Have to side with Chuck here. Rather believe and be wrong, than not believe and be wrong...
-- Larry Smith lesm...@ecsis.net On Sat April 29 2017 11:46, Chuck McCown wrote: > No, speaking about philosophy that probably cannot be confirmed with our > current knowledge. > > Cosmologists have a proof with respect to locality that does open the door > to a God. > > Kinda like the double slit vs the pilot wave, the more you know the more > you discover that you don’t know. Margarine vs butter... > > Just as I cannot prove the positive, yet, nobody can prove that God does > not exist or that what makes us who we are does not survive death. You > cannot prove a negative in complex cases. > > Something caused Steve Jobs’ last words to be: “Oh Wow, Oh Wow, Oh Wow”. > > From: Jeremy > Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2017 10:17 AM > To: af@afmug.com > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Pissed off PhD > > I just think it is funny that you are speaking about religion as if it can > be confirmed with the scientific method. > > On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 9:40 AM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote: > > I told him that a shrewd person hedges their bets. I sure do not want to > step into a possible new existence with a God pissed off at me. Costs > nothing and the potential upside is huge. Better than buying a lottery > ticket. > > From: Jaime Solorza > Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2017 9:36 AM > To: Animal Farm > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Pissed off PhD > > shoot him this one...."I know there ain't no heaven. but I PRAY there is > no HELL." > > Jaime Solorza > Wireless Systems Architect > 915-861-1390 > > On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 9:32 AM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote: > > This professor and I have been going for 24 hours now. He quickly > dropped to taunts like “have your dead son do something” or pray to god to > cure all amputees. Odd crap like that. > > He guy is 62 year old and throws in a “you lose” and “reality check” > with every posting. I am trying to asking for definitions of things he > says like reality, truth, integrity etc. He does not want to do anything > but say how dishonest I am and how repugnant, dishonest, and disgusting > all religions are and to make unkind comments about my “dead son”. > > It is kinda fun playing defense on an increasingly vitriolic thread. > I really got him wound up. Must be sad in his reality. > > > > From: Gino A. Villarini > Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2017 6:20 AM > To: af@afmug.com > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Pissed off PhD > > I have always had this notion that what we understand as our universe a > quark of someone else universe… > > From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of "p...@believewireless.net" > <p...@believewireless.net> Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com> > Date: Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 7:01 AM > To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Pissed off PhD > > > I had an astronomy professor in college and we got to the part where we > talked about the theories on how the universe was created. Obviously the > one that has the most "compelling concrete evidence" is the big bang > theory. So we are told that the universe started with hydrogen and > helium..... then something happened..... (we still have no clue what > happened in that first billionth of a second) and then everything was > created. > > The bible tells us in the beginning there was God and darkness.... then > something happened.... and then there was light. > > So my professor pointed out that both science and religion both start > with a premise that something existed out of nothing and that then > something else happened and here we are. So they could both be right and > they could both be wrong. Science doesn't tell us where the helium and > hydrogen came from and religion doesn't tell us where God came from. > > Sort of link someone saying, "How do you become a millionaire?" And you > respond, "Well, first get 1 million dollars." > > > > > Gino A. Villarini > > President > Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968 > > > > On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 3:00 PM, <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote: > > > No, debate and the scientific method is OK. > > From: Josh Reynolds > Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 12:51 PM > To: af@afmug.com > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Pissed off PhD > > So we've cut out politics, but religion is ok? > > > - Josh > > On Apr 28, 2017 1:42 PM, <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote: > > This guy wrote an op ed piece in the Salt Lake Tribune today > criticizing a doctor for claiming that divine intervention saved his wife's > life, and the doctor had the temerity to make this announcement on earth > day. So Mr. PhD had to take him to task in the news paper. > > I looked up the guys email address and sent him the note (at the > bottom of the thread). Not sure if I will get any further replies but I > did have some fun this morning... > > -----Original Message----- From: ch...@directcom.com > Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 12:35 PM > To: Gregory Arthur Clark > Subject: Re: Letter in the tribune > > So odd and unexpected. > > A truth seeker that resorts insulting someone that disagrees and > then slams the door? > Is that part of the scientific method? > > Personally, I prefer my pet theories to be disproved so I can > continue the search. > > (BTW, countless anecdotal beyond the veil stories that reveal > previously unknown information. But it seems your search for truth in that > direction is clearly halted. ) > > See you in 150 years mate! > > -----Original Message----- From: Gregory Arthur Clark > Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 12:28 PM > To: ch...