Somehow,somewhere,somewhen

[Oncedeceived]

lol.

Still, substantiate or retract. And apologize.

 

[Davian]

So you called me dishonest, refuse to substantiate it, or apologize.

From where do you get your morals? I would never do such a thing as that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

There is no problem, well except that you refuse to understand. The Bible makes no sense at all if it is talking about a spherical Earth. You cannot "cast the sky like a tent" over a spherical Earth. Even if the Bible is poetic it still has to have some ties to reality.

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.

Your actions speak louder than words. Here is a minor point where the Bible is clearly wrong and you are jumping through all sorts of ridiculous hoops to try to defend it.

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

Does the Bible Teach a Flat Earth

Sorry, they totally blew it. How many times do you have to be told you cannot grasp at straws by reinterpreting the past by what is known today.

The totally lost all credibility when they said this:

" Recent satellite results have indicated that the earth has four bulges"

Even though they did get a point for getting why Columbus was rejected the first time right.

 

[FatBurk]

What you described is exactly what creationists do all the time, creationists answer questions with questions,
the reason they do that is because creationism has no answers, that's why they only ever question evolution,
creationism is a story plain and simple so it can not be questioned, all we can do is believe it or reject it,
like Santa Claus or Jack and the beanstalk.

FatBurk, you seriously need to change up your arguments. The santa claus and other storybook characters are so trite. Just try something more inventive and creative. Use that mind for something other than old cliches and tired overused dogma. Thanks.

I will gladly change my argument the instant you tell me the difference between Genesis and any other fable,
be it Santa Claus, Jack and the beanstalk, the Tower of Babel, Robin Hood or any you can think of.

 

[Davian]

I will gladly change my argument the instant you tell me the difference between Genesis and any other fable,
be it Santa Claus, Jack and the beanstalk, the Tower of Babel, Robin Hood or any you can think of.

From what I gather, bible stories are different because they are more popular, older, and mention archaeological details that sometimes turn out to be real.

Did I get that right, Oncedeceived? It was the argument from popularity fallacy, the argument from antiquity fallacy, and the spider-man fallacy, to be clear. A shame they are all fallacies.

 

[Skaloop]

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?

I don't find it difficult to believe that you think Jesus lived with documentation of His existence. It's just that that doesn't constitute proof that Jesus existed.

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

My statement had nothing to do with realms. It was just a statement about evidence. And yes, we do have that all the time in science. What makes you think I don't take issue with it?

Prove what? Proof of fine tuning?

Yes. Can you prove the universe is fine tuned?

 

[Oncedeceived]

There is no problem, well except that you refuse to understand. The Bible makes no sense at all if it is talking about a spherical Earth. You cannot "cast the sky like a tent" over a spherical Earth. Even if the Bible is poetic it still has to have some ties to reality.

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?

Your actions speak louder than words. Here is a minor point where the Bible is clearly wrong and you are jumping through all sorts of ridiculous hoops to try to defend it.

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.

Sorry, they totally blew it. How many times do you have to be told you cannot grasp at straws by reinterpreting the past by what is known today.

I will agree to respectably disagree.

The totally lost all credibility when they said this:

" Recent satellite results have indicated that the earth has four bulges"

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

Even though they did get a point for getting why Columbus was rejected the first time right.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I don't find it difficult to believe that you think Jesus lived with documentation of His existence. It's just that that doesn't constitute proof that Jesus existed.

So in your mind what would constitute proof.

My statement had nothing to do with realms. It was just a statement about evidence. And yes, we do have that all the time in science. What makes you think I don't take issue with it?

Do you?

Yes. Can you prove the universe is fine tuned?

In a BBC science documentary, "The Anthropic Principle," some of the
greatest scientific minds of our day describe the recent findings
which compel this conclusion.

Dr. Dennis Scania, the distinguished head of Cambridge University
Observatories: "If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you
change a little bit the constants of nature -- like the charge on the
electron -- then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is
very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to
develop."

