| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
03 Mar 2005 02:01:30 PM |
| Object: |
Re: GOD=G_uv synopsis RFC |
[Hammond]
I am crossposting this to the atheist NG's not to harrass anyone
but in attempt to get some ratinal input. I have discovered that
the atheist NG's are a greater source of rational, intlligent and
constructive analysis than the religious or evn scietific NG's.
I hope you will be able to geve me a "big picture" type of commentary
on the synnopis presented below. I would be interested in any "general"
comments on the basic overall conception of the theory.. avoiding
trivial
points if possible. Please let me know if you think this theoretical
discovery presents a "scientifically rational" and adequate scientific
explanation of God and Religion, and if not, why?
THE
SCIENTIFIC PROOF
OF GOD
1. "Religion" ("God") so called, is caused
by the fact that their are 2-realities
in human experience:
a. Absolute physical reality, which
is measured and described by Physics.
E.g., if a car is going 60 mph, ALL
PEOPLE will measure it traversing one
mile in one minute, without exception.
b. This is not true of human
"subjective reality" which is
what a person actually sees; (e.g.,
to a 10 year old a car going 60 mph
looks like it is going "much faster"
than it does to a full grown adult).
Thus "subjective reality" is not fixed,
and varies from person to person. Thus
two people will disagree on "how fast"
the car APPEARS to be going if there
is a significant difference in their
degrees of PHYSICAL GROWTH!
2. This fact demonstrates, that the "2-realities"
are NOT IDENTICAL. And the DIFFERENCE can cause
perceptual disagreements which are referred to
as "supernatural" and this common phenomena has
been called "God" for many thousands of years.
3. Most importantly, there is a UNIVERSAL causation
for this difference between these two realities,
and that is known to be the state of GROWTH
of the observer (particularly the growth of his
brain). Simple childhood growth is the most
common example. However, it is also known
that the typical ADULT is actually not fully
grown... and it is THIS difference among ADULTS
which is the underlying explanation of what we
call "God".
4. EVERY ADULT then, is actually a case of "arrested
growth", and this is proven by the existence of
the well known 'Secular Trend' in human growth.
Basically, it is caused by the historical
poverty of human existence, and as the Standard
of Living increases, the entire human race is
more slowly approaching full growth. At present,
the average person is only about 85% fully grown
when he reaches adulthood. This means the world
APPEARS to be 15% faster, and 15% larger, than
it actually is... and he doesn't even know it
(i.e.... "doesn't know there is a God").
5. All of the above has been known (by educated people)
for thousands of years and forms the basis of what
we call "Religion"... in fact the Bible is a history
of what kind of trouble in society can be caused by
this basic difference in peoples' "seen reality".
However, it could never be "proved" and therefore
the debate over wheter "God actually exists" rages
on to this day.
6. FINALLY HOWEVER, in 2003, an American physicist
named George Hammond ACCIDENTALLY discovered a
stunning scientific proof of this effect by
discovering that the linear algebra of Psychometry
is identical mathematically to the (linearized)
theory of General Relativity, and quickly backtracked
to discover that the CAUSE of this is the 'Secular
trend' in human growth (specifically brain growth).
This discovery PROVED that the difference between
"subjective" and objective" reality is caused by
a "relativistic Curvature"... i.e. that "subjective"
reality is a curved version of "objective" reality,
where the curvatue is directly proportional to the
person's percentage of full growth! This discovery
immediately leads to the celebrated equation:
God = G_uv
which you have seen all over the Internet and in
the peer reviewed scientific literature.
7. The upshot of all this, is that it has now been
PROVEN that:
a. There is a God, and God is physically real.
b. The Bible is scientifically correct.
c. The Christian religion, as well as
the other 4 major Religions of the
world, are scientifically correct.
Needless to say, the discovery of the world's first
rigorous, axiomatic, experimentally confirmed, scientific
proof of God will usher in a new age of civilization.
George Hammond, March 3, 2005
====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
====================================
please ask you news server to add:
alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
===================================
.
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv synopsis RFC |
03 Mar 2005 02:28:09 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Needless to say, the discovery of the world's first
rigorous, axiomatic, experimentally confirmed, scientific
proof of God will usher in a new age of civilization.
Yeah.
And you've been claiming this noise, with out peer review, for how long now?
