| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"Roy Schestowitz" |
| Date: |
19 Nov 2004 03:33:51 AM |
| Object: |
Re: God=G_uv ..An Historical Colloquy |
"Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote in
message news:cnjsog$11qv$1@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk...
George Hammond wrote:
INTRODUCTION
The equation God=G_uv has been published in
the peer reviewed scientific literature in 2003:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1.html
This paper is written at the Ph.D. level in...
Well, then go do a Ph.D., pass the viva and then we'll talk...
[Approved by G. Hammond, moderator]
Talk about what? You're so ignorant of what God is
psychologically you probably think the expression
"whatever floats your boat" is a nautical term.
I wonder how you rationalize the parabolic description
of God given in the Bible... the work of a fool?
I've reduced God to a science for fools like you, and
you can't even read a dimestore book on General
Relativity to be able to understand that!
--
Roy Schestowitz
http://schestowitz.com
====================================
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: "gh moderator r-spog" |
|
| Title: Re: God=G_uv ..An Historical Colloquy |
20 Nov 2004 08:12:41 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 01:45:31 -0600, Kamerynn <idon'tdoemail@sorry.com> wrote:
[Approved by G. Hammond, moderator r-spog]
<snip>
Kam:
For one who supposedly dislikes ad hominems, you sure like
to attack people. I've pointed out that you've redefined "god"
in your work, to suit your purposes. Your responses were both
inflamatory and inadequate. Your responses, above, are certainly
vituperous. So, how about discarding the hypocrisy for a while?
[Hammond]
That was a defense, not an attack. I posted a content filled
serious on topic appropriate post to this newsgroup, and
he responded with an off topic, no content, as hominem
wiseguy personal attack.
I don't attack anybody, I'm on the defensive. I don't
post off topic or no content, and I'm not here to trade insults.
I'm looking for serious people to discuss serious business.
If you don't think it's serious I think you should state WHY,
not simple post some kook one liner insult.
I've pointed out that you've redefined "god"
in your work, to suit your purposes.
[Hammond]
That's a one liner tautology of yours. It's obviously
semantically incorrect, because as everyone knows there
is no such thing as a "definition of God" because God is
a real physical phenomena, not an "arbitrary convention".
The word "definition" only applies to arbitrary conventions
such as "how many holes in a golf course". There is no
such thing as a definitoon of a real object... there is no
such thing as a "definition of the Moon" for instance. There
is only a physical description of the Moon. Same is true
of God... there is no such thing as a "defintion of God"
there is only a "physical description" of God.
Historically this physical description was obtained by
observations of human behavor. Today (Hammond 2003,
peer rev. literature) there is an experimentally measured
and axiomatically explained physcal description of God
(which confirms the historical description by the way).
Claiming there must needs be a "definiton of God" is
one of the oldest anti-religious strategems in the book...
because it is meant to imply that God is an "arbitrary construct"
and not a "real physical phenomena".... it's simply an
anti-religous diatribe.
As some famous theologian exclaimed in exasperation,
"a God defined is a God destroyed". Certainly "the Moon
defined is a Moon destroyed" likewise.
Your responses were both
inflamatory and inadequate. Your responses, above, are certainly
vituperous. So, how about discarding the hypocrisy for a while?
[Hammond]
With all due respect, trying to pull an amateur stunt on me like
claiming I have invented a "definition of God" is the epitome of
a hypocrasy.
====================================
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: "George Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: God=G_uv ..An Historical Colloquy |
30 Nov 2004 10:57:51 AM |
|
|
"Luba Luft" <luba.luft@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:avooq0lm238vh8trc04qafla3oo989bf6g@4ax.com...
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 11:39:39 +0100, Luba Luft <luba.luft@gmx.net>
wrote:
Actually God and the moon are nothing but symbols. I believe that
people define all objects, otherwise those objects might still exist
in the physical world, but would mean nothing to us. Physical
descriptions are not fixed, they change throughout history. Once the
earth was flat, now it is round. Even if you believe that your
physical description of God exists and is true, what tells you that it
is the ultimate one?
There are millions of objects which might exist, but are not defined,
thus not known to humans. We might also describe something only to
find out that the descriptions was inaccurate or completely wrong.
Finally, only a definition adds meaning to a description. Without a
definition, God is nothing but a description and thus has no meaning
at all.
What I was trying to say is this:
One can define anything - no matter if it exists or not - in any way.
If I define a chair to be God this chair would be my God.