Dr. David D. Deutsch, Institute of Mathematics, Oxford University: "If
we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction,
stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is
no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other
direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no
life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all."

Dr. Paul Davies, noted author and professor of theoretical physics at
Adelaide University: "The really amazing thing is not that life on
Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is
balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the
natural 'constants' were off even slightly. You see," Davies adds,
"even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that
the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life --
almost contrived -- you might say a 'put-up job.'"

According to the latest scientific thinking, the matter of the
universe originated in a huge explosion of energy called "The Big
Bang." At first, the universe was only hydrogen and helium, which
congealed into stars. Subsequently, all the other elements were
manufactured inside the stars. The four most abundant elements in the
universe are, in order, hydrogen, helium, oxygen and carbon. When Sir
Fred Hoyle was researching how carbon came to be, in the "blast-
furnaces" of the stars, his calculations indicated that it is very
difficult to explain how the stars generated the necessary quantity of
carbon upon which life on earth depends. Hoyle found that there were
numerous "fortunate" one-time occurrences which seemed to indicate
that puposeful "adjustments" had been made in the laws of physics and
chemistry in order to produce the necessary carbon.

Hoyle sums up his findings as follows:

"A COMMON SENSE INTERPRETATION OF THE FACTS SUGGESTS THAT A
SUPERINTENDENT HAS MONKEYED WITH THE PHYSICS, AS WELL AS CHEMISTRY AND
BIOLOGY, AND THAT THERE ARE NO BLIND FORCES WORTH SPEAKING ABOUT IN
NATURE. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT ANY PHYSICIST WHO EXAMINED THE EVIDENCE
COULD FAIL TO DRAW THE INFERENCE THAT THE LAWS OF NUCLEAR PHYSICS HAVE
BEEN DELIBERATELY DESIGNED WITH REGARD TO THE CONSEQUENCES THEY
PRODUCE WITHIN STARS."

Adds Dr. David D. Deutch: "If anyone claims not to be surprised by the
special features that the universe has, he is hiding his head in the
sand. These special features ARE surprising and unlikely."



Universal Acceptance
of Fine-Tuning

Besides the BBC video, the scientific establishment's most prestigious
journals, and its most famous physicists and cosmologists, have all
gone on record as recognizing the objective truth of the fine-tuning.

The August '97 issue of "Science" (the most prestigious peer-reviewed
scientific journal in the United States) featured an article entitled
"Science and God: A Warming Trend?" Here is an excerpt: "The fact that
the universe exhibits many features that foster organic life -- such
as precisely those physical constants that result in planets and long-
lived stars -- also has led some scientists to speculate that some
divine influence may be present."

In his best-selling book, A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking
(perhaps the world's most famous cosmologist) refers to the phenomenon
as "remarkable." "The remarkable fact is that the values of these
numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely
adjusted to make possible the development of life" (p. 125).

We are thus not the first to reformulate the argument from design on
the basis of the uniqueness of the values that we find in the
constants.

For example," Hawking writes, "if the electric charge of the electron
had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn
hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded... It seems
clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers
(for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of
intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes
that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able
to wonder at that beauty." Hawking then goes on to say that he can
appreciate taking this as possible evidence of "a divine purpose in
Creation and the choice of the laws of science (by God)" (ibid. p.
125).

