Hey Rahvin.
I thought of something as I was reading your reply to ICANT.
ICANT's reliance on "what he knows" to answer the "bullet question" is obviously analogous to "what a physicist knows" when he answers the the "T < 10^-43 question".
ICANT uses "common sense" stuff (that he learned just as a matter of course over his lifetime) to figure out that the bullet (1) didn't just appear (2) was shot from a gun, etc. just as a physicist uses "physicist common sense" stuff (that he learned earning his PhD) to figure out that the universe (1) didn't just appear (2) was small/hot/dense, etc.
But ICANT doesn't get the analogy.
I imagine ICANT's reply will be something along the lines of "Well, I know a bullet didn't just appear. Of course I know that! But YOU don't know that the universe didn't just appear."
And I think that's at the heart of the misunderstanding.
"Of course the bullet didn't just appear." vs. "Of course the universe didn't just appear."
ICANT will refuse to admit a bullet "just appeared" but will not admit that the universe "just appeared" (because, of course, in his mind, it did).
So. My question to ICANT is this:
Prove to me that the bullet didn't just appear. Given ONLY the evidence in the video, DEDUCE that the bullet didn't just appear.
Because that's what physicists do every day. Given ONLY the evidence, nothing else, they DEDUCE what happened.
And no fair saying something like, "Well, I know that there are guns."
There are no guns in the video. Prove to me that the bullet didn't just appear.