| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"George Hammond" |
| Date: |
22 Aug 2004 09:45:34 PM |
| Object: |
Re: GOD=G_uv A Medal for McDermid |
"Scot McDermid" <scotmc@optNOSPAMonline.net> wrote in
message news:fw8Wc.13092$Nk4.6419551@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
For the following post, let's grant four of George's assertions.
(1) Let's grant that "existence" means "observable by humans", as George
says.
And grant that "reality" and/or "the universe" is "human perceived
reality/
universe" as George says.
(2) And grant that GOD created the [human perceived] universe,
as George says.
(3) And grant that the human mind has reached only about 85% of
its potential. That remaining 15% is a brain growth deficit (BGD).
(4) And grant that BGD is GOD, as George says.
=============================================
(Just for information, here are two more of George's assertions.
These assertions are not important to the point I am about to make,
but .... FYI....)
(5) Psychological space is 3 dimensional. [ed. 3+1 dimensional]
(6) BGD is a curvature in psychological space caused by
gravity.
=============================================
So back to assertions 1, 2, 3 and 4 above. I don't want to debate
the truth of those assertions at this time. I want to grant them
as true in order to see where they lead. And I believe that they
lead to a contradiction. And thus I believe it is the central flaw
of George's thesis. I'll explain:
(From 3) The human mind has not reached full potential.
There is the developed (functioning) part and undeveloped part (BGD or
GOD)
part. But it seems clear that it is the functioning part of the mind
that creates [human perceived] reality not the "GOD" [undeveloped] part.
Thus GOD DIDN'T CREATE REALITY.
But perhaps it is my misunderstanding of George's thesis
that is the problem. Care to clear things up for us George?
[Hammond]
Well... first of all, I am speechless that someone has
comprehended the theory to the extent you have.
I feel as overwhelmed as Einstein said he was when
he saw 20 year old Wolfgang Pauli's historic textbook
on Relativity, which is still in print 80 years later and
remains a classic. Your summary above is certainly
a startling accomplishment. Even Prof. Chris Isham
one of the world's leading gravity Physicists and a dean
of Science-Religion symposiums was unable to
comprehend that much in weeks of email discussion!
OK... since you have now broken the "one-liner
barrier".. we can actually have a literal discussion
of your logical point:
[McDermid]
There is the developed (functioning) part and undeveloped
part (BGD or GOD) part. But it seems clear that it is the
functioning part of the mind that creates [human perceived]
reality not the "GOD" [undeveloped] part. Thus GOD
DIDN'T CREATE REALITY.
[Hammond]
First of all, when a human starts life (conception), the
BGD is 100% and the grown part is 0%. After that
for the first 18 years the BGD slowly transforms itself
into the grown part. This may be described as "God
creating a human being".
When this happened 40,000 years ago, and it created
the world's first two Homo Sapiens sapiens (modern
humans), it created the entire Universe, because when
they opened their eyes, they were the first human beings
in history to see it... the Universe as we know it.
Therefore, if the unconscious part of the mind (BGD)
is called "God", we say, "God created the Universe".
Of course, since the terminal BGD in Man today
is still around 15%, God is still creating the Universe,
but, nevertheless, Adam and Eve, the first two members
of the HSs species, were the first human beings to
see it, and this is why the Bible calls this event "Creation".
So, I will spend the next few hours in a state of shock,
that there is now another person out there somewhere,
who knows about this.... you.
====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
1st mirror site:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
2nd mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
new site (under construction):
http://home.comcast.net/~proof-of-god
====================================
.
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv A Medal for McDermid |
23 Aug 2004 03:12:07 AM |
|
|
"George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:iTcWc.41020$Fg5.14705@attbi_s53...
"Scot McDermid" <scotmc@optNOSPAMonline.net> wrote in
message news:fw8Wc.13092$Nk4.6419551@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
For the following post, let's grant four of George's assertions.
You're kidding!!!!!
That's like suggesting we assume - to asses some psychotic patients insane
claims - that we accept ... invisable pink unicorns exist .......
1 + 3 = 385.1386760976503837509
reality is delusion, and delusion is reality ....
and last, but not least, George has a working brain!
(1) Let's grant that "existence" means "observable by humans", as George
says.
And grant that "reality" and/or "the universe" is "human perceived
reality/
universe" as George says.
