dishonest to claim that you stopped our conversation due to my lack of answering your question which is shown by the number of responses that I have posted to show it. The original argument was mine but the argument you used against it is the issue in which it all broke down. It was your argument not mine that finished the discussion.

As you skipped over in my last post: No, you did not substantiate it. The question required a yes or no answer. Your "repeated answers" were nothing of the sort, were they?

Matter of perspective.

Because it is true that it was your argument that was failing and the reason why you would not answer my question.

Let's take a look at this corner you find yourself in:

I answered for this universe it is the case that they needed to be fine tuned for us to be here to discuss it. No hand waving necessary.

The hand waving was in reference to your efforts to connect the supposed designer-deity to your particular deity of choice. Was that not clear?

One thing I have learned in this discussion is your opinion of me and I don't think that was ever very high.

On the contrary, I would think that the carefully written and consistent responses that I have provided to you in the forums and via PM would show otherwise.

So you refusing to answer is considered moral

I did not refuse to answer your question. I am (still) waiting for you to answer the question I asked you first. I will happily answer after that.

and right while I have answered yours numerous times

You did not provide a yes or no answer as the question required, did you?

and then I ask you a question about that and ask you to answer mine first

Yes, that is your style, to answer a question with a question. You can be very evasive.

and you claim I failed my argument.

No, I said that failure to answer the question would be accepted as abdication. That's different.

That is dishonest. That is how I see it.

I may have put you in an awkward spot. That s not dishonesty, that is the intent of discussions on these forums. Deal with the difficult questions.

I thought you had more integrity than that. It was a disappointment.

Now you have built a straw-man of me. No matter. The question still stands, and awaits your yes-or-no answer. I leave it with you.

 

[Papias]

Once wrote:

Well I guess we are at odds with how we see it as well. I will agree to disagree. I see your points and feel that it is understandable to see it that way.

Yes, I guess so. It's fine to agree to disagree. Thanks, I see your points too. And I apologize if the "Um", sounded sarcastic.


Blessings of Jesus Christ-

Papias

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can't have a circle have four corners, you can't have day and night at the same time. It is stretch the heavens like a tent and the heavens are stretched and like a tent.

Now I don't know about you but this is pretty impressive evidence providing support to the Bible and its description of the universe to me.

Psalm 104:2
The LORD wraps himself in light as with a garment; _ he stretches out the heavens like a tent

Isaiah 40:22
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, _ and its people are like grasshoppers. _He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, _ and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

Jeremiah 10:12
But God made the earth by his power; _ he founded the world by his wisdom _ and stretched out the heavens by his understanding.

Isaiah 48:13
My own hand laid the foundations of the earth, _ and my right hand spread out the heavens; _when I summon them, _ they all stand up together.

Although Scherrer’s model has a number of positive features, it also has some drawbacks. For one thing, it requires some extreme “fine-tuning” to work. The physicist also cautions that more study will be required to determine if the model’s behavior is consistent with other observations. In addition, it cannot answer the coincidence problem: Why we live at the only time in the history of the universe when the densities calculated for dark matter and dark energy are comparable. Scientists are suspicious of this because it suggests that there is something special about the present era.
Read more: A Connection Between Dark Energy and Dark Matter?


When there is so much in the Bible like those things above, I just feel it is an incorrect interpretation. I can agree to disagree about it if you wish. I think that all the other specifics of our universe in the Bible are so strong that it is a small concession.


I will agree to respectably disagree.

I believe the author said that there were but that he wasn't using it as support, if I remember correctly.

You have yet to show that day and night happened at the same time. Your Luke verse looks like it was talking about different times of day at the same place. There is nothing to it that implies day and night at the same time.

And the rest of your post is more of the same mistake. You keep trying to squeeze errant verses into today's science.

When you tried to claim that the stretching tent verse applied to the stretching universe that was one huge moment on your part.

You are not being honest. Worse yet you accused someone else of being dishonest and yet could not justify your claim. I can point out how you are making the same mistakes that Muslims constantly make. You would correct them if they did that yet you commit the same sin time after time.

By the way, if you are not a fundie why do you make the same arguments and mistakes that they do?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Once wrote:



Yes, I guess so. It's fine to agree to disagree. Thanks, I see your points too. And I apologize if the "Um", sounded sarcastic.


Blessings of Jesus Christ-

Papias

If the um was not intended to be sarcastic then you need not apologize.

Thanks for the discussion and providing your observations.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You have yet to show that day and night happened at the same time. Your Luke verse looks like it was talking about different times of day at the same place. There is nothing to it that implies day and night at the same time.

SZ you have to take the verse into context. I understand why you think it should be interpreted as you do, however, you can't dismiss what is a common context of the verse means in Christianity. It doesn't stand alone. Do you understand that?