[Hammond]
As far as I can see all that would do is "rename" the chair
using a 3 letter name instead of a 4 letter name. Unless
you are going to invoke some other meaning to the word
"God" besides "chair".
The question is how many people share this definition. If enough
people shared my definition, I would have created a new religion - The
Worshippers of Chair. :)
This sort of is my interpretation of Symbolic Interactionism.
[Hammond]
Point is, 1.3-billion Christians tend to point to
the picture of God on the Sisteine Chapel
ceiling and say "there is a picture of God".
1.3-billion is a lot of people to "share a
common description"... which is what we are
talking about.
====================================
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: "Luba Luft" |
|
| Title: Re: God=G_uv ..An Historical Colloquy |
01 Dec 2004 02:04:42 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 16:57:51 +0000 (UTC), "George Hammond"
<nowhere@nomailspam.net> wrote:
"Luba Luft" <luba.luft@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:avooq0lm238vh8trc04qafla3oo989bf6g@4ax.com...
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 11:39:39 +0100, Luba Luft <luba.luft@gmx.net>
wrote:
[snip]
What I was trying to say is this:
One can define anything - no matter if it exists or not - in any way.
If I define a chair to be God this chair would be my God.
[Hammond]
As far as I can see all that would do is "rename" the chair
using a 3 letter name instead of a 4 letter name. Unless
you are going to invoke some other meaning to the word
"God" besides "chair".
No, I would still call it Chair. But I could arrange candles around
Chair, pray for a better life etc. And I could accuse anyone of
blasphemy who doesn't worship Chair in a proper way.
The question is how many people share this definition. If enough
people shared my definition, I would have created a new religion - The
Worshippers of Chair. :)
This sort of is my interpretation of Symbolic Interactionism.
[Hammond]
Point is, 1.3-billion Christians tend to point to
the picture of God on the Sisteine Chapel
ceiling and say "there is a picture of God".
1.3-billion is a lot of people to "share a
common description"... which is what we are
talking about.
The same could be true for the "Worshippers of Chair" if they came
into existence. What's your point here anyway? Are you trying to say
that as long as enough people believe in something it is true?
Think of the possibilities ...
====================================
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: "George Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: God=G_uv ..An Historical Colloquy |
01 Dec 2004 11:31:41 AM |
|
|
"Luba Luft" <luba.luft@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:k4vqq01lcbmq2v3qud4o547rq771jn52m1@4ax.com...
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 16:57:51 +0000 (UTC), "George Hammond"
<nowhere@nomailspam.net> wrote:
"Luba Luft" <luba.luft@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:avooq0lm238vh8trc04qafla3oo989bf6g@4ax.com...
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 11:39:39 +0100, Luba Luft <luba.luft@gmx.net>
wrote:
[snip]
What I was trying to say is this:
One can define anything - no matter if it exists or not - in any way.
If I define a chair to be God this chair would be my God.
[Hammond]
As far as I can see all that would do is "rename" the chair
using a 3 letter name instead of a 4 letter name. Unless
you are going to invoke some other meaning to the word
"God" besides "chair".
No, I would still call it Chair. But I could arrange candles around
Chair, pray for a better life etc. And I could accuse anyone of
blasphemy who doesn't worship Chair in a proper way.
The question is how many people share this definition. If enough
people shared my definition, I would have created a new religion - The
Worshippers of Chair. :)
This sort of is my interpretation of Symbolic Interactionism.
[Hammond]
Point is, 1.3-billion Christians tend to point to
the picture of God on the Sisteine Chapel
ceiling and say "there is a picture of God".
1.3-billion is a lot of people to "share a
common description"... which is what we are
talking about.
The same could be true for the "Worshippers of Chair" if they came
into existence.
[Hammond]
If? we're not here to talk about "ifs".
What's your point here anyway? Are you trying to say
that as long as enough people believe in something it is true?
Think of the possibilities ...
[Hammond]
Hey... the majority rules the world... remember.
5 billion people are adherents to the major faiths
of the world. As far as I know none of them worship
chairs, or whoopie cushions either for that matter.
Scientifically, the fact that 5-billion people subscribe
to the major religions... must be considered a piece
of scientific evidence of something. Likewise, the
fact that no one I ever heard of (certainly not millions
and billions) ever worshipped "chairs" also tells
us something scientifically... it tells us that if we
ever stumble on something that looks like it is a
scientific proof of God... it better conclude that
"God is a spirit" or something like that, rather than
"God is a chair" or "God is a whoopie cushion".
And of course that's exactly what SPOG
proves (i.e. confirms)... is that "God is a spirit...
in fact is the mental function of the "ungrown"
brain, and is in fact described by God=G_uv.
