Caedes

Joined

• started 57 topics
• posted 2,254 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Caedes

• 
  116

  Creationist Should Dismiss Genesis Quickly

  by Coded Logic in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  chris tann,.

  in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .

  however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Caedes

  Occam's Razor is not useful in a situation where we lack so little knowledge. Besides that, if a god exists, then the universe's degree of complexity simply is a result of the pre-existing complexity in his mind, and therefore the sum complexity of god+universe is not greater.

  Occam's razor is always useful. If you cannot understand how adding a powerful creator god adds a hugely additional level of complexity to the natural universe then I don't know I can help you. We are not talking about maths we are talking about the concept. Of course any god sufficiently powerful to create universes has to be more complex than it's creation.
• 
  116

  Creationist Should Dismiss Genesis Quickly

  by Coded Logic in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  chris tann,.

  in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .

  however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Caedes

  However you want to cut it, adding a creator to the picture makes it needlessly more complex.
• 
  116

  Creationist Should Dismiss Genesis Quickly

  by Coded Logic in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  chris tann,.

  in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .

  however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Caedes

  It's as complex as it needs to be and as simple as it can be.
• 
  26

  If You Don't Believe In God Anymore, Do You Still Say God Bless You or Thank God, etc.?

  by minimus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  honestly, do you??

  and if you do, isn't that hypocritical!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Caedes

  Thank Darwin for that!
• 
  116

  Creationist Should Dismiss Genesis Quickly

  by Coded Logic in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  chris tann,.

  in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .

  however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Caedes

  Personally, I look at it this way; There are two ways of looking at this problem. The natural universe as we know it is the same for the theist, deist or atheist. If you take that universe and add any kind of supernatural creator (as the theist or desit must) then you have just made your picture of the universe almost infinitely more complex.

  natural universe

  natural universe plus incredibly powerful creator that can create universes.

  Ask yourself which of these two world views is simplest? Occam's razor does the rest.
• 
  5

  Pakistani Blasphemy Law Used Against Jehovah’s Witnesses

  by Bangalore in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  pakistani blasphemy law used against jehovahas witnesses.https://www.worldwatchmonitor.org/2014/_05/article_3156846.html/bangalore.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Caedes

  It just goes to show there is a very good religious reason to have an entirely secular government and legislature.
• 
  30

  "You can't believe anything science says, they're always changing their minds.."

  by disposable hero of hypocrisy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i know this is going to come up in a conversation shortly, how would you respond to this?

  i've had it said to me before, specifically about health, one week wine/eggs/milk/axle grease is good for you, next week it's not..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Caedes

  You would have to go quite a long way back in time to find a scientific theory being completely overturned. Usually science is modified rather than overturned. But the thing is that the ability of science to self correct is one of the good things about science. If you think that you can prove a scientific theory is wrong all you have to do is show sufficient evidence to prove your case to your peers.

  It is important to distinguish between 'hard' science and the 'softer' sciences, one of the examples given was healthy foodstuffs. Anyone can call themselves a 'nutritionist' and hence these 'nutritionists' can make any sort of claim and not have to back it up with evidence.
• 
  112

  Scientists Should Not Dismiss Genesis So Quickly

  by Chris Tann in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  nasa discovery proves the bible scientifically accurate.

  the debate.

  for decades there has been a long standing debate between science and religion as to the validity of the biblical genesis account of creation.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Caedes

  Remember: god apparently created the entire universe and all life in just days ... but now he really needs your money !!

  I guess his create ability dried up after he unlocked that achievement.

  Perhaps he is playing one of those free-to-play world building games on his universe sized i-pad and now he has run out of pocket money for the in-app purchases.
• 
  12

  Examining Genesis . Would your JW's ?

  by Phizzy in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i was talking to a jw a short time ago and it emerged in conversation that he believed in the literal truth of the bible's first book, genesis.. no great surprise there, but he said something pertinent, he said, "if you don't, then the whole of our belief falls apart".. i was wondering if this may be of use to those who are endeavouring to "wake up" jw family or friends.

  a proper examination of genesis could be encouraged in a gentle way, raising questions the j.w's must answer, ( you may have to insist they answer them, not shove them aside as they love to do ), and eventually they will have to get to the point, if they are at all honest, that genesis is simply not literal truth.. then, their whole body of belief is undermined.. simples !.

  well, the idea is, the execution may be impossible, but i just thought the idea may be helpful ?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Caedes

  I would agree that for most JWs, genesis is central to their beliefs. It is usually what I talk about if I get JWs at the door. It's quite fun to watch them have to concede so many points regarding genesis and then I talk about original sin and point out that without genesis being literal it makes no sense.

  My wife usually feels sorry for them by the time I have finished with them.
• 
  112

  Scientists Should Not Dismiss Genesis So Quickly

  by Chris Tann in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  nasa discovery proves the bible scientifically accurate.

  the debate.

  for decades there has been a long standing debate between science and religion as to the validity of the biblical genesis account of creation.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Caedes

  Chris,

  What people want to know is what you think of the article, express your own thoughts and just link to the article in question.

  However as some people have suggested the problem is that the genesis account is not reflective of what we know of planetary formation. The genesis account clearly states that the earth is formed first along with the heavens. This does not tally with what we see of planetary formation.

  We know that heavier elements are formed inside stars, so all the of the heavy elements that we are surrounded by are the remnants of a long dead star. We also know that the sun was formed before the earth and that there were stars in the sky long before our sun or the earth formed, this directly contradicts genesis 14. Genesis 14 states that the stars and the sun and the moon were created not only after the earth but after god created light!

  See the link below for evidence of protoplanetary formation in action, the site is very good for anyone interested in astronomy.

  http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/11/06/hl_tau_new_observations_of_a_young_planetary_system.html

  (edited as it could have been read that I was suggesting it was my own site that I linked to, it's not, it is the site of a professional astronomer.)