And the rest of your post is more of the same mistake. You keep trying to squeeze errant verses into today's science.

No, science is providing evidence for what the Bible said thousands of years ago.

When you tried to claim that the stretching tent verse applied to the stretching universe that was one huge moment on your part.

Are you serious?

IT clearly states: covering yourself with light as with a garment, stretching out the heavens like a tent. I have shown you how the universe actually depicts that description.

You are not being honest. Worse yet you accused someone else of being dishonest and yet could not justify your claim. I can point out how you are making the same mistakes that Muslims constantly make. You would correct them if they did that yet you commit the same sin time after time.

1. How is that dishonest in any way?
2. I don't care what Muslims do.
3. I don't correct Muslims. I do not have communications with any Muslims.
4. I justified my claim. I had scientific evidence to back up my claim. His claim however, of my perception of fine tuning was like seeing bunnies in clouds. I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask if the scientists that claim fine tuning is real are seeing bunny clouds as well. He didn't want to answer that so he put it back on me. I answered his question numerous times.

By the way, if you are not a fundie why do you make the same arguments and mistakes that they do?

Why are you concerned about fundamentalism?

 

[Subduction Zone]

SZ you have to take the verse into context. I understand why you think it should be interpreted as you do, however, you can't dismiss what is a common context of the verse means in Christianity. It doesn't stand alone. Do you understand that?

Then why didn't you supply the context? You supplied the verse, as supplied it did not imply that it was one moment in time. It is your claim you need to support it, not me.

No, science is providing evidence for what the Bible said thousands of years ago.

No, no, no, no. You are taking vague verses and reinterpreting them to fit today's science. That is wrong. You can get the Bible to support anything if you do that sort of idiocy. It is simply wrong.

Are you serious?

Dead serious.

IT clearly states: covering yourself with light as with a garment, stretching out the heavens like a tent. I have shown you how the universe actually depicts that description.

No, no, no, and no.

1. How is that dishonest in any way?
2. I don't care what Muslims do.
3. I don't correct Muslims. I do not have communications with any Muslims.
4. I justified my claim. I had scientific evidence to back up my claim. His claim however, of my perception of fine tuning was like seeing bunnies in clouds. I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask if the scientists that claim fine tuning is real are seeing bunny clouds as well. He didn't want to answer that so he put it back on me. I answered his question numerous times.

Seriously? Are you this blindly ignorant?

You should correct Muslims. I have no problem correcting Christians, or Muslims, or anyone else that believes nonsense.

And no, the problem is that you never justified your claims. You took something that scientists do not agree with you on at all and distorted it to fit your superstitious beliefs.

Why are you concerned about fundamentalism?

Because fundamentalists are extremely dishonest when it comes to debating and I do not like dishonest people. They would rather knowingly lie than to admit the truth. They are the worst of hypocrites.

Some Christians are just mistaken and reject the theory of evolution because they do not understand it. Fundamentalists go beyond that and try to keep themselves ignorant. They think obstinate ignorance is a defense for breaking the Ninth Commandment.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Those things that I listed are predicted in the Bible.

No they aren't, I saw the verses you quoted.

If the bible really said all that, Christians and theologians would have been talking about those concepts long before scientists. But they weren't.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then why didn't you supply the context? You supplied the verse, as supplied it did not imply that it was one moment in time. It is your claim you need to support it, not me.

I did SZ. I gave you the context in regard to the Rapture. In the twinkling of an eye is suddenly and quick. Not drawn out to be all day into the night.

No, no, no, no. You are taking vague verses and reinterpreting them to fit today's science. That is wrong. You can get the Bible to support anything if you do that sort of idiocy. It is simply wrong.

Stretching the universe like a tent is not vague. It is clear. There is no other way to interpret it other than claiming that He stretches the heavens.

Dead serious.

I was afraid of that.

No, no, no, and no.

No, no, no and no what?

Seriously? Are you this blindly ignorant?

Ok. I'm ignorant and you have the wisdom of the world. Case closed.

You should correct Muslims. I have no problem correcting Christians, or Muslims, or anyone else that believes nonsense.

I don't communicate with Muslims. I can hardly correct them if I have no contact with them.

And no, the problem is that you never justified your claims. You took something that scientists do not agree with you on at all and distorted it to fit your superstitious beliefs.

I gave quotes from many of the scientists that agree that my claim is reasonable and one that could be true even though they can't allow that scientifically. It isn't a distortion of the facts.

Because fundamentalists are extremely dishonest when it comes to debating and I do not like dishonest people. They would rather knowingly lie than to admit the truth. They are the worst of hypocrites.

