XPost: alt.paranormal, sci.skeptic, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.religion.christianity   
   From: nospam@buzz.off   
      
   On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 18:50:05 -0700, the following appeared   
   in sci.skeptic, posted by Vincent Maycock   
   :   
      
   >On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 17:44:02 -0700, Bob Casanova    
   >wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 15:52:45 -0700, the following appeared   
   >>in sci.skeptic, posted by Vincent Maycock   
   >>:   
   >>   
   >>>On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 16:32:00 -0500, Dawn Flood   
   >>> wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>On 6/29/2025 11:47 PM, JTEM wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> #3.  The theists had evidence. Plenty of it. Maybe some   
   >>>>> did not find it compelling but even evidence that isn't   
   >>>>> compelling is still evidence. Let's start with medical   
   >>>>> miracles! And then there's the fact that science itself   
   >>>>> regularly invokes God for an explanation. Of course   
   >>>>> they have to change the name to avoid triggering the   
   >>>>> stupid people so instead of "God" they say "Observer"   
   >>>>> in the Copenhagen interpretation. They say the   
   >>>>> "Programmer" in the simulated Universe or even the   
   >>>>> "Brain universe."   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>Please cite the evidence against the existence of the FSM, IPUs, etc.;   
   >>>>name a single miracle; name a single scientific paper in the last 40   
   >>>>years that appeals to "God" as being an explanation for anything.  (The   
   >>>>Copenhagen Interpretation is not the only interpretation of QM.)   
   >>>   
   >>>"The observer" in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics   
   >>>is not God.  Otherwise, God would go around collapsing wave functions   
   >>>as he observed them, before humans got a chance to add their   
   >>>observations in.   
   >>>   
   >>>Preventing decoherence (roughly the same thing as wave function   
   >>>collapse) by humans  is one of the most important goals in the search   
   >>>for technologically viable quantum computers.  It has nothing to do   
   >>>with God.   
   >>>   
   >>You realize that you are holding this "discussion" with   
   >>someone who considers that "cite the evidence against [X]",   
   >>where X has not been observed (and, at least in the case of   
   >>the FSM, is basically a parody), is a valid request, right?   
   >>>   
   >You mean Dawn?  She's usually well-behaved.  Or were you referring to   
   >the unfortunate post she was replying to?   
   >   
   I was referring to "Please cite the evidence against the   
   existence of the FSM", a classic error in logic and/or the   
   rules of valid evidence, although that may have been a   
   sarcastic reference to an earlier comment by someone (JTEM?)   
   else; there's been so much crap in this thread that I'm   
   unsure.   
   >   
   --   
      
   Bob C.   
      
   "The most exciting phrase to hear in science,   
    the one that heralds new discoveries, is not   
    'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"   
      
   - Isaac Asimov   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)