(2) And grant that GOD created the [human perceived] universe,
as George says.
(3) And grant that the human mind has reached only about 85% of
its potential. That remaining 15% is a brain growth deficit (BGD).
(4) And grant that BGD is GOD, as George says.
=============================================
(Just for information, here are two more of George's assertions.
These assertions are not important to the point I am about to make,
but .... FYI....)
(5) Psychological space is 3 dimensional. [ed. 3+1 dimensional]
(6) BGD is a curvature in psychological space caused by
gravity.
=============================================
So back to assertions 1, 2, 3 and 4 above. I don't want to debate
the truth of those assertions at this time. I want to grant them
as true in order to see where they lead. And I believe that they
lead to a contradiction. And thus I believe it is the central flaw
of George's thesis. I'll explain:
The central flaw is that George is notihng more than a raving lunatic,
pretending that his psychotic fantasies are not only reality - but
scientific.
(From 3) The human mind has not reached full potential.
There is the developed (functioning) part and undeveloped part (BGD or
GOD)
part. But it seems clear that it is the functioning part of the mind
that creates [human perceived] reality not the "GOD" [undeveloped] part.
Thus GOD DIDN'T CREATE REALITY.
But perhaps it is my misunderstanding of George's thesis
that is the problem. Care to clear things up for us George?
[Hammond]
Well... first of all, I am speechless that someone has
comprehended the theory to the extent you have.
I feel as overwhelmed as Einstein said he was when
he saw 20 year old Wolfgang Pauli's historic textbook
on Relativity, which is still in print 80 years later and
remains a classic. Your summary above is certainly
a startling accomplishment. Even Prof. Chris Isham
one of the world's leading gravity Physicists and a dean
of Science-Religion symposiums was unable to
comprehend that much in weeks of email discussion!
That he found your insane babble, insane babble is a startliing
accomplishment?
OK... since you have now broken the "one-liner
barrier".. we can actually have a literal discussion
of your logical point:
Many people have broken the "one liner" barrier before, and found even MORE
ridiculous faults without deranged claims.
You just either ignored them, or insulted them and ran away!
[McDermid]
There is the developed (functioning) part and undeveloped
part (BGD or GOD) part. But it seems clear that it is the
functioning part of the mind that creates [human perceived]
reality not the "GOD" [undeveloped] part. Thus GOD
DIDN'T CREATE REALITY.
[Hammond]
First of all, when a human starts life (conception), the
BGD is 100% and the grown part is 0%. After that
for the first 18 years the BGD slowly transforms itself
into the grown part. This may be described as "God
creating a human being".
When this happened 40,000 years ago, and it created
the world's first two Homo Sapiens sapiens (modern
humans), it created the entire Universe, because when
they opened their eyes, they were the first human beings
in history to see it... the Universe as we know it.
Therefore, if the unconscious part of the mind (BGD)
is called "God", we say, "God created the Universe".
Of course, since the terminal BGD in Man today
is still around 15%, God is still creating the Universe,
but, nevertheless, Adam and Eve, the first two members
of the HSs species, were the first human beings to
see it, and this is why the Bible calls this event "Creation".
So, I will spend the next few hours in a state of shock,
that there is now another person out there somewhere,
who knows about this.... you.
====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
1st mirror site:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
2nd mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
new site (under construction):
http://home.comcast.net/~proof-of-god
====================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scot McDermid" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv A Medal for McDermid |
23 Aug 2004 08:17:49 AM |
|
|
"ZenIsWhen" <ZenIsWhen@anywhere.com> wrote in message
news:10ij9moa1v1q951@corp.supernews.com...
"George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:iTcWc.41020$Fg5.14705@attbi_s53...
"Scot McDermid" <scotmc@optNOSPAMonline.net> wrote in
message news:fw8Wc.13092$Nk4.6419551@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
For the following post, let's grant four of George's assertions.
You're kidding!!!!!
That's like suggesting we assume - to asses some psychotic patients insane
claims - that we accept ... invisable pink unicorns exist .......
1 + 3 = 385.1386760976503837509
reality is delusion, and delusion is reality ....
and last, but not least, George has a working brain!
(1) Let's grant that "existence" means "observable by humans", as
George
says.
And grant that "reality" and/or "the universe" is "human perceived
reality/
universe" as George says.