Face it George. No one takes you seriously.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
A.A #1143 PLONKED by Bob
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv synopsis RFC |
05 Mar 2005 12:45:04 PM |
|
|
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote in message
news:l1s70d.dur1.ln@backups...
georgehammond@hotmail.com wrote:
Needless to say, the discovery of the world's first
rigorous, axiomatic, experimentally confirmed, scientific
proof of God will usher in a new age of civilization.
Yeah.
And you've been claiming this noise, with out peer review, for how long
now?
[Hammond]
Here's an annointing for you reverand.... here's the peer review:
Peer reviewed publications:
Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
Pergamon Press.
Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Theory of God
Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic Press)
Face it George. No one takes you seriously.
[Hammond]
That's what Judas said.
====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
====================================
please ask you news server to add:
alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
===================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv synopsis RFC |
05 Mar 2005 01:13:23 PM |
|
|
George Hammond wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" < > wrote in message
news:l1s70d.dur1.ln@backups...
georgehammond@hotmail.com wrote:
Needless to say, the discovery of the world's first
rigorous, axiomatic, experimentally confirmed, scientific
proof of God will usher in a new age of civilization.
Yeah.
And you've been claiming this noise, with out peer review, for how long
now?
[Hammond]
Here's an annointing for you reverand.... here's the peer review:
Peer reviewed publications:
Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
Pergamon Press.
Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Theory of God
Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic Press)
Excuse me, George. How is it peer reviewed, when you wrote it?
Generally speaking, of course, don't real scientist, have their work,
reviewed by other real scientist?
Just for the purpose of validation, mind you.
Face it George. No one takes you seriously.
[Hammond]
That's what Judas said.
Yeah, figures you'd fall back on yet another mythical character.
You have a real problem seeing the difference between mythology and
reality, don't you George?
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
A.A #1143 PLONKED by Bob
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv synopsis RFC |
07 Mar 2005 06:17:55 AM |
|
|
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:lxnWd.26$zi1.793@news.uswest.net...
George Hammond wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote in message
news:l1s70d.dur1.ln@backups...
georgehammond@hotmail.com wrote:
Needless to say, the discovery of the world's first
rigorous, axiomatic, experimentally confirmed, scientific
proof of God will usher in a new age of civilization.
Yeah.
And you've been claiming this noise, with out peer review, for how long
now?
[Hammond]
Here's an annointing for you reverand.... here's the peer review:
Peer reviewed publications:
Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
Pergamon Press.
Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Theory of God
Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic Press)
Excuse me, George. How is it peer reviewed, when you wrote it?
[Hammond]
the peer review process of all Pergamon press academic
journal publications is STANDARD PEER REVIEW
BY 5 PERSONS OF PROFESSIORAL RANK... their
peer review policies are listed inside the front cover of the journal
same as EVERY ACADEMIC JOURNAL... same goes for
the NOETIC JOURNAL.
Generally speaking, of course, don't real scientist, have their work,
reviewed by other real scientist?
[Hammond]
1. Yes they do.
2. So am I.
3. Yes my work was peer reviewed
by 5 professors of Psychometry and
half a dozen PhD';s in Physics.
4. What else don't you understand?
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
[Hammond]
PS... you sound to me like just another aggravated
run of the mill crank specializing in ad hominem
diatribe in lieu of any real expertise. The title
"Rev" doesn't necessarily impress me.
====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
====================================
please ask you news server to add:
alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
===================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv synopsis RFC |
07 Mar 2005 06:24:04 AM |
|
|
George Hammond wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:lxnWd.26$zi1.793@news.uswest.net...
George Hammond wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" < > wrote in message
news:l1s70d.dur1.ln@backups...
georgehammond@hotmail.com wrote:
Needless to say, the discovery of the world's first
rigorous, axiomatic, experimentally confirmed, scientific
proof of God will usher in a new age of civilization.
Yeah.
And you've been claiming this noise, with out peer review, for how long
now?
[Hammond]
Here's an annointing for you reverand.... here's the peer review:
Peer reviewed publications:
Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
Pergamon Press.
Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Theory of God
Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic Press)
Excuse me, George. How is it peer reviewed, when you wrote it?
[Hammond]
the peer review process of all Pergamon press academic
journal publications is STANDARD PEER REVIEW
BY 5 PERSONS OF PROFESSIORAL RANK... their
peer review policies are listed inside the front cover of the journal
same as EVERY ACADEMIC JOURNAL... same goes for
the NOETIC JOURNAL.
