Coded Logic

Joined

• started 181 topics
• posted 1,465 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Coded Logic

• 
  2

  Our Humble Origins

  by Coded Logic in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  wow, this just blew my mind.

  it's an issue i've had with the claims people make about our supposed divine genesis but don't think i've ever seen anyone so precisely hit the nail on the head.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdumiut9m3m.

  1. 
  2. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  Wow, this just blew my mind. It's an issue I've had with the claims people make about our supposed "divine genesis" for a long time - but I don't think I've ever seen anyone so precisely hit the nail on the head.

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jduMIUt9M3M
• 
  12

  Fundamentalism Vs Radicalism

  by freemindfade in

  1. social
  2. current

  i had a thought this morning and i am putting it out for discussion.. when a christian is a nutjob we call them fundamentalist but a nutjob muslim is "radical".. doesn't one detach the person from the religion while one puts them square at the root?

  shouldn't we call radical muslim terrorists "fundamentalist"?

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  There are hundreds of thousands of radical Muslims living here in the US. For example, many of the men in the United States don't wear thobes and some even shave their beards (gasp) - against culture AND scripture (Quran 4:59), the women don't wear hijabs and some don't wear a headdress altogether - against culture AND scripture (Quran 24:30), the men don't beat their wives when they disobey and some of the women even have jobs!!! - WAY against culture and scripture (Quran 4:34), almost all the women go out for leisure and casual shopping - against culture and the al-Ahzaab (33:33), . . . etc.

  In most Islamic countries around the world such radical behavior from Muslims would result in fines, jail, and even execution. THIS is the difference between a radical and a fundamentalist. Groups like al Quedia aren't radical by any means. They're hard core fundamentalists.
• 
  31

  I Just had a CLOSE ENCOUNTER of the Dub kind

  by TerryWalstrom in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  i just frightened a jehovah’s witness lady half out of her wits!.

  i just frightened a sweet jehovah’s witness lady half out of her wits.... .

  she took off like a sprinter at the sound of a starter pistol!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  I've honestly never understood the point of talking about theology with a JW. The Bible is demonstrably false in so many ways. Wouldn't it be more productive to show the failed prophecies, historical inaccuracies, and contradictions of the Bible?
• 
  532

  I conclude evolution is guided

  by KateWild in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  your qualifications are way above mine so i'd love to hear more about the specifics of what you have researched and how that supports the existence of a deity.

  k99, i am not really convinced that you're interested in my conclusions.

  in nature amino acids formed to then form dna.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  Why do we need to tell the difference? What we need to draw any conclusions is satisfying evidence. What satisfies one person, does not satisfy another.
  -Kate

  We need to be able to tell the difference because we have two competing explanations for our observations. One of the explanations has met its burden of proof - we know that mutation and natural selection operate perfectly well without any agency or a need for any outside guidance. The second explanation has NOT met it's burden of proof. It has not explained who was doing the guidance and how/when/where/why that guidance was done.
  

  Conclusions shouldn't be based on what "satisfies" us. They should be based on what is most likely true.

  Postulating that evolution was "guided" to satisfy something we don't understand isn't an explanation. It's an argument from ignorance. Because we can't solve one mystery with another mystery. We can't explain one unknown by postulating the existence of another unknown.

  
  
• 
  532

  I conclude evolution is guided

  by KateWild in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  your qualifications are way above mine so i'd love to hear more about the specifics of what you have researched and how that supports the existence of a deity.

  k99, i am not really convinced that you're interested in my conclusions.

  in nature amino acids formed to then form dna.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  It could be natural selection or a creator using the method of natural selection.
  -Katie

  How do we tell the difference between good old fashioned natural selection and guided natural selection? And wouldn't we need a mechanism to distinguish between the two before we could conclude our evolution was guided?
  
  
• 
  532

  I conclude evolution is guided

  by KateWild in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  your qualifications are way above mine so i'd love to hear more about the specifics of what you have researched and how that supports the existence of a deity.

  k99, i am not really convinced that you're interested in my conclusions.

  in nature amino acids formed to then form dna.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  Kate,

  When you say evolution is "guided" do you mean by natural and sexual selection? Or are you talking about something else?
• 
  70

  Are we in a computer simulation?

  by Brokeback Watchtower in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znmk2viuqba.