(2) And grant that GOD created the [human perceived] universe,
as George says.
(3) And grant that the human mind has reached only about 85% of
its potential. That remaining 15% is a brain growth deficit (BGD).
(4) And grant that BGD is GOD, as George says.
=============================================
(Just for information, here are two more of George's assertions.
These assertions are not important to the point I am about to make,
but .... FYI....)
(5) Psychological space is 3 dimensional. [ed. 3+1 dimensional]
(6) BGD is a curvature in psychological space caused by
gravity.
=============================================
So back to assertions 1, 2, 3 and 4 above. I don't want to debate
the truth of those assertions at this time. I want to grant them
as true in order to see where they lead. And I believe that they
lead to a contradiction. And thus I believe it is the central flaw
of George's thesis. I'll explain:
The central flaw is that George is notihng more than a raving lunatic,
pretending that his psychotic fantasies are not only reality - but
scientific.
You are missing something. There *IS* a thread of logic that
runs all the way through George's work. He definitely understands
that a theory needs to be internally consistent. But I would say
that his premises (which I listed) are false, and I would say that
he makes unsupported LEAPS of association. I think he
probably first thought of conclusion (GOD = G_uv) and has been
trying to justify the logic ever since. Although this appears
backwards, it is not a completely invalid way to do science.
However, when you can't fit the square peg in the round hole
at the foundation of your theory, you are supposed to abandon
the theory. Instead George has pulled out a hole cutter to change
the size of the round in order to make the peg fit.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv A Medal for McDermid |
23 Aug 2004 09:39:21 AM |
|
|
"Scot McDermid" <scotmc@optNOSPAMonline.net> wrote in message
news:18mWc.24149$Nk4.8665669@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
"ZenIsWhen" <ZenIsWhen@anywhere.com> wrote in message
news:10ij9moa1v1q951@corp.supernews.com...
"George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:iTcWc.41020$Fg5.14705@attbi_s53...
"Scot McDermid" <scotmc@optNOSPAMonline.net> wrote in
message news:fw8Wc.13092$Nk4.6419551@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
For the following post, let's grant four of George's assertions.
You're kidding!!!!!
That's like suggesting we assume - to asses some psychotic patients
insane
claims - that we accept ... invisable pink unicorns exist .......
1 + 3 = 385.1386760976503837509
reality is delusion, and delusion is reality ....
and last, but not least, George has a working brain!
(1) Let's grant that "existence" means "observable by humans", as
George
says.
And grant that "reality" and/or "the universe" is "human perceived
reality/
universe" as George says.
(2) And grant that GOD created the [human perceived] universe,
as George says.
(3) And grant that the human mind has reached only about 85% of
its potential. That remaining 15% is a brain growth deficit (BGD).
(4) And grant that BGD is GOD, as George says.
=============================================
(Just for information, here are two more of George's assertions.
These assertions are not important to the point I am about to make,
but .... FYI....)
(5) Psychological space is 3 dimensional. [ed. 3+1 dimensional]
(6) BGD is a curvature in psychological space caused by
gravity.
=============================================
So back to assertions 1, 2, 3 and 4 above. I don't want to debate
the truth of those assertions at this time. I want to grant them
as true in order to see where they lead. And I believe that they
lead to a contradiction. And thus I believe it is the central flaw
of George's thesis. I'll explain:
The central flaw is that George is notihng more than a raving lunatic,
pretending that his psychotic fantasies are not only reality - but
scientific.
You are missing something. There *IS* a thread of logic that
runs all the way through George's work. He definitely understands
that a theory needs to be internally consistent. But I would say
that his premises (which I listed) are false, and I would say that
he makes unsupported LEAPS of association. I think he
probably first thought of conclusion (GOD = G_uv) and has been
trying to justify the logic ever since. Although this appears
backwards, it is not a completely invalid way to do science.
Yes, but in my opinion, only to a certain extent.
To make one, or even two, "assumptions" - to follow a course of logic, is
not unheard of; but to allow that many ... and of that extreme nature .....
I think is a bit much.
However, when you can't fit the square peg in the round hole
at the foundation of your theory, you are supposed to abandon
the theory. Instead George has pulled out a hole cutter to change
the size of the round in order to make the peg fit.