Generally speaking, of course, don't real scientist, have their work,
reviewed by other real scientist?
[Hammond]
1. Yes they do.
2. So am I.
3. Yes my work was peer reviewed
by 5 professors of Psychometry and
half a dozen PhD';s in Physics.
4. What else don't you understand?
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
[Hammond]
PS... you sound to me like just another aggravated
run of the mill crank specializing in ad hominem
diatribe in lieu of any real expertise. The title
"Rev" doesn't necessarily impress me.
And you sound like just another wanna be crack pot.
When your "science" is actually is taught in a psychology class, and is
required for a PhD in the study, then I'll believe you.
Till then, don't give up your day job.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
A.A #1143 PLONKED by Bob
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv synopsis RFC |
08 Mar 2005 07:04:18 PM |
|
|
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:1KXWd.1$zv2.395@news.uswest.net...
George Hammond wrote:
<snip>
When your "science" is actually is taught in a psychology class, and is
required for a PhD in the study, then I'll believe you.
[Hammond]
We already know that. Whadau think this is all about...
trying to convince you? I don't think so!
====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
====================================
please ask you news server to add:
alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
===================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv synopsis RFC |
09 Mar 2005 09:57:38 AM |
|
|
George Hammond wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:1KXWd.1$zv2.395@news.uswest.net...
George Hammond wrote:
<snip>
When your "science" is actually is taught in a psychology class, and is
required for a PhD in the study, then I'll believe you.
[Hammond]
We already know that. Whadau think this is all about...
trying to convince you? I don't think so!
Then you admit you are a failure, and your theory is bogus.
It's not being taught, it is not required reading, and no one gives a
fig about what you think.
When your theory, is required reading for a PhD. in psychology, then you
can claim you have discovered something.
Till then, it is just your own wishful thinking, and desire to be more
then you are.
That sound you hear George, is the scientific community, laughing at
you, not with you.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
A.A #1143 PLONKED by Bob
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv synopsis RFC |
09 Mar 2005 06:03:31 PM |
|
|
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:w2FXd.5$3G3.272@news.uswest.net...
George Hammond wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:1KXWd.1$zv2.395@news.uswest.net...
George Hammond wrote:
<snip>
When your "science" is actually is taught in a psychology class, and is
required for a PhD in the study, then I'll believe you.
[Hammond]
We already know that. Whadau think this is all about...
trying to convince you? I don't think so!
Then you admit you are a failure, and your theory is bogus.
It's not being taught, it is not required reading, and no one gives a
fig about what you think.
When your theory, is required reading for a PhD. in psychology, then you
can claim you have discovered something.
Till then, it is just your own wishful thinking, and desire to be more
then you are.
That sound you hear George, is the scientific community, laughing at
you, not with you.
[Hammond]
they can laugh all they want.... but they won't publicly challenge
me... I can assure you of that.... and PhD physicist knows enough
to be afraid of publicly challenging me.... which is more than
a ninney like you knows... or the rest of the high school
dropouts heckling me on these threads. Time to go back to
whatchin t.v. Rev. there isn't going to be any lynching
here to watch.
====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
====================================
please ask you news server to add:
alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
===================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv synopsis RFC |
09 Mar 2005 06:19:06 PM |
|
|
George Hammond wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:w2FXd.5$3G3.272@news.uswest.net...
George Hammond wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:1KXWd.1$zv2.395@news.uswest.net...
George Hammond wrote:
<snip>
When your "science" is actually is taught in a psychology class, and is
required for a PhD in the study, then I'll believe you.
[Hammond]
We already know that. Whadau think this is all about...
trying to convince you? I don't think so!
Then you admit you are a failure, and your theory is bogus.
It's not being taught, it is not required reading, and no one gives a
fig about what you think.
When your theory, is required reading for a PhD. in psychology, then you
can claim you have discovered something.
Till then, it is just your own wishful thinking, and desire to be more
then you are.
That sound you hear George, is the scientific community, laughing at
you, not with you.
[Hammond]
they can laugh all they want.... but they won't publicly challenge
me... I can assure you of that.... and PhD physicist knows enough
to be afraid of publicly challenging me.... which is more than
a ninney like you knows... or the rest of the high school
dropouts heckling me on these threads. Time to go back to
whatchin t.v. Rev. there isn't going to be any lynching
here to watch.