@directcom.com > Subject: RE: Letter in the tribune > > Replies below. > > -----Original Message----- > From: ch...@directcom.com [mailto:ch...@directcom.com] > Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 12:04 PM > To: Gregory Arthur Clark <greg.cl...@utah.edu> > Subject: Re: Letter in the tribune > > Hmmm, I note some emotion there. > > Odd indeed that you are so worked up when if you parse what I > wrote, I was not conveying any information about my beliefs in anything. > Nor was I defending at all what Daniels said. I don't. > > Odd that you seem to immediately judge me as a dishonest person. > --------------- > GC: Curious that you object to my inferences while making so many > of your own. Your irrelevant ad-homs are telling and typical. > > ======== > > Just simply pointing out that it is difficult to prove that > something does not exist. > You seem to want to debate. I do know stats and null hypothesis > analysis, I am educated. I am an engineer. > ---- > GC: Some educated people still tout nonsense. Your opening > proving-a-negative trope explicitly wrt religion reflects > ignorance, trolling, or both. Lose-lose-lose. > > ========== > Just teasing a bit. You seem to want to reject even the > possibility that some form of us will exist in 150 years such that we can > communicate with each other. > ---- > GC: As Hitch says, that which can be asserted without evidence can > be dismissed without evidence. But it's worse than that. Psychics are > frauds, as are all who claim to relay or receive messages from beyond the > veil. There is compelling concrete evidence that, when put to the test, > consciousness does not exist without brain function. > > • Clark, G.A. “Science doesn’t support life after death claims.” > Guest commentary. Standard-Examiner, October 22, 2014 (on-line); October 24 > (print). > Those who return from beyond the veil never tell us anything they > couldn’t have said without going anywhere at all. There is no demonstrable > awareness after brain shutdown. That’s what this scientific study actually > shows--despite trumpeted claims otherwise by the popular press. > http://www.standard.net/Guest-Commentary/2014/10/26/Science-doesn-t-support >-life-after-death-claims.html > > ============================= > I don't reject that idea at all, I hope for it. > > GC: Your inabilities are clearly stated and understood. But not > respected. > > ============== > If it doesn't happen I will never know. But if it does, expect a > visit! > > Cheers, > Chuck > > -----Original Message----- > From: Gregory Arthur Clark > Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 11:56 AM > To: ch...@directcom.com > Subject: RE: Letter in the tribune > > Thanks for your input, Chuck. My replies are interdigitated below. > > -----Original Message----- > From: ch...@directcom.com [mailto:ch...@directcom.com] > Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 10:46 AM > To: Gregory Arthur Clark <greg.cl...@utah.edu> > Subject: Letter in the tribune > > Dr. Clark, > > “Because when it comes to the real world, science works. Religion > doesn’t.” > > You can prove a negative? Just because you have not yet found the > knobs that control how religion works, does not mean they do not exist. > ---- > GC: From a pure epistemological standpoint, science and empirical > evidence and inductive logic can't "prove" anything, positive or negative, > with 100% certainty. So what? Science deals with probabilities. That's why > scientific journals indicate the probabilities associated with rejecting > the null hypothesis. > > What science can do is to disconfirm hypotheses beyond a reasonable > doubt. Absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence -- if the evidence > should be there, but repeatedly and reproducibly is not. Science often > *does* reject negatives. So do we as people. We reject the hypothesis that > saying "abracadabra" cures all cancers, immediately. We reject the > hypothesis that Godzilla just devoured all of Salt Lake City. We can > reject the God hypothesis with much the same certainty as we reject the God > hypothesis. > > Stop making dishonest, special-pleading exceptions for God. > > ============= > I think you would agree that the placebo effect is a real thing. > So in the case where religion triggers the placebo effect religion arguably > does work. --- > GC: Don't move the goal posts. Of course thinking and prayer and > all sorts of mental activities can affect *the person doing them*. But it's > self-evident and explicit that my op-ed refers to intercessory prayer > regarding the *external physical world.* Praying to God has the same > effect on the external physical world as praying to horse manure: None. > > ========== > Not trying to be a troll, I am serious. I think that there is some > chance that we do live in “the matrix” or perhaps our universe is contained > in a small charm dangling from the collar of a cat. > > Will make you a wager, in 150 years if some of my ideas are > correct, I will look you up and you will owe me the equivalent of a cosmic > cup of coffee. Deal? > --- > GC: I call your bluff. Why wait? > Pray, now, that God will heal all adult human amputees by > re-growing their missing limbs. It's in the power of an omnipotent God to > do so. And yet you know and I know and Professor Daniels knows and > essentially *every* sane adult knows that you will fail. > Stop making excuses for God. God "answers" prayers the same way > that horse manure "answers" prayers: Not at all. > Religion is ridiculous, repugnant, and deeply dishonest. Stop > lying to yourself. And to others. > > ======== > Over and out, > Greg > ============ > Warm Regards, > Chuck McCown
