Posts by Jeffro

112

Why does Organic Chemistry prove God's exists?

by KateWild in

so bring it on, and lay the evidence on me, kate (but perhaps you should start a new thread).-adam.

it does not prove god exists, there is no substantial evidence god is real.

if one is a self labeled atheist, one has no desire to see gods fingerprints in organic chemistry.

Jeffro

KateWild:

If a man beats his child for 3 yrs at 6months intervals approx, is it probable he will beat his son in the next 6 months? I would say it is probable and allow the child to live with his mother as he wishes. It's not testable, and nor should it be, but the probability of beatings recurring is high.

That hypothetical example isn't remotely similar to your assertion about 'carbon and God'. It's based on a specific (but hopefully fictitious) sample of data, and it is testable. But probably better not to though.

Carbon is complex and beautiful, so I think of God. There is not need to test my theory, no one has proven my theory wrong, but I am open minded to the possiblity and it fuels my enquiry into science further to test my theory or prove myself wrong.

'Beautiful' is entirely subjective. 'Carbon is complex and beautiful' is meaningless as a data sample for testing probability of the existence of God. As already stated, it is not possible to test your 'theory'. But if there were a testable theory for the existence of God, given all the claims Christians make about how important it is to believe in God, there would certainly be a 'need' to test such a theory.

112

Why does Organic Chemistry prove God's exists?

by KateWild in

so bring it on, and lay the evidence on me, kate (but perhaps you should start a new thread).-adam.

it does not prove god exists, there is no substantial evidence god is real.

if one is a self labeled atheist, one has no desire to see gods fingerprints in organic chemistry.

Jeffro

KateWild:

I don't think you want to see evidience of an intelligent creator, because God is such an enormous indifferent jerk. This anger towards God can, in MANY, atheists stop enquiry in science with religion.

You do realise, don't you, that atheists don't believe God exists?! By definition, atheists cannot be 'angry at God'. They might reason that the biblical character is a bit of a jerk, but that's an entirely different (and completely justifiable) thing altogether.

112

Why does Organic Chemistry prove God's exists?

by KateWild in

so bring it on, and lay the evidence on me, kate (but perhaps you should start a new thread).-adam.

it does not prove god exists, there is no substantial evidence god is real.

if one is a self labeled atheist, one has no desire to see gods fingerprints in organic chemistry.

Jeffro

KateWild:

I see your point, but you haven't given me your understanding of probabilities. You are just saying my understanding is a joke. Well that is your opinion. I am afraid I disagree with you as you have no substance to support your position of knowing what probability is. Probabilities can be predicted in many ways.

I'm not saying your 'understanding' (=opinion) is a joke (but nor is it a particularly new idea). It just has nothing to do with probability.

Concluding that there is probably an intelligent creator on the basis that carbon is complex is an (untestable) hypothesis.

112

Why does Organic Chemistry prove God's exists?

by KateWild in

so bring it on, and lay the evidence on me, kate (but perhaps you should start a new thread).-adam.

it does not prove god exists, there is no substantial evidence god is real.

if one is a self labeled atheist, one has no desire to see gods fingerprints in organic chemistry.

Jeffro

KateWild:

The structure of carbon is one piece of data, the suffering of human kind is another piece of data. This is not enough data to draw a substantial conclusion.

It's not the right kind of data to draw any conclusion about probability.

But with my knowledge and personal experience I have much more data to draw a more accurate concusion.

Your 'evidence' is entirely anecdotal and does not form any basis for the probability of 'an intelligent creator'.

25

Naughtiness in my bathroom

by usualusername in

jw
friends

i have some guests coming over to spend xmas with me for a couple of days.

they are my friends family and i have a larger place than them and am playing host.. dilemma.

they are christians and i have some postcards in my bathroom that are slightly naughty.

Jeffro

usualusername:

They are Christians

'Christians' and 'naughty humour' are not mutually exclusive.

112

Why does Organic Chemistry prove God's exists?

by KateWild in

so bring it on, and lay the evidence on me, kate (but perhaps you should start a new thread).-adam.

it does not prove god exists, there is no substantial evidence god is real.

if one is a self labeled atheist, one has no desire to see gods fingerprints in organic chemistry.

Jeffro

KateWild:

The knowledge I have in my personal experience increases the probability of a intelligent Creator

I guess Ultimate Axiom beat me to it, but it deserves mentioning again...