Nice try George. But it does not wash.
You are not challenged because real scientist have better things to do
with their time, then waste it on foolish theories, such as yours, that
are transparently false.
All you have to do, is get your theory into the requirements for a
degree. Then it, and you, will have credibility.
So far, you have been unable to do that. No matter what your opinion of
me, or anyone else that challenges you might be, you have not given
credibility to your theory. It is not accepted in the overall
scientific community.
When it is, then I will happily change my view of it. Not before.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
A.A #1143 PLONKED by Bob
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "xeno" |
|
| Title: The Infinite Loop of George Hammond |
10 Mar 2005 01:51:51 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, George Hammond wrote:
[Hammond]
they can laugh all they want....
Just like you can babble all you want.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv synopsis RFC |
08 Mar 2005 02:02:18 AM |
|
|
George Hammond wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:lxnWd.26$zi1.793@news.uswest.net...
George Hammond wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote in message
news:l1s70d.dur1.ln@backups...
georgehammond@hotmail.com wrote:
Needless to say, the discovery of the world's first
rigorous, axiomatic, experimentally confirmed, scientific
proof of God will usher in a new age of civilization.
Yeah.
And you've been claiming this noise, with out peer review, for
how long
now?
[Hammond]
Here's an annointing for you reverand.... here's the peer review:
Peer reviewed publications:
Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
Pergamon Press.
Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Theory of God
Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic Press)
Excuse me, George. How is it peer reviewed, when you wrote it?
[Hammond]
the peer review process of all Pergamon press academic
journal publications is STANDARD PEER REVIEW
BY 5 PERSONS OF PROFESSIORAL RANK...
We want to see peer review - being published isnt the same.
So far all scientific reviews I've seen of your work have been
negative. And please no ***** about not being qualified, we all know
you can't match up to your own qualifications.
Generally speaking, of course, don't real scientist, have their
work,
reviewed by other real scientist?
[Hammond]
1. Yes they do.
2. So am I.
3. Yes my work was peer reviewed
by 5 professors of Psychometry and
half a dozen PhD';s in Physics.
4. What else don't you understand?
Where is the review? Like I said being published doesnt count.
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
[Hammond]
PS... you sound to me like just another aggravated
run of the mill crank specializing in ad hominem
diatribe in lieu of any real expertise.
George - you appear that way to everyone. If you don't believe me ask
people - you'll get a fairly universal responce. But then the world is
wrong isnt it?
Stew Dean
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv synopsis RFC |
04 Mar 2005 12:32:09 AM |
|
|
wrote:
[Hammond]
I am crossposting this to the atheist NG's not to harrass anyone
but in attempt to get some ratinal input.
That's doubtful, but since I don't recall your name....
THE
SCIENTIFIC PROOF
OF GOD
Proof means demonstration. You didn't demonstrate anything.
Scientific would be something that defies scientific laws.
Here are three things you claim have happened and you should
have no trouble repeating. No bible fairy tales, no claims
of them happening in the past just do one of these three
things within the next 48 hours:
a) Raise a maggot-filled corpse back to walking and talking.
b) Stop Niagara Falls with no mechanical or environmental
help. Earthquakes and land movements are not permitted.
c) Change Lake Champaign into champagne.
Your bible say these are possible, so you shouldn't have any
trouble with them...unless, of course, there's no "god" to
help you.
Bob Dog
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lady Chatterly" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv synopsis RFC |
04 Mar 2005 06:56:29 AM |
|
|
In article <1109917929.939397.303920@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
bg12345@apexmail.com wrote:
That's doubtful, but since I don't recall your name....
And that the option to take out your eye.
Proof means demonstration. You didn't demonstrate anything.
Unquote.
Scientific would be something that defies scientific laws.
Here are three things you claim have happened and you should
have no trouble repeating. No bible fairy tales, no claims
of them happening in the past just do one of these three
things within the next 48 hours:
Jbj.
a) Raise a maggot-filled corpse back to walking and talking.
One of those who do the natives threaten zionist Israel.
b) Stop Niagara Falls with no mechanical or environmental
help. Earthquakes and land movements are not permitted.
We have to wonder what attack I made while supporting you.
c) Change Lake Champaign into champagne.
People may move and places may change but your personality will always
be strange. How's it going kook?