====================================
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: "stew dean" |
|
| Title: Re: God=G_uv ..An Historical Colloquy |
01 Dec 2004 09:52:11 AM |
|
|
Luba Luft <luba.luft@gmx.net> wrote in message news:<k4vqq01lcbmq2v3qud4o547rq771jn52m1@4ax.com>...
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 16:57:51 +0000 (UTC), "George Hammond"
<nowhere@nomailspam.net> wrote:
"Luba Luft" <luba.luft@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:avooq0lm238vh8trc04qafla3oo989bf6g@4ax.com...
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 11:39:39 +0100, Luba Luft <luba.luft@gmx.net>
wrote:
[snip]
What I was trying to say is this:
One can define anything - no matter if it exists or not - in any way.
If I define a chair to be God this chair would be my God.
[Hammond]
As far as I can see all that would do is "rename" the chair
using a 3 letter name instead of a 4 letter name. Unless
you are going to invoke some other meaning to the word
"God" besides "chair".
No, I would still call it Chair. But I could arrange candles around
Chair, pray for a better life etc. And I could accuse anyone of
blasphemy who doesn't worship Chair in a proper way.
The question is how many people share this definition. If enough
people shared my definition, I would have created a new religion - The
Worshippers of Chair. :)
This sort of is my interpretation of Symbolic Interactionism.
[Hammond]
Point is, 1.3-billion Christians tend to point to
the picture of God on the Sisteine Chapel
ceiling and say "there is a picture of God".
1.3-billion is a lot of people to "share a
common description"... which is what we are
talking about.
The same could be true for the "Worshippers of Chair" if they came
into existence. What's your point here anyway? Are you trying to say
that as long as enough people believe in something it is true?
Think of the possibilities ...
There are some that thing god is created by belief, if enough people
hold god to be true then there is god. I don't see this as they will
create the perception but not the reality.
Now George what Luba is calmly pointing out is that arguments by
majority don't always work. I will also add that often the cases you
point out are not true - 1.3 billion christians accept multiple
versions of god, mostly along the flowing white robes and bear vibe
but, as already mentioned, no one really considered it blasphomous for
god to be represented by Morgan Freeman, without flowing beard robe or
indeed white skin. After all Jesus himself was not 'white' as such
(although his depiction is often more anglo saxon than he would really
have been).
Most christians belief are radicaly different and range from right
wing and authoratiaran views to libearal to strongly left socialist
beliefs. Some accept evoltion, some don't. Some thing gays are a bad
idea and some are cool with the whole idea.
Stew Dean
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: God=G_uv ..An Historical Colloquy |
01 Dec 2004 11:46:10 AM |
|
|
"stew dean" <stewart@webslave.dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2b68957a.0412010806.7014715@posting.google.com...
Luba Luft <luba.luft@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:<k4vqq01lcbmq2v3qud4o547rq771jn52m1@4ax.com>...
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 16:57:51 +0000 (UTC), "George Hammond"
<nowhere@nomailspam.net> wrote:
"Luba Luft" <luba.luft@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:avooq0lm238vh8trc04qafla3oo989bf6g@4ax.com...
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 11:39:39 +0100, Luba Luft <luba.luft@gmx.net>
wrote:
[snip]
What I was trying to say is this:
One can define anything - no matter if it exists or not - in any way.
If I define a chair to be God this chair would be my God.
[Hammond]
As far as I can see all that would do is "rename" the chair
using a 3 letter name instead of a 4 letter name. Unless
you are going to invoke some other meaning to the word
"God" besides "chair".
No, I would still call it Chair. But I could arrange candles around
Chair, pray for a better life etc. And I could accuse anyone of
blasphemy who doesn't worship Chair in a proper way.
The question is how many people share this definition. If enough
people shared my definition, I would have created a new religion -
The
Worshippers of Chair. :)
This sort of is my interpretation of Symbolic Interactionism.
[Hammond]
Point is, 1.3-billion Christians tend to point to
the picture of God on the Sisteine Chapel
ceiling and say "there is a picture of God".
1.3-billion is a lot of people to "share a
common description"... which is what we are
talking about.
The same could be true for the "Worshippers of Chair" if they came
into existence. What's your point here anyway? Are you trying to say
that as long as enough people believe in something it is true?
Think of the possibilities ...
There are some that thing god is created by belief, if enough people
hold god to be true then there is god. I don't see this as they will
create the perception but not the reality.
