Somehow,somewhere,somewhen

[Davian]

Originally Posted by Davian

Try a "yes" or a "no" this time.

You are free to concede your claim.

Again: We don't know if they can be actually be tuned, do we? Yes or no.
​

Answer my question Davian.

Originally Posted by Davian

Try a "yes" or a "no" this time.

You are free to concede your claim.

Again: We don't know if they can be actually be tuned, do we? Yes or no.
​

Answer my question Davian.

Your answer.....NOPE.

So who was cornered Davian? I told you we would continue if you answered my question, you refused.

Enough with the complaining. You are cornered, I asked first. Post #774.

It's your claim on the line, not mine. Your refusal, or inability, to provide a yes or no answer to that post will be accepted as abdication.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Enough with the complaining. You are cornered, I asked first. Post #774.

It's your claim on the line, not mine. Your refusal, or inability, to provide a yes or no answer to that post will be accepted as abdication.

Post #774:


Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

In this universe we see that they are tuned. That is the point.
​

You perceive them to be tuned, just like people see clouds in the shape of bunnies. We don't know if they can be actually be tuned, do we? Yes or no?


I said:
Originally Posted by Davian

You perceive them to be tuned, just like people see clouds in the shape of bunnies. We don't know if they can be actually be tuned, do we? Yes or no?
​

So physicists and cosmologists are just seeing bunnies in the clouds when it comes down to the fine tuning of the constants in our universe? __________________

The question you asked had been answered repeatedly:

Originally Posted by Davian

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I quoted myself and the question in post #717, the one you were responding to.
​

Post #717

Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

Originally Posted by Davian

Yes, the constants are constant. I asked, could they have been different (from the start)?
​

What are you getting at Davian?

You said: Again, where in the article it was determined that other settings were possible, and how?
​

I said: I didn't claim it was in the article that I remember.

​

You said:The article is not in support of fine-tuning of the universe.
I said: Yes it is. _______________


Then you reposted this:
Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

<snip>
I've answered this. Other settings in this universe would not allow for life to exist, they would be possible but we would not be here to discuss it.
<snip>
​

Other settings of the constants are possible? How do you know this?

And then this:
Originally Posted by Davian

You are still skipping over what I am pointing out. Let's try smaller steps.
Other settings of the constants are possible? How do you know this?
​

I responded:

Originally Posted by Davian

You are still skipping over what I am pointing out. Let's try smaller steps.
Other settings of the constants are possible? How do you know this?
​

Let me clarify here. The constants of this universe could not be different. If another universe were to be created they could be different, or at least we could imagine where they might be different that is true for design as well as for observations in science.

Then you responded:
Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

Let me clarify here. The constants of this universe could not be different.
​

Untestable, unfalsifiable, assertion.
Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

If another universe were to be created they could be different, or at least we could imagine where they might be different that is true for design as well as for observations in science.
​

I am not asking about what you can imagine.

Again: Other settings of the constants are possible? How do you know this? Or do you not know this?

You said: I am not asking about what you can imagine.
Which by the way means I was not responding to CabVet but to you so I guess I don't know who in the heck I am responding to. Sheesh....

​

I said: Really? What are you asking, since I was responding to Davian's post in the first place?

YOu said: Again: Other settings of the constants are possible? How do you know this? Or do you not know this?
​

I said: see above
Which was: Untrue. Our universe has fundamental features, i.e. speed of light, gravitational constant and the Plank's constant to name a few that are intertwined with the time component of spacetime. Since spacetime and matter/energy come together in the Big Bang they are fundamentally inseparable. For the constants to be different the fundamental nature of the time component of spaced time would have to be different. So, since this is the case the constants could not be different in our universe without re-engineering the birth of the universe itself.

Then after that once again you:
Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

See above.
​

Once more: Other settings of the constants are possible? How do you know this? Or do you not know this?

I have answered you each and everytime you have asked. I don't know what you want. Either clarify what you want or drop it.

How. Do. You. Know. It. Would. Be. Possible?

What we can hypothesize is irrelevant to my point.
​

Clarify or drop it.

Except when some theist needs to explain away some miracle-producing/young-Earth/global-flood/resurrecting/virgin-impregnating personal deity? (YMMV)
​

What? :o

I don't know that anything is possible.
​

Sounds like a personal problem.

Here's a question that you have yet to answer: Other settings of the constants are possible? How do you know this? Or do you not know this? A simple "I do not know" will suffice.
​

AS you can see, I've answered every time you've asked. Clarify or drop it. __________________

Now I have answered your question repeatedly. When or if you answer mine we can continue it is up to you.