SZ this is a very bigoted outlook which is just as dishonest as you claim others to be. Not everyone that has a label is the same way. That is just wrong to assume.

Some Christians are just mistaken and reject the theory of evolution because they do not understand it. Fundamentalists go beyond that and try to keep themselves ignorant. They think obstinate ignorance is a defense for breaking the Ninth Commandment.

Some reject elements of ToE. Some reject it outright but not all of anyone does anything all the time. This is just your bias.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No they aren't, I saw the verses you quoted.

If the bible really said all that, Christians and theologians would have been talking about those concepts long before scientists. But they weren't.

Perhaps you can specify?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The fact is that there are no real valid prophesies in the Bible.

"Fulfilled prophecies" are a mixed bag of reinterpreting verses after the fact, as Oncedeceived has been doing, playing number games, and out and out quote mining. Worse yet there are failed prophesies that apologists still try to defend, the Tyre prophecy is perhaps the worst example for them.

 

[Skaloop]

IT clearly states: covering yourself with light as with a garment, stretching out the heavens like a tent. I have shown you how the universe actually depicts that description.

Where have you shown that the universe depicts a stretched out tent? What does a stretched out tent look like? What kind of tent? How stretched out is it? And how does the universe resemble a stretched out tent in any way?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then why didn't you supply the context? You supplied the verse, as supplied it did not imply that it was one moment in time. It is your claim you need to support it, not me.

I did SZ. I gave you the context in regard to the Rapture. In the twinkling of an eye is suddenly and quick. Not drawn out to be all day into the night.

No, you claimed it was about the Rapture. You gave one verse. You did not provide the context. You cannot simply claim a verse was about a rapture that took place all at once. So, no context provided. The verse you gave implied different times of day as supplied. Try again.

Stretching the universe like a tent is not vague. It is clear. There is no other way to interpret it other than claiming that He stretches the heavens.

Right, pull the other one, it has bells on.

If your are going to be this nonsensical there is no point in continuing.

I was afraid of that.

Why?

[

No, no, no and no what?

Your repeating of inane mistakes is not a valid way of debating.

Ok. I'm ignorant and you have the wisdom of the world. Case closed.

Everybody is educable. I don't have all of the wisdom of the world, but I have not sealed my brain off.

I don't communicate with Muslims. I can hardly correct them if I have no contact with them.

You never run across any of them at forums?

I gave quotes from many of the scientists that agree that my claim is reasonable and one that could be true even though they can't allow that scientifically. It isn't a distortion of the facts.

No, you gave quotes out of context. Since they would not agree with you that is quote mining and is not honest.

SZ this is a very bigoted outlook which is just as dishonest as you claim others to be. Not everyone that has a label is the same way. That is just wrong to assume.

No, it is a viewpoint that has come about by debating with numerous fundamentalists. Since the fundamentalists are so obviously wrong the only way they can remain fundamentalist is by being dishonest.

Some reject elements of ToE. Some reject it outright but not all of anyone does anything all the time. This is just your bias.

Perhaps. Does it really matter? They are all demonstrably wrong.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Where have you shown that the universe depicts a stretched out tent? What does a stretched out tent look like? What kind of tent? How stretched out is it? And how does the universe resemble a stretched out tent in any way?

Look at the examples I gave Skaloop.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Look at the examples I gave Skaloop.

Yes, they are good for a laugh or two.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, you claimed it was about the Rapture. You gave one verse. You did not provide the context. You cannot simply claim a verse was about a rapture that took place all at once. So, no context provided. The verse you gave implied different times of day as supplied. Try again.

This just shows your misunderstanding and lack of knowledge of Christianity.

Right, pull the other one, it has bells on.

I don't even know what you mean by this.

If your are going to be this nonsensical there is no point in continuing.

I am not forcing you.

Why?

Just typical.

[

Your repeating of inane mistakes is not a valid way of debating.

Your repeating of ad hominem statements and no supported reason to counter my claims is no way of debating.

Everybody is educable. I don't have all of the wisdom of the world, but I have not sealed my brain off.

I beg to differ.

You never run across any of them at forums?

I haven't spoken to any on here.

No, you gave quotes out of context. Since they would not agree with you that is quote mining and is not honest.

Prove it. Don't accuse me of quote mining, I always include the link so that you can read the quote in the whole context of the article.

No, it is a viewpoint that has come about by debating with numerous fundamentalists. Since the fundamentalists are so obviously wrong the only way they can remain fundamentalist is by being dishonest.

Opinion and nothing more.

Perhaps. Does it really matter? They are all demonstrably wrong.

Opinion and nothing more.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, they are good for a laugh or two.

Uncomfortable? You seem to be a little over confrontational to think that it is so laughable.