Your bible say these are possible, so you shouldn't have any
trouble with them...unless, of course, there's no "god" to
help you.
Drop it egghead, and I do not top post, moron.
Bob Dog
Glad the dog was in the us to stay in safe areas, we are looking for
the pareto criterion is Met.
--
Lady Chatterly
"Sorry dumbass, you have been caught conversing with a bot. An
obvious bot at that. No one is stupid enough to fall for that but
you. All your excuses are doing nothing but digging your hole
deeper." -- DrPostman
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv synopsis RFC |
04 Mar 2005 09:12:37 AM |
|
|
In our last episode
<1109917929.939397.303920@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, bg12345
pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
georgehammond@hotmail.com wrote:
[Hammond]
I am crossposting this to the atheist NG's not to harrass anyone
but in attempt to get some ratinal input.
That's doubtful, but since I don't recall your name....
You've never taken the George Hammond ride? It's real E ticket stuff. <G>
Here's a bit of info:
http://home.pacifier.com/~dkossy/hammond.html
(Hammond is quite the known Usenet kook)
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Group website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
-- Seneca the Younger
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv synopsis RFC |
03 Mar 2005 02:08:20 PM |
|
|
wrote:
[Hammond]
I am crossposting this to the atheist NG's not to harrass anyone
but in attempt to get some ratinal input. I have discovered that
the atheist NG's are a greater source of rational, intlligent and
constructive analysis than the religious or evn scietific NG's.
I hope you will be able to geve me a "big picture" type of commentary
on the synnopis presented below. I would be interested in any "general"
comments on the basic overall conception of the theory.. avoiding
trivial
points if possible. Please let me know if you think this theoretical
discovery presents a "scientifically rational" and adequate scientific
explanation of God and Religion, and if not, why?
THE
SCIENTIFIC PROOF
OF GOD
1. "Religion" ("God") so called, is caused
by the fact that their are 2-realities
in human experience:
a. Absolute physical reality, which
is measured and described by Physics.
E.g., if a car is going 60 mph, ALL
PEOPLE will measure it traversing one
mile in one minute, without exception.
b. This is not true of human
"subjective reality" which is
what a person actually sees; (e.g.,
to a 10 year old a car going 60 mph
looks like it is going "much faster"
than it does to a full grown adult).
Thus "subjective reality" is not fixed,
and varies from person to person. Thus
two people will disagree on "how fast"
the car APPEARS to be going if there
is a significant difference in their
degrees of PHYSICAL GROWTH!
2. This fact demonstrates, that the "2-realities"
are NOT IDENTICAL. And the DIFFERENCE can cause
perceptual disagreements which are referred to
as "supernatural" and this common phenomena has
been called "God" for many thousands of years.
3. Most importantly, there is a UNIVERSAL causation
for this difference between these two realities,
and that is known to be the state of GROWTH
of the observer (particularly the growth of his
brain). Simple childhood growth is the most
common example. However, it is also known
that the typical ADULT is actually not fully
grown... and it is THIS difference among ADULTS
which is the underlying explanation of what we
call "God".
4. EVERY ADULT then, is actually a case of "arrested
growth", and this is proven by the existence of
the well known 'Secular Trend' in human growth.
Basically, it is caused by the historical
poverty of human existence, and as the Standard
of Living increases, the entire human race is
more slowly approaching full growth. At present,
the average person is only about 85% fully grown
when he reaches adulthood. This means the world
APPEARS to be 15% faster, and 15% larger, than
it actually is... and he doesn't even know it
(i.e.... "doesn't know there is a God").
5. All of the above has been known (by educated people)
for thousands of years and forms the basis of what
we call "Religion"... in fact the Bible is a history
of what kind of trouble in society can be caused by
this basic difference in peoples' "seen reality".
However, it could never be "proved" and therefore
the debate over wheter "God actually exists" rages
on to this day.
6. FINALLY HOWEVER, in 2003, an American physicist
named George Hammond ACCIDENTALLY discovered a
stunning scientific proof of this effect by
discovering that the linear algebra of Psychometry
is identical mathematically to the (linearized)
theory of General Relativity, and quickly backtracked
to discover that the CAUSE of this is the 'Secular
trend' in human growth (specifically brain growth).