Upon viewing our site, Dr. Gerald Schroeder, former professor of
physics at M.I.T., wrote to us and had this to say. "As is, the site
is excellent. Any additions I suggest here, are, as it were, merely
fine-tuning. But let me give two or three more major examples":

1. Nobel laureate, high energy physicist (a field of science that
deals with the very early universe), Professor Steven Weinberg, in the
journal Scientific American, reflects on "how surprising it is that
the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should
allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we
know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities
had slightly different values." Although Weinberg is a self described
agnostic, he cannot but be astounded by the extent of the fine-tuning.
He goes on to describe how a beryllium isotope having the minuscule
half life of 0.0000000000000001 seconds must find and absorb a helium
nucleus in that split of time before decaying. This occurs only
because of a totally unexpected, exquisitely precise, energy match
between the two nuclei. If this did not occur there would be none of
the heavier elements. No carbon, no nitrogen, no life. Our universe
would be composed of hydrogen and helium. But this is not the end of
Professor Weinberg's wonder at our well tuned universe. He continues:
"One constant does seem to require an incredible fine-tuning... The
existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between
different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120
decimal places."
The existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation
between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to
about 120 decimal places.

This means that if the energies of the big bang were, in arbitrary
units, not:

100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000,

but instead:

100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001,

there would be no life of any sort in the entire universe because as
Weinberg states: "the universe either would go through a complete
cycle of expansion and contraction before life could arise or would
expand so rapidly that no galaxies or stars could form."

2. Michael Turner, the widely quoted astrophysicist at the University
of Chicago and Fermilab, describes the fine-tuning of the universe
with a simile: "The precision is as if one could throw a dart across
the entire universe and hit a bullseye one millimeter in diameter on
the other side."


3. Roger Penrose, the Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the
University of Oxford, discovers that the likelihood of the universe
having usable energy (low entropy) at the creation is even more
astounding, "namely, an accuracy of one part out of ten to the power
of ten to the power of 123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could
not possibly even write the number down in full, in our ordinary
denary (power of ten) notation: it would be one followed by ten to the
power of 123 successive zeros!" That is a million billion billion
billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion
billion billion billion zeros. Penrose continues, "Even if we were to
write a zero on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in
the entire universe -- and we could throw in all the other particles
as well for good measure -- we should fall far short of writing down
the figure needed. The precision needed to set the universe on its
course is to be in no way inferior to all that extraordinary precision
that we have already become accustomed to in the superb dynamical
equations (Newton's, Maxwell's, Einstein's) which govern the behavior
of things from moment to moment."


Cosmologists debate whether the space-time continuum is finite or
infinite, bounded or unbounded. In all scenarios, the fine tuning
remains the same.
The 2001 principle - The Fine-Tuning of the Universe

 

[Oncedeceived]

So you called me dishonest, refuse to substantiate it, or apologize.

From where do you get your morals? I would never do such a thing as that.

I did substantiate it. I put the responses of where I had answered your question repeatedly. I said that I had answered your question and that you needed to answer mine. You refused because it would render your argument false. Then you call me out on it saying that I wouldn't retract when it was your argument failing. That is dishonest. What does that say about your morals? I will not apologize for something that is true. You are being dishonest and I think you know it and if you don't that is even more troubling.

 

[FatBurk]

In a BBC science documentary, "The Anthropic Principle," some of the
greatest scientific minds of our day describe the recent findings
which compel this conclusion.

***Cut to save space***

While all of the above may be true what has that got to do with anything?

If the man I call my father had the gay gene I would not be here, how big is a gene?
If my mother had turned left instead of right she would never have met my father.

Did the water in the hole say 'this hole is exactly the same size as me, how lucky am I?'.

If the moon hadn't formed there would be no life on earth.


Oncedeceived you are clutching at straws.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I will gladly change my argument the instant you tell me the difference between Genesis and any other fable,
be it Santa Claus, Jack and the beanstalk, the Tower of Babel, Robin Hood or any you can think of.

The difference between God and fables is that God has given us information that can be tested and shown to substantiate this information.

The stretching of the universe.
The fine tuning of the universe.
The beginning of the universe.
The intelligence of mankind and his consciousness.

The truth of santa claus, there was a man that existed and did give children toys and candy. The tradition of this continued and has been a fun activity for our culture and our children. The tradition is one that is not based on belief or knowing of such a person existing today. Adults know that there is no santa claus and that is revealed to children when they get older. No one actually believes in Santa Claus except trusting children. Which is sad but that is not here or there for the discussion.


