Well, folks. Here's the reply (and my reply) to Dr. Winder up in Ontario.

Looks like there's nothing new coming out of Canada.

Author: "c.g. winder" <cwinder@julian.uwo.ca> at internet-mail
Date: 9/23/98 12:39 PM
Priority: Normal
TO: M R LEIPZIG at PED-WING4
Subject: Re: Another question

------------------------ Message Contents ----------------------

As always, my pleasure.

CW> At the end you state mail to follow. I will respond when that is
CW> received.

Is this to mean that you haven't received it as of yet? This server... I will retransmit.

CW> But while waiting, let me comment on one point you raise - the
CW> existence of God.

Yes, indeed. But, before you continue, which God? Mankind has literally thousands over the span of human history. Are you referring to Zeus, Allah, Zoroaster, Brahma, Odin, or some other deity claimed to lurk in the pantheon?

Further, have you any physical evidence for this deity?

CW> Easy.

I think that it's not going to be so.

CW> I am sitting here writing to you about the existence of GOD.

And...?

CW> Something happened many years ago, which has resulted in me still
CW> being here writing to you.

Ah, I see. A divine intervention on your behalf which caused you to not do something you now consider deleterious or do something you consider expedient.

Strange, indeed. Most people would chalk that up to "free will"; instead of being mere cosmic automata for some "God's" whims.

CW> If I had carried out MY plans, I would not be here.

Therefor, you were thwarted in your plans by some God? Like I said, so much for free will.

How do you rationalize that usurption of free will and the claim, made by religion, that we possess same? Seems rather self-contradictory.

CW> I say it was an intervention by GOD.

So, I am supposed to accept, by your mere say-so, what you say as evidence?

Frankly, sir, I am appalled. You say that you are a scientist; yet you present me with nothing more in the way of evidence for something which you feel is fairly significant more your mere "I say..."?

"Why is that structure an anticline?" "Because I say so."
"Why do rivers carry sediment?" Because I say so."
"Why are plutonic rocks coarse grained?" "Because I say so."

Perhaps you can see in that little exercise above the preposterousness of your type of response to typical, certainly natural, sorts of questions.

But, yet you wish for me to accept it as evidence is something far more, dare I say, supernatural?

(shaking head) Amazing.

CW> Sure wasn't a 'chance' occurrence.

Perhaps, perhaps not. You've presented no evidence that one could draw a conclusion either way; and the default is certainly not what you propose.

CW> What a book I could write, but have no intention.

I'll reserve comment here.

CW> Secondly, I refer to Hawkings book A Brief History of Time. In the
CW> introduction Sagan wrote that Hawking's book is all about GOD.

My sister writes about unicorns and pixies, too. Does that mean they must also exist?

CW> In addition read the last statement by Hawking mentions the mind of
CW> GOD.

In a metaphorical, not literal, sense. A professor of natural science should be able to divine the difference.

CW> I would suggest that if these two eminent scientists make such
CW> statements, then that should be convincing of existence. .

You suggest incorrectly. You've made nothing more than an appellation to authority, and done that by innuendo (I see no quotes nor references there). What you're promoting is a logical fallacy; hardly something worthy of worship.

CW> Let me turn the point around.

Oh, please do...

CW> Would you provide me with proof that GOD does NOT exist.

But of course. Immediately after you provide me with evidence that I do not have in front of me a signed promissory note from you, payable to me upon demand, for USD$100,000.00

(A small aside, sir. Your usage of terms is somewhat sloppy. You should well know that nothing in ever "proven" in nature; that there are no absolutes. There is always that, however vanishingly small, possibility that in which the stated law, premise or conclusion could be erroneous. For instance, as the late Dr. Sagan notes in "Cosmos" "...apples could conceivably rise up off of table tops tomorrow, the possibility is so small, that it is usually ignored." But it does exist. There's an old saying that "proof is for mathematics and booze", that in a natural cosmos, the best you can have is physical evidence. And hearsay and "say-so" are neither.)

So, prove or provide evidence that I don't have such a note or vouchsafe the fact and pay up.

Then I'll answer your query.

CW> Do you consider yourself an accident in time and space?

No, as the laws of physics and chemistry are not accidental.

CW> Thank you

Always a pleasure.

CW> Have a nice day Gordon

The very same you you, sir.

Marty

Hopefully, mail to follow.

Go Back