Now George what Luba is calmly pointing out is that arguments by
majority don't always work. I will also add that often the cases you
point out are not true - 1.3 billion christians accept multiple
versions of god, mostly along the flowing white robes and bear vibe
but, as already mentioned, no one really considered it blasphomous for
god to be represented by Morgan Freeman, without flowing beard robe or
indeed white skin. After all Jesus himself was not 'white' as such
(although his depiction is often more anglo saxon than he would really
have been).
Most christians belief are radicaly different and range from right
wing and authoratiaran views to libearal to strongly left socialist
beliefs. Some accept evoltion, some don't. Some thing gays are a bad
idea and some are cool with the whole idea.
Stew Dean
[Hammond]
Stew... there IS NO SUCH THING as a "philosophocal
proof or disproof of God". Aquinas published 5 of them in the
Summa 700 years ago, and NONE OF THEM has stood the
test of time.
I do make an exception in the case of women... since a scientific
proof of God is of crucial importance to protecting women and
children from the ills of society. On those grounds I will respond to
ANY inquiry or commentary from women or children, or
from oppressed peoples of any description.
Likewise, I respond to any former evildoers who have somehow
managed to discover the existence of God. And I would suggest
that those discussions are frankly over your head.
====================================
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: "Luba Luft" |
|
| Title: Re: God=G_uv ..An Historical Colloquy |
01 Dec 2004 12:06:27 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 17:46:10 +0000 (UTC), "George Hammond"
<nowhere@nomailspam.net> wrote:
"stew dean" <stewart@webslave.dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2b68957a.0412010806.7014715@posting.google.com...
Luba Luft <luba.luft@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:<k4vqq01lcbmq2v3qud4o547rq771jn52m1@4ax.com>...
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 16:57:51 +0000 (UTC), "George Hammond"
<nowhere@nomailspam.net> wrote:
"Luba Luft" <luba.luft@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:avooq0lm238vh8trc04qafla3oo989bf6g@4ax.com...
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 11:39:39 +0100, Luba Luft <luba.luft@gmx.net>
wrote:
The same could be true for the "Worshippers of Chair" if they came
into existence. What's your point here anyway? Are you trying to say
that as long as enough people believe in something it is true?
Think of the possibilities ...
There are some that thing god is created by belief, if enough people
hold god to be true then there is god. I don't see this as they will
create the perception but not the reality.
Now George what Luba is calmly pointing out is that arguments by
majority don't always work. I will also add that often the cases you
point out are not true - 1.3 billion christians accept multiple
versions of god, mostly along the flowing white robes and bear vibe
but, as already mentioned, no one really considered it blasphomous for
god to be represented by Morgan Freeman, without flowing beard robe or
indeed white skin. After all Jesus himself was not 'white' as such
(although his depiction is often more anglo saxon than he would really
have been).
Most christians belief are radicaly different and range from right
wing and authoratiaran views to libearal to strongly left socialist
beliefs. Some accept evoltion, some don't. Some thing gays are a bad
idea and some are cool with the whole idea.
Stew Dean
[Hammond]
Stew... there IS NO SUCH THING as a "philosophocal
proof or disproof of God". Aquinas published 5 of them in the
Summa 700 years ago, and NONE OF THEM has stood the
test of time.
I do make an exception in the case of women... since a scientific
proof of God is of crucial importance to protecting women and
children from the ills of society. On those grounds I will respond to
ANY inquiry or commentary from women or children, or
from oppressed peoples of any description.
This is an extremely sexist point of view.
Likewise, I respond to any former evildoers who have somehow
managed to discover the existence of God. And I would suggest
that those discussions are frankly over your head.
====================================
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: "George Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: God=G_uv ..An Historical Colloquy |
01 Dec 2004 01:21:04 PM |
|
|
"Luba Luft" <luba.luft@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:pi2sq0l5jtttrc1a7091558vu2q6lbbhmi@4ax.com...
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 17:46:10 +0000 (UTC), "George Hammond"
<nowhere@nomailspam.net> wrote:
"stew dean" <stewart@webslave.dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2b68957a.0412010806.7014715@posting.google.com...
Luba Luft <luba.luft@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:<k4vqq01lcbmq2v3qud4o547rq771jn52m1@4ax.com>...
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 16:57:51 +0000 (UTC), "George Hammond"
<nowhere@nomailspam.net> wrote:
"Luba Luft" <luba.luft@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:avooq0lm238vh8trc04qafla3oo989bf6g@4ax.com...