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/simulation_hypothesis.

  consequences of living in a simulation[edit]some scholars speculate that the creators of our hypothetical simulation may have limited computing power; if so, after a certain point, the creators would have to deploy some sort of strategy to prevent simulations from themselves indefinitely creating high-fidelity simulations in unbounded regress.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  If a computer works out that a conscious being would do a certain thing and simulates them doing so, versus a material being undergoing the same process and performing the same act, is there a meaningful distinction between the two?

  -SBF

  Indeed, there is a huge distinction between the two. Conscious beings have a subjective first person experience. Non-conscious process' do not. As far as we know, simulations are a non-conscious process'. Until such a time as we have good reasons to think simulations are capable of consciousness - we can't say it's "possible" we're in a simulation. Because, if there is one thing - and only one thing we know - it's that we are conscious.

  Consciousness is the prerequisite. And until that issue is addressed people aren't justified in claiming that the Simulation Hypothesis is "possible".

  There are 3 scenarios at which we can look:

  1.) We live in a physical universe and simulations are not capable of producing consciousness - in which case the Simulation Hypothesis is not possible

  2.) We live in a physical universe and simulations are capable of producing consciousness - in which case it would be difficult to know whether we're in a simulation or in a physical universe.

  3.) We live in a simulation - in which case it necessarily follows that simulations are capable of producing consciousness. Like scenario 2, it would be difficult to distinguish the simulated world from a physical world.

  In all three scenarios a physical world would appear to be "real world". The only thing that could move us away from that position would be evidence that simulations can produce consciousness..
• 
  47

  Is the Bible God's word? Help please.....

  by Freeandclear in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  so real quick, i know this comes up now and then and i've looked over some of the posts from the past but here's the thing.. when i was a jw i drank all the cool aid, i was 100% and so i have all my own arguments (from the jw's) for why the bible is inspired.

  i no longer believe this but i'd really like to read something that is pretty much 100% academic on this subject.

  i want to read what scholars have to say about the authenticity of the bible and it's claim at being the inspired word of god.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  The first question we have to ask is which Bible?

  
  

  There are eight separate established canons for the Bible. Each of them containing varying books and content. They have many different stories and radically different theology that they teach. Between the years 382 AD and 1647 AD seven of them were canonized. They are:

  
  

  • The Roman Catholic Bible (73 books)
  • The Ethiopian Orthodox Bible (81 books)
  • The Eastern Orthodox Bible (85 books)
  • The Syriac Bible (68 books)
  • The Armenian Bible (82 books)
  • The Church of England Bible (the King James Version falls here with 80 books)
  • The Slavonic Bible (75 books)

  
  

  (And, just to make the point clear, these are NOT different translations. They are different canons that all have differing content from each other)

  
  

  The eighth Bible wasn't established until 1825 by the British and Foreign Bible Society and is known as the . . .

  
  

  • The Protestant Bible (The New World Translation falls here with 66 books)

  
  

  Like all the established canons there are several problems with the Protestant Bible. However, the biggest one is - if it's the "true" version of the Bible than it means that everyone else has/had the "wrong" Bible for thousands of years. If this is the "real" Bible then the Bible was NOT preserved through the ages for everyone because anyone who lived before 1825 didn't have access to it. They all had the "wrong" Bible.

  
  

  
  

  As you can see, there is great deal of disagreement about which books of the Bible should be, and should't be, allowed into canon (John Calvin and his good friend Michael Sevetus disagreed on Biblical canon so fiercely that John eventually had his friend burned alive at the stake over the dispute in 1553 AD). For the Old Testament there are two main sources from which the eight separate cannons draw on - the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint. In contest among the differing biblical canons are the books of:

  
  

  Esdras

  Tobit

  Judith

  Maccabess

  Solomon

  Ecclesiasticus

  Baruch

  Prayer of Mannasseh

  Psalms

  Additions to Esther

  Letter of Jeremiah

  Additions to Daniel (Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna, and Bell and the Dragon)

  
  

  But it gets worse. In the early 1900s the Dead Sea Scrolls were found. A little background here, the dead sea scrolls were written in the year 100 BC and only contain the Old Testament. The manuscripts are fragments from 972 texts, not entire books, so we can only compare small portions of the Old Testament with modern versions.

