A huge dose of morphine...

On 04/29/2017 09:46 AM, 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:* [email protected]
*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 <[email protected]> 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 <tel:(915)%20861-1390>

    On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 9:32 AM, Chuck McCown <[email protected]> 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:* [email protected]
        *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 <[email protected]> on behalf of
        "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
        Reply-To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
        Date: Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 7:01 AM
        To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
        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, <[email protected]> wrote:

            No, debate and the scientific method is OK.

            *From:* Josh Reynolds
            *Sent:* Friday, April 28, 2017 12:51 PM
            *To:* [email protected]
            *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, <[email protected]> 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: [email protected]
                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: [email protected]
                Subject: RE: Letter in the tribune

                Replies below.

                -----Original Message-----
                From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
                Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 12:04 PM
                To: Gregory Arthur Clark <[email protected]>
                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
                
<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: [email protected]
                Subject: RE: Letter in the tribune

                Thanks for your input, Chuck.  My replies are
                interdigitated below.

                -----Original Message-----
                From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
                Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 10:46 AM
                To: Gregory Arthur Clark <[email protected]>
                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






Reply via email to