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 11:39:39 +0100, Luba Luft <luba.luft@gmx.net>
wrote:
The same could be true for the "Worshippers of Chair" if they came
into existence. What's your point here anyway? Are you trying to say
that as long as enough people believe in something it is true?
Think of the possibilities ...
There are some that thing god is created by belief, if enough people
hold god to be true then there is god. I don't see this as they will
create the perception but not the reality.
Now George what Luba is calmly pointing out is that arguments by
majority don't always work. I will also add that often the cases you
point out are not true - 1.3 billion christians accept multiple
versions of god, mostly along the flowing white robes and bear vibe
but, as already mentioned, no one really considered it blasphomous for
god to be represented by Morgan Freeman, without flowing beard robe or
indeed white skin. After all Jesus himself was not 'white' as such
(although his depiction is often more anglo saxon than he would really
have been).
Most christians belief are radicaly different and range from right
wing and authoratiaran views to libearal to strongly left socialist
beliefs. Some accept evoltion, some don't. Some thing gays are a bad
idea and some are cool with the whole idea.
Stew Dean
[Hammond]
Stew... there IS NO SUCH THING as a "philosophocal
proof or disproof of God". Aquinas published 5 of them in the
Summa 700 years ago, and NONE OF THEM has stood the
test of time.
I do make an exception in the case of women... since a scientific
proof of God is of crucial importance to protecting women and
children from the ills of society. On those grounds I will respond to
ANY inquiry or commentary from women or children, or
from oppressed peoples of any description.
This is an extremely sexist point of view.
[Hammond]
I prefer to call it "affirmative action towards women". Besides,
women are only 1/3 of the statement "children and oppressed
people generally" is the other 2/3's. What about them?
BTW, I presume you're German. I see you're using gmx and
posting to NIN in Berlin. Maybe "affirmative action towards
women" might be interpreted as "sexist" in Germany?
Likewise, I respond to any former evildoers who have somehow
managed to discover the existence of God. And I would suggest
that those discussions are frankly over your head.
====================================
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: "Thomas H. Faller" |
|
| Title: Re: God=G_uv ..Nomination for PBAREOTM |
01 Dec 2004 11:01:19 AM |
|
|
stew dean wrote:
Luba Luft <luba.luft@gmx.net> wrote in message news:<k4vqq01lcbmq2v3qud4o547rq771jn52m1@4ax.com>...
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 16:57:51 +0000 (UTC), "George Hammond"
<nowhere@nomailspam.net> wrote:
"Luba Luft" <luba.luft@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:avooq0lm238vh8trc04qafla3oo989bf6g@4ax.com...
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 11:39:39 +0100, Luba Luft <luba.luft@gmx.net>
wrote:
[snip]
What I was trying to say is this:
One can define anything - no matter if it exists or not - in any way.
If I define a chair to be God this chair would be my God.
[Hammond]
As far as I can see all that would do is "rename" the chair
using a 3 letter name instead of a 4 letter name. Unless
you are going to invoke some other meaning to the word
"God" besides "chair".
No, I would still call it Chair. But I could arrange candles around
Chair, pray for a better life etc. And I could accuse anyone of
blasphemy who doesn't worship Chair in a proper way.
The question is how many people share this definition. If enough
people shared my definition, I would have created a new religion - The
Worshippers of Chair. :)
This sort of is my interpretation of Symbolic Interactionism.
[Hammond]
Point is, 1.3-billion Christians tend to point to
the picture of God on the Sisteine Chapel
ceiling and say "there is a picture of God".
1.3-billion is a lot of people to "share a
common description"... which is what we are
talking about.
The same could be true for the "Worshippers of Chair" if they came
into existence. What's your point here anyway? Are you trying to say
that as long as enough people believe in something it is true?
Think of the possibilities ...
There are some that thing god is created by belief, if enough people
hold god to be true then there is god. I don't see this as they will
create the perception but not the reality.
Now George what Luba is calmly pointing out is that arguments by
majority don't always work. I will also add that often the cases you
point out are not true - 1.3 billion christians accept multiple
versions of god, mostly along the flowing white robes and bear vibe
but, as already mentioned, no one really considered it blasphomous for
god to be represented by Morgan Freeman, without flowing beard robe or
indeed white skin. After all Jesus himself was not 'white' as such
(although his depiction is often more anglo saxon than he would really
have been).
Most christians belief are radicaly different and range from right
wing and authoratiaran views to libearal to strongly left socialist
beliefs. Some accept evoltion, some don't. Some thing gays are a bad
idea and some are cool with the whole idea.