  Some hoped that, since the Dead Sea Scrolls pre-dated all versions of the Bible, it would finally determine which one was correct. But it did the opposite. It only confused the issue more because the Dead Sea Scrolls contained books not found in any of the established canons including the books:

  
  

  Enoch

  Jubilees

  Wisdom of Sirach

  Apocryphon of Daniel

  Book of War

  Additions to Psalms

  
  

  A study of the modern Bible shows that there is a lot missing out of it. Just a to give you three examples you can look up yourself. In Joshua 10:13 it says, "Accordingly the sun kept motionless, and the moon did stand still, until the nations could take vengeance on its enemies. Is it not written in the Book of Jashar? And the sun kept standing still in the middle of the heavens and did not hasten to set for about a whole day."

  And also 2 Samuel 1:18, "And to say the sons of Judah should be taught the bow. Look! It is written in the Book of Jashar."

  Of course the Book of Jashar is yet another book of the Bible not found in any of the canons yet it was clearly part of the original Israelite doctrine. The question is, why isn't it in the Bible?

  
  

  A second example of content removed from the Bible can be found at Mathew 2:23 which says, ". . . and they came and dwelt in a city named Nazareth, that there might be fulfilled what was spoken through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene." "

  Of course the problem here is that no where in the Old Testament did it ever say that Jesus, or anyone else for that matter, would be born in Nazareth. Were is the matching component to this prophecy? Are parts of the Bible missing?

  
  

  One last example here is Mathew 27:9 which says "Then what was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled, saying: "And they took the thirty silver pieces, the price upon the man that was priced, the one on whom some of the sons of Israel set a price." "

  And the same problem exists here - Jeremiah never said anything about thirty pieces of silver. So which book got it right? Mathew or Jeremiah? Or are they both wrong?

  
  

  And the New Testament is not exempt from conflict either. Books that were NOT allowed into the New Testament Canon for hundreds of years are:

  
  

  Hebrews

  James

  1 & 2 Peter

  2 & 3 John

  Jude

  Revelation (considered heretical)

  
  

  If they didn't think they were valid back then, why do we think they are valid now?

  Books that were once part of the New Testament Canon but are no longer in the Protestant Bible are:

  
  

  Shepard of Hermas

  Epistle of Baranabas

  1 & 2 Clement

  Epistle to the Laodiceans

  Apocalypse of Peter

  
  

  Once again, if they were part of the Bible back then why aren't they part of the Bible now?

  
  

  The earliest complete version of the New Testament is the Codex Sinaiticus (400 AD). Before this we have fragments of parchments from the 2nd century. More than 5,800 Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Ethiopic and Armenian. There are approximately 300,000 textual variants among them. They vary widely in context and some fragments directly contradict other fragments. And some fragments directly contradict the Codex Sinaiticus.

  
  

  There is no way to determine which, if any, are accurate.
• 
  70

  Are we in a computer simulation?

  by Brokeback Watchtower in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znmk2viuqba.

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/simulation_hypothesis.

  consequences of living in a simulation[edit]some scholars speculate that the creators of our hypothetical simulation may have limited computing power; if so, after a certain point, the creators would have to deploy some sort of strategy to prevent simulations from themselves indefinitely creating high-fidelity simulations in unbounded regress.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  But what are the reasons for suspecting it will not be possible?

  Because simulations do not have the properties of the things which they are simulating. They are a mathematical representation. Not an actual manifestation.
• 
  70

  Are we in a computer simulation?

  by Brokeback Watchtower in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znmk2viuqba.

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/simulation_hypothesis.

  consequences of living in a simulation[edit]some scholars speculate that the creators of our hypothetical simulation may have limited computing power; if so, after a certain point, the creators would have to deploy some sort of strategy to prevent simulations from themselves indefinitely creating high-fidelity simulations in unbounded regress.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  Assuming for a moment that we are in a simulation - then it follows we should be able to show that simulations can produce consciousness. Once we do that - we can say it's "possible" we're in a simulation.

  But, until such a time as that's shown to be the case, we neither know if it's possible or impossible.