Tower of Babel: Within the Bible so it is in the same standing as to what you are trying to equate to the Bible so that doesn't even make sense.


Jack and the Beanstalk: We know was written as a fairy tale and that it is a fictional work.

"Jack and the Beanstalk" is a British fairy tale. The earliest known appearance in print is Benjamin Tabart's moralised version of 1807.[1] "Felix Summerly" (Henry Cole) popularised it in The Home Treasury (1842),[2] and Joseph Jacobs rewrote it in English Fairy Tales (1890).[3] Jacobs' version is most commonly reprinted today and it is believed to be closer to the oral versions than Tabart's because it lacks the moralising.[4]




Robin Hood: This is a mixed bag.
The oldest references to Robin Hood are not historical records, or even ballads recounting his exploits, but hints and allusions found in various works. From 1228 onward, the names 'Robinhood', 'Robehod' or 'Robbehod' occur in the rolls of several English Justices. The majority of these references date from the late 13th century. Between 1261 and 1300, there are at least eight references to 'Rabunhod' in various regions across England, from Berkshire in the south to York in the north.[27]
In a petition presented to Parliament in 1439, the name is used to describe an itinerant felon. The petition cites one Piers Venables of Aston, Derbyshire, "who having no liflode, ne sufficeante of goodes, gadered and assembled unto him many misdoers, beynge of his clothynge, and, in manere of insurrection, wente into the wodes in that countrie, like as it hadde be Robyn Hude and his meyne."[28] The name was still used to describe sedition and treachery in 1605, when Guy Fawkes and his associates were branded "Robin Hoods" by Robert Cecil.
The first allusion to a literary tradition of Robin Hood tales occurs in William Langland's Piers Plowman (c. 1362–c. 1386) in which Sloth, the lazy priest, confesses: "I kan [know] not parfitly [perfectly] my Paternoster as the preest it singeth,/ But I kan rymes of Robyn Hood and Randolf Erl of Chestre."[29]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hood#cite_note-29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hood

 

[ThinkForYourself]

The difference between God and fables is that God has given us information that can be tested and shown to substantiate this information.

The stretching of the universe.
The fine tuning of the universe.
The beginning of the universe.
The intelligence of mankind and his consciousness.

The truth of santa claus, there was a man that existed and did give children toys and candy. The tradition of this continued and has been a fun activity for our culture and our children. The tradition is one that is not based on belief or knowing of such a person existing today. Adults know that there is no santa claus and that is revealed to children when they get older. No one actually believes in Santa Claus except trusting children. Which is sad but that is not here or there for the discussion.

Actually, Santa Claus does exist.

In HIS infinite wisdom, he filled the writers with HIS holy spirit, and HIS word was written.

In HIS infinite wisdom, he filled St. Nicholas with HIS holy spirit, and St. Nicholas followed Santa Claus' holy word.

He fills HIS chosen people, (those with money), with HIS holy spirit prior to Christmas, and they buy presents.

There is an irrefutable case for Santa existing.

 

[Oncedeceived]

***Cut to save space***

While all of the above may be true what has that got to do with anything?

If the man I call my father had the gay gene I would not be here, how big is a gene?
If my mother had turned left instead of right she would never have met my father.

Did the water in the hole say 'this hole is exactly the same size as me, how lucky am I?'.

If the moon hadn't formed there would be no life on earth.

So your explanation for the fine tuning is that it just happened by chance? Just a random occurrence?

Oncedeceived you are clutching at straws.

And you FatBurk are in denial.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Actually, Santa Claus does exist.

In HIS infinite wisdom, he filled the writers with HIS holy spirit, and HIS word was written.

In HIS infinite wisdom, he filled St. Nicholas with HIS holy spirit, and St. Nicholas followed Santa Claus' holy word.

He fills HIS chosen people, (those with money), with HIS holy spirit prior to Christmas, and they buy presents.