Stew Dean
I'd like to nominate Stew Dean for Patience Beyond All Reasonable Expectations
Of The Month.
In this thread and the older GuV threads, he has put up with repeated abuse,
parroted replies, non sequiturs and statements that verge on complete lunacy,
and has persisted in trying to get George to come out from behind his keyboard
and say what he really means.
It's been almost a complete waste of time, as far as clarification goes. In numerous
posts, George only gets deeper into the mysterious, stauchly refusing to discuss
his math or physics, how to verify his theory or what its implications are. All we
get is his insistance that it's Completely Self Evident and based on principles
that Everyone Agrees One, etc...
But it has been a fascinating look at the guy behind the keyboard, in that we've
gotten several biographical and personal details that have been completely
absent from his usual letters. He also winds his way through his visions of
the divine and in an odd way, shows how untouchable his own work is to him -
you can get him to talk about anything else but the stuff on his site.
So although calling attention to the matter may cause the well to dry up, so to
speak, I've been inspired by Stew's patience and ability to take abuse without
returning it, and his persistance to stay on topic in his exchanges and I hope
he can keep George distracted until he gets a real answer from him.
Tom Faller
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: God=G_uv ..Nomination for PBAREOTM |
01 Dec 2004 12:35:46 PM |
|
|
"Thomas H. Faller" <faller@sgi.com> wrote in message
news:41ADFC48.34F599B@sgi.com...
stew dean wrote:
Luba Luft <luba.luft@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:<k4vqq01lcbmq2v3qud4o547rq771jn52m1@4ax.com>...
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 16:57:51 +0000 (UTC), "George Hammond"
<nowhere@nomailspam.net> wrote:
"Luba Luft" <luba.luft@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:avooq0lm238vh8trc04qafla3oo989bf6g@4ax.com...
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 11:39:39 +0100, Luba Luft <luba.luft@gmx.net>
wrote:
[snip]
What I was trying to say is this:
One can define anything - no matter if it exists or not - in any
way.
If I define a chair to be God this chair would be my God.
[Hammond]
As far as I can see all that would do is "rename" the chair
using a 3 letter name instead of a 4 letter name. Unless
you are going to invoke some other meaning to the word
"God" besides "chair".
No, I would still call it Chair. But I could arrange candles around
Chair, pray for a better life etc. And I could accuse anyone of
blasphemy who doesn't worship Chair in a proper way.
The question is how many people share this definition. If enough
people shared my definition, I would have created a new religion -
The
Worshippers of Chair. :)
This sort of is my interpretation of Symbolic Interactionism.
[Hammond]
Point is, 1.3-billion Christians tend to point to
the picture of God on the Sisteine Chapel
ceiling and say "there is a picture of God".
1.3-billion is a lot of people to "share a
common description"... which is what we are
talking about.
The same could be true for the "Worshippers of Chair" if they came
into existence. What's your point here anyway? Are you trying to say
that as long as enough people believe in something it is true?
Think of the possibilities ...
There are some that thing god is created by belief, if enough people
hold god to be true then there is god. I don't see this as they will
create the perception but not the reality.
Now George what Luba is calmly pointing out is that arguments by
majority don't always work. I will also add that often the cases you
point out are not true - 1.3 billion christians accept multiple
versions of god, mostly along the flowing white robes and bear vibe
but, as already mentioned, no one really considered it blasphomous for
god to be represented by Morgan Freeman, without flowing beard robe or
indeed white skin. After all Jesus himself was not 'white' as such
(although his depiction is often more anglo saxon than he would really
have been).
Most christians belief are radicaly different and range from right
wing and authoratiaran views to libearal to strongly left socialist
beliefs. Some accept evoltion, some don't. Some thing gays are a bad
idea and some are cool with the whole idea.
Stew Dean
I'd like to nominate Stew Dean for Patience Beyond All Reasonable
Expectations
Of The Month.
In this thread and the older GuV threads, he has put up with repeated
abuse,
parroted replies, non sequiturs and statements that verge on complete
lunacy,
and has persisted in trying to get George to come out from behind his
keyboard
and say what he really means.
It's been almost a complete waste of time, as far as clarification goes.
In numerous
posts, George only gets deeper into the mysterious, stauchly refusing to
discuss
his math or physics, how to verify his theory or what its implications
are. All we
get is his insistance that it's Completely Self Evident and based on
principles
that Everyone Agrees One, etc...