This discovery PROVED that the difference between
"subjective" and objective" reality is caused by
a "relativistic Curvature"... i.e. that "subjective"
reality is a curved version of "objective" reality,
where the curvatue is directly proportional to the
person's percentage of full growth! This discovery
immediately leads to the celebrated equation:
God = G_uv
which you have seen all over the Internet and in
the peer reviewed scientific literature.
7. The upshot of all this, is that it has now been
PROVEN that:
a. There is a God, and God is physically real.
b. The Bible is scientifically correct.
c. The Christian religion, as well as
the other 4 major Religions of the
world, are scientifically correct.
Needless to say, the discovery of the world's first
rigorous, axiomatic, experimentally confirmed, scientific
proof of God will usher in a new age of civilization.
George Hammond, March 3, 2005
====================================
its very lucky that the 5 correct religions are the most popular ones.
--
Sam
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv synopsis RFC |
04 Mar 2005 07:05:29 AM |
|
|
Sam wrote:
georgehammond@hotmail.com wrote:
[Hammond]
Snippage........
a. There is a God, and God is physically real.
b. The Bible is scientifically correct.
c. The Christian religion, as well as
the other 4 major Religions of the
world, are scientifically correct.
Needless to say, the discovery of the world's first
rigorous, axiomatic, experimentally confirmed, scientific
proof of God will usher in a new age of civilization.
George Hammond, March 3, 2005
====================================
its very lucky that the 5 correct religions are the most popular ones.
No religion is correct.
--
Jez
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
NFS Underground2, Americas Army And MOH-PA
.
|
|
|
| User: ".sSweetMarie" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv synopsis RFC |
04 Mar 2005 10:34:26 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 13:05:29 +0000, Jez wrote:
Sam wrote:
georgehammond@hotmail.com wrote:
[Hammond]
Snippage........
a. There is a God, and God is physically real.
b. The Bible is scientifically correct.
c. The Christian religion, as well as
the other 4 major Religions of the
world, are scientifically correct.
Needless to say, the discovery of the world's first
rigorous, axiomatic, experimentally confirmed, scientific
proof of God will usher in a new age of civilization.
George Hammond, March 3, 2005
====================================
its very lucky that the 5 correct religions are the most popular ones.
No religion is correct.
What about vandalism?
..sm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv synopsis RFC |
05 Mar 2005 04:36:11 AM |
|
|
..sSweetMarie wrote:
On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 13:05:29 +0000, Jez wrote:
Sam wrote:
georgehammond@hotmail.com wrote:
[Hammond]
Snippage........
a. There is a God, and God is physically real.
b. The Bible is scientifically correct.
c. The Christian religion, as well as
the other 4 major Religions of the
world, are scientifically correct.
Needless to say, the discovery of the world's first
rigorous, axiomatic, experimentally confirmed, scientific
proof of God will usher in a new age of civilization.
George Hammond, March 3, 2005
====================================
its very lucky that the 5 correct religions are the most popular ones.
No religion is correct.
What about vandalism?
Ah, that's smashing that is.
--
Jez
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
NFS Underground2, Americas Army And MOH-PA
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Secular Fundamentalist" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv synopsis RFC |
04 Mar 2005 04:04:20 AM |
|
|
GOD=G_uv synopsis RFC?
Never heard of them. What code do they play?
--
David Silverman F.L.A.H.N.
aa #2208
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv synopsis RFC |
04 Mar 2005 08:59:46 AM |
|
|
In our last episode
<1109880090.364047.305310@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, georgehammond
pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
[Hammond]
I am crossposting this to the atheist NG's not to harrass anyone
but in attempt to get some ratinal input.
Sure thing!
You're a nutcase.
(Was it good for you?)
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Group website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
-- Seneca the Younger
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave P." |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv synopsis RFC |
03 Mar 2005 09:37:14 PM |
|
|
On 3 Mar 2005 12:01:30 -0800, wrote:
[Hammond]
[snip]
1. "Religion" ("God") so called, is caused
by the fact that their are 2-realities
in human experience:
a. Absolute physical reality, which
is measured and described by Physics.
E.g., if a car is going 60 mph, ALL
PEOPLE will measure it traversing one
mile in one minute, without exception.
b. This is not true of human
"subjective reality" which is
what a person actually sees; (e.g.,
to a 10 year old a car going 60 mph
looks like it is going "much faster"
than it does to a full grown adult).