Well.... the reason I see George as so outrageous is not that he is trying
to fit a square peg into a round hole ... his statements are more like
saying 2 + 2 ..... is what makes a specific woman, in Budapest ...... in the
year 2013 - pregnant with an invisible pink unicorn.
and that this statement is backed by science, the bible, and psychology.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scot McDermid" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv A Medal for McDermid |
23 Aug 2004 10:28:46 AM |
|
|
"ZenIsWhen" <ZenIsWhen@anywhere.com> wrote in message
Well.... the reason I see George as so outrageous is not that he is trying
to fit a square peg into a round hole ... his statements are more like
saying 2 + 2 ..... is what makes a specific woman, in Budapest ...... in
the
year 2013 - pregnant with an invisible pink unicorn.
It's too easy to make a blanket statement like that. Give a
specific example of something THAT outrageous.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv NO Medal for McDermid |
23 Aug 2004 10:56:34 AM |
|
|
"Scot McDermid" <scotmc@optNOSPAMonline.net> wrote in message
news:18mWc.24149$Nk4.8665669@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
"ZenIsWhen" <ZenIsWhen@anywhere.com> wrote in message
news:10ij9moa1v1q951@corp.supernews.com...
"George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:iTcWc.41020$Fg5.14705@attbi_s53...
"Scot McDermid" <scotmc@optNOSPAMonline.net> wrote in
message news:fw8Wc.13092$Nk4.6419551@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
For the following post, let's grant four of George's assertions.
(1) Let's grant that "existence" means "observable by humans", as
George
says.
And grant that "reality" and/or "the universe" is "human perceived
reality/
universe" as George says.
(2) And grant that GOD created the [human perceived] universe,
as George says.
(3) And grant that the human mind has reached only about 85% of
its potential. That remaining 15% is a brain growth deficit (BGD).
(4) And grant that BGD is GOD, as George says.
=============================================
(Just for information, here are two more of George's assertions.
These assertions are not important to the point I am about to make,
but .... FYI....)
(5) Psychological space is 3 dimensional. [ed. 3+1 dimensional]
(6) BGD is a curvature in psychological space caused by
gravity.
=============================================
So back to assertions 1, 2, 3 and 4 above. I don't want to debate
the truth of those assertions at this time. I want to grant them
as true in order to see where they lead. And I believe that they
lead to a contradiction. And thus I believe it is the central flaw
of George's thesis. I'll explain:
The central flaw is that George is notihng more than a raving lunatic,
pretending that his psychotic fantasies are not only reality - but
scientific.
You are missing something. There *IS* a thread of logic that
runs all the way through George's work.
[GH] +5 points credit
He definitely understands
that a theory needs to be internally consistent.
[GH] +5 points
But I would say
that his premises (which I listed) are false, and I would say that
[GH] -10 points
In the first place, none of them are "premise's".
(3) is an experimentally measured fact
(1),(2),(4) are DEDUCTIONS from the experimental
findings of the theory.
THERE ARE NO:
"premises"
or
"definitions"
in the entire theory. That is merely a "figment of your
imagination" due to the fact that you have no degrees
in Science, and hence no realistic scientific comprehension
of the scientific matter.
he makes unsupported LEAPS of association.
[GH] unsupported assertion -10 points
I think he
probably first thought of conclusion (GOD = G_uv) and has been
trying to justify the logic ever since.
[GH] -20 points
the record of my research shows that the discovery
of GOD=G_uv was a CONCLUSION that was slowly
and methodically uncovered by the research.
YOU ARE PROVEN WRONG on this one, since the
record of this discovery was posted day by day
on the internet newsgroups and is contained in the
Google archives.
Not only that the suggfestion is PREPOSTEROUS
on the face of it.. and PROVEN.... so therefore it is
demonstrated that you are so out of touch with reality
that you would believe something that is prima facie
preposterous.
Although this appears
backwards, it is not a completely invalid way to do science.
[GH]
It is a proveable fact that that is not the way it was done.
The record of the discovery appears in Google.
However, when you can't fit the square peg in the round hole
at the foundation of your theory, you are supposed to abandon
the theory. Instead George has pulled out a hole cutter to change
the size of the round in order to make the peg fit.
[Hammond]
Fact is, the discovery GOD=G_uv is a kick in the ***** to
every second rate big mouth on the planet. The fact that
you don't like it and it proves that everything you believe
is FATUOUS, SELF SERVING, AND WRONG
I'm sure is a big disappointment.