 

[Davian]

Post #774:


Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

In this universe we see that they are tuned. That is the point.
​

You perceive them to be tuned, just like people see clouds in the shape of bunnies. We don't know if they can be actually be tuned, do we? Yes or no?


I said:
Originally Posted by Davian

You perceive them to be tuned, just like people see clouds in the shape of bunnies. We don't know if they can be actually be tuned, do we? Yes or no?
​

So physicists and cosmologists are just seeing bunnies in the clouds when it comes down to the fine tuning of the constants in our universe? __________________

The question you asked had been answered repeatedly:

Originally Posted by Davian

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I quoted myself and the question in post #717, the one you were responding to.
​

Post #717

Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

Originally Posted by Davian

Yes, the constants are constant. I asked, could they have been different (from the start)?
​

What are you getting at Davian?

You said: Again, where in the article it was determined that other settings were possible, and how?
​

I said: I didn't claim it was in the article that I remember.

​

You said:The article is not in support of fine-tuning of the universe.
I said: Yes it is. _______________


Then you reposted this:
Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

<snip>
I've answered this. Other settings in this universe would not allow for life to exist, they would be possible but we would not be here to discuss it.
<snip>
​

Other settings of the constants are possible? How do you know this?

And then this:
Originally Posted by Davian

You are still skipping over what I am pointing out. Let's try smaller steps.
Other settings of the constants are possible? How do you know this?
​

I responded:

Originally Posted by Davian

You are still skipping over what I am pointing out. Let's try smaller steps.
Other settings of the constants are possible? How do you know this?
​

Let me clarify here. The constants of this universe could not be different. If another universe were to be created they could be different, or at least we could imagine where they might be different that is true for design as well as for observations in science.

Then you responded:
Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

Let me clarify here. The constants of this universe could not be different.
​

Untestable, unfalsifiable, assertion.
Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

If another universe were to be created they could be different, or at least we could imagine where they might be different that is true for design as well as for observations in science.
​

I am not asking about what you can imagine.

Again: Other settings of the constants are possible? How do you know this? Or do you not know this?

You said: I am not asking about what you can imagine.
Which by the way means I was not responding to CabVet but to you so I guess I don't know who in the heck I am responding to. Sheesh....

​

I said: Really? What are you asking, since I was responding to Davian's post in the first place?

YOu said: Again: Other settings of the constants are possible? How do you know this? Or do you not know this?
​

I said: see above
Which was: Untrue. Our universe has fundamental features, i.e. speed of light, gravitational constant and the Plank's constant to name a few that are intertwined with the time component of spacetime. Since spacetime and matter/energy come together in the Big Bang they are fundamentally inseparable. For the constants to be different the fundamental nature of the time component of spaced time would have to be different. So, since this is the case the constants could not be different in our universe without re-engineering the birth of the universe itself.

Then after that once again you:
Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

See above.
​

Once more: Other settings of the constants are possible? How do you know this? Or do you not know this?

I have answered you each and everytime you have asked. I don't know what you want. Either clarify what you want or drop it.

How. Do. You. Know. It. Would. Be. Possible?

What we can hypothesize is irrelevant to my point.
​

Clarify or drop it.

Except when some theist needs to explain away some miracle-producing/young-Earth/global-flood/resurrecting/virgin-impregnating personal deity? (YMMV)
​

What? :o

I don't know that anything is possible.
​

Sounds like a personal problem.

Here's a question that you have yet to answer: Other settings of the constants are possible? How do you know this? Or do you not know this? A simple "I do not know" will suffice.
​

AS you can see, I've answered every time you've asked. Clarify or drop it. __________________

Now I have answered your question repeatedly. When or if you answer mine we can continue it is up to you.

Abdication accepted. Your claim fails.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Abdication accepted. Your claim fails.

You are a dishonest person Davian.

 

[Davian]

You are a dishonest person Davian.

New topic then. Would you care to substantiate that statement? Feel free to PM me.

 

[Skaloop]

You are a dishonest person Davian.

He's not the one saying there is proof where this is no proof.

 

[Oncedeceived]

He's not the one saying there is proof where this is no proof.

Proof? Where in science do you have proof? I answered his question, when he couldn't answer my question without totally failing on his point he wouldn't answer. Then he says I am the one in the wrong. Dishonest.

 

[Skaloop]

Proof? Where in science do you have proof?

Well, the argument could be strongly made for in math. And definitely for alcohol.

I answered his question, when he couldn't answer my question without totally failing on his point he wouldn't answer. Then he says I am the one in the wrong. Dishonest.

You have said you have proof that Jesus existed, among other things Jesus did, without any proof.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Well, the argument could be strongly made for in math. And definitely for alcohol.

Agreed on both.