There is an irrefutable case for Santa existing.

Rational thought and reasonable argumentation? I have used scientific evidence to support my position. Hardly what you are mocking here.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Rational thought and reasonable argumentation? I have used scientific evidence to support my position. Hardly what you are mocking here.

I wasn't trying to mock. I said exactly what Christians say about their beliefs . If I believe them, why would my beliefs be any less valid than Christian beliefs?

Can you please explain how any of the things you listed support a belief in god or the bible?

 

[Skaloop]

So in your mind what would constitute proof.

Direct and irrefutable evidence, preferably from multiple lines of independent information.

Do you?

Depends on the exact situation, but yes, if there is scientific evidence that supports multiple hypotheses, I would not consider that good evidence for any of those hypotheses.

In a BBC science documentary, "The Anthropic Principle," some of the
greatest scientific minds of our day describe the recent findings
which compel this conclusion.

OK, perhaps I should clarify what I meant. I do not deny that the universe that we are currently in would be very different than it is if certain fundamental properties were slightly different. But that would be the case for any universe; a universe with a higher gravitational force than our own would also not exist if the gravitational force was slightly different.

But the implication of you saying the universe is fine-tuned is that it is fine-tuned specifically for us. And for that, you have no proof.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Direct and irrefutable evidence, preferably from multiple lines of independent information.

Such as documentation from more than one source? Historical
Such as fine tuning of the universe? Cosmology, Physics, astrophysics
Such as fine tuning of the constants? Same as above.
Such as intelligence. Biology
Such as logic and universal language. Mathematics

Depends on the exact situation, but yes, if there is scientific evidence that supports multiple hypotheses, I would not consider that good evidence for any of those hypotheses.

Ok I'll remember that.

OK, perhaps I should clarify what I meant. I do not deny that the universe that we are currently in would be very different than it is if certain fundamental properties were slightly different. But that would be the case for any universe; a universe with a higher gravitational force than our own would also not exist if the gravitational force was slightly different.

How do you determine that any other universe would have this same makeup or that it would have gravity at all?

But the implication of you saying the universe is fine-tuned is that it is fine-tuned specifically for us. And for that, you have no proof.

The universe is fine tuned, it is fine tuned to such a degree as to make life possible. That is a fact. That is proof. We are the proof, because if it were not the way it is we wouldn't be possible. That is fact. That is proof.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I wasn't trying to mock. I said exactly what Christians say about their beliefs . If I believe them, why would my beliefs be any less valid than Christian beliefs?

Can you please explain how any of the things you listed support a belief in god or the bible?

Those things that I listed are predicted in the Bible.

 

[Davian]

I did substantiate it. I put the responses of where I had answered your question repeatedly. I said that I had answered your question and that you needed to answer mine.

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

You refused because it would render your argument false.

Here you are projecting. It is not my argument.

Then you call me out on it saying that I wouldn't retract when it was your argument failing. That is dishonest.

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

What does that say about your morals?

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

I will not apologize for something that is true. You are being dishonest and I think you know it and if you don't that is even more troubling.

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?

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 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.

 

[Davian]

Direct and irrefutable evidence, preferably from multiple lines of independent information.

Such as documentation from more than one source? Historical

Don't mention anything specific, lol.

Such as fine tuning of the universe? Cosmology, Physics, astrophysics
Such as fine tuning of the constants? Same as above.
Such as intelligence. Biology
Such as logic and universal language. Mathematics

None of that is direct evidence for the character in the bible referred to as "God".

Ok I'll remember that.



How do you determine that any other universe would have this same makeup or that it would have gravity at all?



The universe is fine tuned, it is fine tuned to such a degree as to make life possible. That is a fact. That is proof. We are the proof, because if it were not the way it is we wouldn't be possible. That is fact. That is proof.

Again with this claim. The anthropic principle is not proof, it is a tautology.

What tuning? You do you not know that tuning of the constants to other values were possible, do you?