I'm sure we can expect lie after lie, every deceitful trick
in the book, just as every scoundrel who is cought trys.
Yawn...........
====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
1st mirror site:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
2nd mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
new site (under construction):
http://home.comcast.net/~proof-of-god
====================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv NO Medal for McDermid |
23 Aug 2004 06:52:19 PM |
|
|
"George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:SsoWc.56362$mD.3065@attbi_s02...
"Scot McDermid" <scotmc@optNOSPAMonline.net> wrote in message
news:18mWc.24149$Nk4.8665669@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
"ZenIsWhen" <ZenIsWhen@anywhere.com> wrote in message
news:10ij9moa1v1q951@corp.supernews.com...
"George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:iTcWc.41020$Fg5.14705@attbi_s53...
"Scot McDermid" <scotmc@optNOSPAMonline.net> wrote in
message news:fw8Wc.13092$Nk4.6419551@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
For the following post, let's grant four of George's assertions.
(1) Let's grant that "existence" means "observable by humans", as
George
says.
And grant that "reality" and/or "the universe" is "human perceived
reality/
universe" as George says.
(2) And grant that GOD created the [human perceived] universe,
as George says.
(3) And grant that the human mind has reached only about 85% of
its potential. That remaining 15% is a brain growth deficit
(BGD).
(4) And grant that BGD is GOD, as George says.
=============================================
(Just for information, here are two more of George's assertions.
These assertions are not important to the point I am about to
make,
but .... FYI....)
(5) Psychological space is 3 dimensional. [ed. 3+1 dimensional]
(6) BGD is a curvature in psychological space caused by
gravity.
=============================================
So back to assertions 1, 2, 3 and 4 above. I don't want to debate
the truth of those assertions at this time. I want to grant them
as true in order to see where they lead. And I believe that they
lead to a contradiction. And thus I believe it is the central flaw
of George's thesis. I'll explain:
The central flaw is that George is notihng more than a raving lunatic,
pretending that his psychotic fantasies are not only reality - but
scientific.
You are missing something. There *IS* a thread of logic that
runs all the way through George's work.
[GH] +5 points credit
There is a tread in logic that runs through the peole who claim to hve been
taken aboard an alien space *****.
There is a thread in logic that George Bush used to get us to invade a
natino that did us no harm.
There is a tread of logic in Hitler's murdering 6 million Jews.
Just because there's a thread, sdoes NOT mean it's sane!
[GH] -50 points for taking credit when credit is not due!
He definitely understands
that a theory needs to be internally consistent.
[GH] +5 points
Consistency has nothing to do with being either right - or sane .... minus
another 50 points!
But I would say
that his premises (which I listed) are false, and I would say that
[GH] -10 points
In the first place, none of them are "premise's".
They don't even rate that high.
They are nothing more than the insane bellowings of the village idiot!
(3) is an experimentally measured fact
Bull *****!
What experiment? Who conducted it? When? How? Who decided that it was "15%",
and not 14 .. or 20 .. ???? Why?
(1),(2),(4) are DEDUCTIONS from the experimental
findings of the theory.
As pointed out before - you HAVE NO experiments supporting the
theory!!!!!!!!
#1 HAS NOTHING TO DO with the (wrong) statements of #3!!!
#2 Has NOTHING TO DO with the (wrong) statements of #3!
#4 Has NOTHING TO DO with the (wrong) claims in #3!
THERE ARE NO:
"premises"
or
"definitions"
There's nothing but crap!
in the entire theory. That is merely a "figment of your
imagination" due to the fact that you have no degrees
in Science, and hence no realistic scientific comprehension
of the scientific matter.
The ignorance within your own posts indicates that YOU have no degree in
ANYTHING!
You ALSO have no degree in religon - which is a part of your claims.
You ALSO have NO degree in astronomy, which is a part of your claims.
You ALSO have no degree in sociology - which is a part of your claims.
You ALSO have no degree in psychology, which is a part of your claims.
IOW ... your ignorance knows no bounds!
he makes unsupported LEAPS of association.
[GH] unsupported assertion -10 points
To make a claim of ABSOLUTE PROOF using unsupported leaps of association ..
-1,000,000 points .... Game Set and Match!
You LOSE!!!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