But it has been a fascinating look at the guy behind the keyboard, in that
we've
gotten several biographical and personal details that have been completely
absent from his usual letters. He also winds his way through his visions
of
the divine and in an odd way, shows how untouchable his own work is to
him -
you can get him to talk about anything else but the stuff on his site.
So although calling attention to the matter may cause the well to dry up,
so to
speak, I've been inspired by Stew's patience and ability to take abuse
without
returning it, and his persistance to stay on topic in his exchanges and I
hope
he can keep George distracted until he gets a real answer from him.
Tom Faller
[Hammond]
Your point is well taken. There is something remarkable about
Stew Dean's approach to this controversy.
The way I read it is this:
1. Stew Dean is probably a Republican.. altho probably not by
choice. More or less in a position where the Republican
right can claim him any time they want to.
2. He claims he is an atheist, but he doesn't sound like one,
and even claims he's a "liberal". However, with a name
like Stew Dean, and considering his "politeness from
authority" type of demeanor... my suspicion is that
the "Evangelical republican right" which is now in
power politically, must be pulling on him like a magnet
on a piece of soft iron.
3. So... the upshot is that "Stew Dean" is in a pickle... he's
cought between the Evangelical Right Wing who can claim
him at any time, and his Left wing leanings of calling
himself a "liberal"... and being an "atheist" (certainly
an anathema to the Evangelical Republican Right".
4. The upshot is that Stew is in big political trouble... and
apparently, he has grown suspicious that Hammond's
SPOG may be at ground zero of his problem... and
that HE better be one of the first ones to find out what it is!
Now... I'm not saying that he KNOWS all of this... I'm just
saying that this is the "invisible world" that is breathing down his
neck and motivating him. I'm sure, as usual, he would catagorically
deny everything i've said.... that's his style... to deny everything
that Hammond says on sight. Point is... he, politically, CAN'T
agree with me... on the other hand, he doesn't want to see
me get crucified either... at least not until he finds out what
it is... at least not while there is any chance that what I
have discovered can take the heat off of him, personally
and socially.
Anyway.. it's now beginning to become apparent to me
that "Stew Dean"... or more likely someone like him... is
ultimately going to be the political key that unlocks the political
gridlock that now has Hammond's SPOG in a vice. And
the key to all this is the present ascendancy of the
Evangelical right wing, which presently controls the White
House and the Congress. They are going to find somone,
who has at least one foot in their camp, to talk to Hammond
(who is a Democrat btw), and get to the bottom of SPOG
in case it's a major piece of ammo that can forward their agenda
(which it is, even tho GH is a Democrat and believes that
his discovery will "float all boats").
That's my read on "Stew Dean"..... based mainly
on his high profile name, and his "unnerving politeness"-
the rather unusual circumstance that you mentioned.
====================================
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: "stew dean" |
|
| Title: Re: God=G_uv ..Nomination for PBAREOTM |
02 Dec 2004 03:19:57 PM |
|
|
"George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.net> wrote in message news:<Rnord.404$Va5.362@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
"Thomas H. Faller" <faller@sgi.com> wrote in message
news:41ADFC48.34F599B@sgi.com...
stew dean wrote:
Luba Luft <luba.luft@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:<k4vqq01lcbmq2v3qud4o547rq771jn52m1@4ax.com>...
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 16:57:51 +0000 (UTC), "George Hammond"
<nowhere@nomailspam.net> wrote:
"Luba Luft" <luba.luft@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:avooq0lm238vh8trc04qafla3oo989bf6g@4ax.com...
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 11:39:39 +0100, Luba Luft <luba.luft@gmx.net>
wrote:
[snip]
What I was trying to say is this:
One can define anything - no matter if it exists or not - in any
way.
If I define a chair to be God this chair would be my God.
[Hammond]
As far as I can see all that would do is "rename" the chair
using a 3 letter name instead of a 4 letter name. Unless
you are going to invoke some other meaning to the word
"God" besides "chair".
No, I would still call it Chair. But I could arrange candles around
Chair, pray for a better life etc. And I could accuse anyone of
blasphemy who doesn't worship Chair in a proper way.
The question is how many people share this definition. If enough
people shared my definition, I would have created a new religion -
The
Worshippers of Chair. :)
This sort of is my interpretation of Symbolic Interactionism.
[Hammond]
Point is, 1.3-billion Christians tend to point to
the picture of God on the Sisteine Chapel
ceiling and say "there is a picture of God".
1.3-billion is a lot of people to "share a
common description"... which is what we are
talking about.
The same could be true for the "Worshippers of Chair" if they came
into existence. What's your point here anyway? Are you trying to say
that as long as enough people believe in something it is true?