You have said you have proof that Jesus existed, among other things Jesus did, without any proof.

We were not discussing Jesus in the thread we are talking about here. That being said, I said there were outside sources that show Jesus existed. Those show He existed. That is evidence for His existence.

 

[Skaloop]

We were not discussing Jesus in the thread we are talking about here. That being said, I said there were outside sources that show Jesus existed. Those show He existed. That is evidence for His existence.

Evidence, sure. Just bad evidence. And not anywhere near proof.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Evidence, sure. Just bad evidence. And not anywhere near proof.

Do you believe that Socrates existed? How about Plato, Xenophon and Aristophanes?

What constitutes good or bad evidence?

Which really isn't the issue we were discussing anyway. We were discussing the fine tuning of the universe.

 

[Skaloop]

Do you believe that Socrates existed? How about Plato, Xenophon and Aristophanes?

Yes, I do. But there's not really proof that they did.

What constitutes good or bad evidence?

For one, good evidence points towards a specific conclusion, bad evidence points towards several possible conclusions.

Which really isn't the issue we were discussing anyway. We were discussing the fine tuning of the universe.

Which you have yet to prove.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did give you one and you didn't admit you were wrong. The quote about the rapture was an evident one that you chose to ignore.

The rapture is an event that happens in a blink of the eye and one will be in bed at night and other working in the day.

I want a clear verse. I gave several clear verses that showed the belief of a Flat Earth. You gave a verse where you once again interpreted it in light of todays knowledge. The verse you gave to me implied different times of day, not different places on the Earth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK so what you are saying now is that the whole entire earth could not be seen on top the highest mountain nor tree and that it would make sense for a primitive tribe to conclude that their world was 25 miles in all directions?

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? 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?

Our Earth, no. But once again, ancient peoples had no idea how large the Earth was. That was why it was conceivable that a big boat could house all life on the Earth for a year. If you knew how big the Earth was, and how varied life was on the Earth you would know that was an impossible task.

You are putting too much stock in poetic language. The important fact is that that poetic language does not make much sense with a spherical Earth. The poetic language makes much more sense if you are describing a flat Earth.

Really why is this so important to you? I thought you claimed not to be a fundie. You sure are acting like one. The errors in that Bible should not matter to someone who believes the substance of the Bible and not the nonsense of the Bible.

 

[Davian]

You are a dishonest person Davian.

Substantiate or retract. And apologize. You have hurt my feelings.

 

[Davian]

Do you believe that Socrates existed? How about Plato, Xenophon and Aristophanes?

I do not see how that is relevant. Is there anyone claiming that these individuals are still alive, performing miracles, and care about what happens between two of more consenting adults in the privacy of their bedroom?

What constitutes good or bad evidence?

That would be commensurate to the claim. If we hear the sound of hooves on the pavement outside of our house, a claim of unicorns will require [understatement]somewhat different[/understatement] evidence than if the claim was for horses.

Which really isn't the issue we were discussing anyway. We were discussing the fine tuning of the universe.

What tuning? Can you demonstrate that the constants that we observe in this universe could have been different? Yes or no?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, I do. But there's not really proof that they did.

Ok. So if that is the case why do you find it difficult to believe that we think that Jesus lived with documentation of His existence?

For one, good evidence points towards a specific conclusion, bad evidence points towards several possible conclusions.

We have that all the time in the scientific realm, you don't take issue with that.

Which you have yet to prove.

Prove what? Proof of fine tuning?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Substantiate or retract. And apologize. You have hurt my feelings.

I find that tremendously unlikely.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Our Earth, no. But once again, ancient peoples had no idea how large the Earth was. That was why it was conceivable that a big boat could house all life on the Earth for a year. If you knew how big the Earth was, and how varied life was on the Earth you would know that was an impossible task.

You are putting too much stock in poetic language. The important fact is that that poetic language does not make much sense with a spherical Earth. The poetic language makes much more sense if you are describing a flat Earth.

How does poetic language make more sense if the earth is a circle and there are four corners? Do you see the problem here?

Really why is this so important to you? I thought you claimed not to be a fundie. You sure are acting like one. The errors in that Bible should not matter to someone who believes the substance of the Bible and not the nonsense of the Bible.

I've never said whether or not I'm a fundie. However, I am. The importance is that I think you are incorrect in your interpretation. Its not all that important in the scheme of things, I just think you are incorrect. I understand why you think what you think but I think that it is clear that it is not accurate.

Here is another paper I think is interesting about the concept.

Does the Bible Teach a Flat Earth

 

[Davian]

I find that tremendously unlikely.

lol.

Still, substantiate or retract. And apologize.