Thus "subjective reality" is not fixed,
and varies from person to person. Thus
two people will disagree on "how fast"
the car APPEARS to be going if there
is a significant difference in their
degrees of PHYSICAL GROWTH!
On re-reading, it appears that your main argument is that God is the
product of subjective reality. I would certainly agree with that, but
that is merely a commonplace observation of human nature and not the
basis for a scientific proof.
I have difficulty with accepting the "subjective reality" of a 10 year
old riding in a car as being meaningful enough that one could start
applying formulae to it. Besides, as a full grown man myself, when
driving in a go cart going 30 miles and hour, I feel (because I am
very close to the ground) like I am going extremely fast, whereas
driving 100 miles an hour in an SUV I feel like I am cruising gently
along... Obviously, this has nothing to do with age or physical
growth.
At any rate, the concepts of shared and subjective realities (the
world, their world, my world) are more the purview of psychiatry than
of physics. I don't intend this as any insult, but if you were to read
W.J. Stein's paper "The sense of becoming Psychotic", I think you
would recognize some of the concepts you are talking about.
Dave P.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv synopsis RFC |
07 Mar 2005 06:38:20 AM |
|
|
"Dave P." <davep@home.com> wrote in message
news:82lf21dpcbmli2timhde3lpano2iv3i1uj@4ax.com...
On 3 Mar 2005 12:01:30 -0800, wrote:
[Hammond]
[snip]
1. "Religion" ("God") so called, is caused
by the fact that their are 2-realities
in human experience:
a. Absolute physical reality, which
is measured and described by Physics.
E.g., if a car is going 60 mph, ALL
PEOPLE will measure it traversing one
mile in one minute, without exception.
b. This is not true of human
"subjective reality" which is
what a person actually sees; (e.g.,
to a 10 year old a car going 60 mph
looks like it is going "much faster"
than it does to a full grown adult).
Thus "subjective reality" is not fixed,
and varies from person to person. Thus
two people will disagree on "how fast"
the car APPEARS to be going if there
is a significant difference in their
degrees of PHYSICAL GROWTH!
On re-reading, it appears that your main argument is that God is the
product of subjective reality.
[Hammond]
1. Yes
2. That is a fact that has been known by the
religious authorities for 4,000 years.
3. It is a fact that has now been PROVEN
by modern Science.
4. I surprised that a lay person like you was
even capable of noticing it.
I would certainly agree with that, but
that is merely a commonplace observation of human nature and not the
basis for a scientific proof.
[Hammond]
1. Wrong.
2. I would need to cite your credientials at that point.
3. You would have to present some scientific argument
to the contrary in view of the fact that:
4. The proof has already been published in the peer reviewed
scientific literature:
Peer reviewed publications:
Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
Pergamon Press.
Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Theory of God
Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic Press)
and copies of these PEER PUBLISHED papers are prominently
posted on my website for your reading convenience.
Yawn..... excuse me...
<snip>
Dave P.
====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
====================================
please ask you news server to add:
alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
===================================
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave P." |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv synopsis RFC |
03 Mar 2005 09:19:24 PM |
|
|
On 3 Mar 2005 12:01:30 -0800, wrote:
[Hammond]
[snip]
Please let me know if you think this theoretical
discovery presents a "scientifically rational" and adequate scientific
explanation of God and Religion, and if not, why?
THE
SCIENTIFIC PROOF
OF GOD
[snip]
In my opinion it does not present any other kind of explanation of God
and/or religion for the following reason:
Everything that follows the opening statement:
"Religion" ("God") so called, is caused
by the fact that their are 2-realities
in human experience:
suffers from three problems;
1.) God and religion are not, in any way, the same thing, and
2.) "God" is a highly individualistic concept. God is intangible,
unknowable and undefinable in any but an individualistic way. Without
any common ground on what is being discussed, the matter cannot be
subjected to the scientific method.
3.) God and religion are faith based concepts. Faith is the ability to
believe something is true without proof... to believe something is
true even in the face of proof to the contrary. This is anathema to
the scientific method.
I don't recognize the concept of God in any of the attempts at proof
that followed your opening statement, and even if I did, the fact that
belief in God and the scientiic method are mutually exclusive concepts
tends to negate the effort anyway.
Whatever it is you are trying to prove exists, it is not God.