You clearly do not understand probability.

Asserting that the structure of carbon 'makes something more likely' has no actual effect on the probability of anything at all. I could just as easily assert that the structure of carbon makes UFOs or fairies or bunyips 'more likely'.

It's my understanding that if you have more evidence of one thing than another then one thing is more proabable than the other.

The only facts you've shown are some properties of carbon; you haven't provided any evidence of anything else.

6

Divine Name display at Watchtower

by mindnumbed in

this is being shared on facebook.

the beginning says "bible showcase" brooklyn, ny.. http://secure.smilebox.com/ecom/openthebox?sendevent=4d7a67794f4455784d7a493d0d0a&blogview=true&campaign=blog_playback_link&partner=msn.

Jeffro

Are we seriously expected to believe that the Watch Tower Society has the Moabite Stone? It, and probably everything else on display there, is a copy. The original is in the Louvre.

112

Why does Organic Chemistry prove God's exists?

by KateWild in

so bring it on, and lay the evidence on me, kate (but perhaps you should start a new thread).-adam.

it does not prove god exists, there is no substantial evidence god is real.

if one is a self labeled atheist, one has no desire to see gods fingerprints in organic chemistry.

Jeffro

KateWild:

Because I am more religious than an atheist.

And I'm taller than a midget.

It is however, more probable to conclude there is a Creator. In as far as the laws of probabilities are concerned, there is compeling evidence just in the structure of carbon to promote a high probability of an intelligent Creator.

Except that it's not. The structure of carbon has no bearing at all on the probability of the existence of an 'intelligent creator'. It's just a rhetorical assertion.

112

Why does Organic Chemistry prove God's exists?

by KateWild in

so bring it on, and lay the evidence on me, kate (but perhaps you should start a new thread).-adam.

it does not prove god exists, there is no substantial evidence god is real.

if one is a self labeled atheist, one has no desire to see gods fingerprints in organic chemistry.

Jeffro

KateWild:

it is compelling evidence that it is more probable an intelligent Creator is responsible than not.

It's really not. Intrinsic behaviour of a substance doesn't necessitate an 'intelligent creator'. And it certainly has no bearing on the existence of a deity. And it's so far from the concept of a deity that 'requires' worship that it scarcely warrants mentioning at all.

Physicists can predict not only the behaviour of known elements but also the existence and behaviour of unknown ones. The behaviour of materials at the atomic level don't require any kind of 'direction' from an outside source.

It's fairly safe to say that more than 99.99% of the known universe is not suitable for life as we know it, and even much of our own planet is inhospitable, so there's very little reason to believe that the physical universe lends greater probability to the belief that humans are 'special' to an 'intelligent creator'.

Carbon doesn't behave in a 'more special' way than any other substance, and if the behaviour of carbon were to be seen as making an 'intelligent creator' 'more probable', then the same would be true of any element. Just because carbon has properties that are interesting or convenient (see anthropic principle), that lends no more 'support' to an 'intelligent creator' than do the properties of any other substance.

Saying that the properties of a physical substance is 'evidence' of 'God' (which you haven't gone as far as saying) would be like saying that someone doing a good deed is 'evidence' that they're a Christian.

224

Another problem for JW apologists

by Jeffro in

the 2013 edition of the new world translation renders 2 kings 17:1 as:.

in the 12th year of king ahaz of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king over israel in samaria; he ruled for nine years.. this is in fact a better rendering than the previous nwt, which stated:.

in the twelfth year of ahaz the king of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king in samaria over israel for nine years.. despite their improved rendering, the watch tower society still claims that hoshea's reign 'really' began in 758 bce, but that it was 'established' in the 12th year of ahaz.

Jeffro

Earlier I said:

The Watch Tower Society is entirely alone in its claim that Hoshea ruled 'in some sense' for 10 years before counting his reign as a 'vassal' to Tiglath Pileser III (whose reign hadn't actually even begun).

It should be obvious to anyone familiar with this subject, but in case there's any confusion for other readers, I mean that Tiglath-pileser III had not begun to reign when the Watch Tower Society claims that Hoshea's 'recognised' reign began (748BCE). As seen in my chart, and consistent with secular sources for Assryian and Judean history, Tiglath-pileser III began his 18-year reign in 745BCE, about 15 years prior to the beginning of Hoshea's reign in late 731BCE.