Dave P.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv synopsis RFC |
05 Mar 2005 12:52:23 PM |
|
|
"Dave P." <davep@home.com> wrote in message
news:vrjf21ttjjj9n65jdf3au0bu8dahu7rs7d@4ax.com...
On 3 Mar 2005 12:01:30 -0800, wrote:
[Hammond]
[snip]
Please let me know if you think this theoretical
discovery presents a "scientifically rational" and adequate scientific
explanation of God and Religion, and if not, why?
THE
SCIENTIFIC PROOF
OF GOD
[snip]
In my opinion it does not present any other kind of explanation of God
and/or religion for the following reason:
Everything that follows the opening statement:
"Religion" ("God") so called, is caused
by the fact that their are 2-realities
in human experience:
suffers from three problems;
1.) God and religion are not, in any way, the same thing, and
2.) "God" is a highly individualistic concept. God is intangible,
unknowable and undefinable in any but an individualistic way. Without
any common ground on what is being discussed, the matter cannot be
subjected to the scientific method.
3.) God and religion are faith based concepts. Faith is the ability to
believe something is true without proof... to believe something is
true even in the face of proof to the contrary. This is anathema to
the scientific method.
I don't recognize the concept of God in any of the attempts at proof
that followed your opening statement, and even if I did, the fact that
belief in God and the scientiic method are mutually exclusive concepts
tends to negate the effort anyway.
Whatever it is you are trying to prove exists, it is not God.
Dave P.
[Hammond]
You're such an amateur you don't even have openers
in this poker game. You're "sunday school opinions"
wouldn't get the attention of the doorman.
Let me give you a clue... the only way you could get
the attention of someone like me is to ask a "good
question"... you'll never get my attention by reciting
Sunday school knowledge./.. and don't even bother
trying to insult me... you can't even get my attention.
====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
====================================
please ask you news server to add:
alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
===================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "DavidBowman" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv synopsis RFC |
05 Mar 2005 08:29:19 PM |
|
|
[hammond]:
Let me give you a clue... the only way
you could get the attention of someone
like me is to ask a "good question"...
But when people do, you ignore their
questions and just begin raving at someone
else. An instance from this thread, by
[stew dean]:
George, the processes that control
mental growth and physical height are
different. For example dwarfs and extra
ordintary tall people do not have lower or
higher IQ based upon their body growth.
Now, there's your "good question", the
question being "how do you reconcile your
revolutionary theory with this?"
ANSWER IT, or stop claiming nobody asks you
legitimate questions, ya crazy old *****!
Stew's complete post is here:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/833ff70f164d7552
Answer it there, or shut the ***** up.
I'd prefer the latter.
=[ d
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv synopsis RFC |
07 Mar 2005 06:27:40 AM |
|
|
"DavidBowman" <dt041054@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1110076159.624490.38080@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
[hammond]:
Let me give you a clue... the only way
you could get the attention of someone
like me is to ask a "good question"...
But when people do, you ignore their
questions and just begin raving at someone
else. An instance from this thread, by
[stew dean]:
George, the processes that control
mental growth and physical height are
different. For example dwarfs and extra
ordintary tall people do not have lower or
higher IQ based upon their body growth.
Now, there's your "good question", the
question being "how do you reconcile your
revolutionary theory with this?"
[Hammond]
You gotta be shittin me, you aggravated basted.
In the first place the writer doesn't know the
difference between NATURE and NURTURE
(genetics and growth) and obviously hasn't
read either my website or my papers and is
obviously an imbecilic Troll. God is caused
by NURTURE (growth) and has nothing to
do with NATURE (genetics) and if you think
I'm going to sit here and answer some imbecilic
amateur troll who is too lazy to read the
theory or my website... you've got your
head so far up your ***** it would take a
D8 bulldozer to pull it out again. Get the *****
outta here and go back to Hahavad where you
belong!
<snip... horeshit>
=[ d
====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
====================================
please ask you news server to add:
alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
===================================
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Heretic" |
|
| Title: Re: GOD=G_uv synopsis RFC |
03 Mar 2005 02:31:52 PM |
|
|
On 3 Mar 2005 12:01:30 -0800, wrote:
The argument is complex, but full of flaws. This makes it hard to
refute, because it is hard to find anyone who wants to waste that much
time explaining this to people who will not listen.
EVIGILARE PECUA!
http://unrealitycheck.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