Think of the possibilities ...
There are some that thing god is created by belief, if enough people
hold god to be true then there is god. I don't see this as they will
create the perception but not the reality.
Now George what Luba is calmly pointing out is that arguments by
majority don't always work. I will also add that often the cases you
point out are not true - 1.3 billion christians accept multiple
versions of god, mostly along the flowing white robes and bear vibe
but, as already mentioned, no one really considered it blasphomous for
god to be represented by Morgan Freeman, without flowing beard robe or
indeed white skin. After all Jesus himself was not 'white' as such
(although his depiction is often more anglo saxon than he would really
have been).
Most christians belief are radicaly different and range from right
wing and authoratiaran views to libearal to strongly left socialist
beliefs. Some accept evoltion, some don't. Some thing gays are a bad
idea and some are cool with the whole idea.
Stew Dean
I'd like to nominate Stew Dean for Patience Beyond All Reasonable
Expectations
Of The Month.
In this thread and the older GuV threads, he has put up with repeated
abuse,
parroted replies, non sequiturs and statements that verge on complete
lunacy,
and has persisted in trying to get George to come out from behind his
keyboard
and say what he really means.
It's been almost a complete waste of time, as far as clarification goes.
In numerous
posts, George only gets deeper into the mysterious, stauchly refusing to
discuss
his math or physics, how to verify his theory or what its implications
are. All we
get is his insistance that it's Completely Self Evident and based on
principles
that Everyone Agrees One, etc...
But it has been a fascinating look at the guy behind the keyboard, in that
we've
gotten several biographical and personal details that have been completely
absent from his usual letters. He also winds his way through his visions
of
the divine and in an odd way, shows how untouchable his own work is to
him -
you can get him to talk about anything else but the stuff on his site.
So although calling attention to the matter may cause the well to dry up,
so to
speak, I've been inspired by Stew's patience and ability to take abuse
without
returning it, and his persistance to stay on topic in his exchanges and I
hope
he can keep George distracted until he gets a real answer from him.
Tom Faller
[Hammond]
Your point is well taken. There is something remarkable about
Stew Dean's approach to this controversy.
The way I read it is this:
1. Stew Dean is probably a Republican.. altho probably not by
choice. More or less in a position where the Republican
right can claim him any time they want to.
They don't have republicans in the UK.
2. He claims he is an atheist, but he doesn't sound like one,
What does an athiest sound like to you.
and even claims he's a "liberal".
Yep.
However, with a name
like Stew Dean,
YOu can't tell which way someone will vote from their name!
and considering his "politeness from
authority" type of demeanor...
That comes partly from from my job - and the odd debate (debating
rules are great - they let you get to the meat of a matter, like
intellectual tennis).
my suspicion is that
the "Evangelical republican right" which is now in
power politically, must be pulling on him like a magnet
on a piece of soft iron.
Not here they're not.
3. So... the upshot is that "Stew Dean" is in a pickle... he's
cought between the Evangelical Right Wing who can claim
him at any time, and his Left wing leanings of calling
himself a "liberal"...
Liberal is not left wing in the UK (although consdering the
alternatives....)
and being an "atheist" (certainly
an anathema to the Evangelical Republican Right".
I'm happy they're only in some parts of the US.
4. The upshot is that Stew is in big political trouble...
Well if you're going to get something wrong.
and
apparently, he has grown suspicious that Hammond's
SPOG may be at ground zero of his problem...
??
and that HE better be one of the first ones to find out what it is!
But I know what it is - as do others. Can you guess what we think?
Now... I'm not saying that he KNOWS all of this... I'm just
saying that this is the "invisible world" that is breathing down his
neck and motivating him.
You'd never make a psychologist.
I'm sure, as usual, he would catagorically
deny everything i've said.... that's his style... to deny everything
that Hammond says on sight.
Only the stuff Hammon gets wrong.
Point is... he, politically, CAN'T
agree with me...
I can't logically agree with you. I'm open to 'what if scenarios' and
on that degree I'm far more likely to believe in god than suspend my
disbelief in a nonsensical argument. Born again athiest remember.
on the other hand, he doesn't want to see
me get crucified either...
You have been well and truely crucified already. I'm contemplating
what could happen if suddenly you realise everything you know is
wrong. You of course have now latched on to 'secular trend' which I
got wrong for years right?
at least not until he finds out what
it is... at least not while there is any chance that what I
have discovered can take the heat off of him, personally
and socially.
Anyone?
Anyway.. it's now beginning to become apparent to me
that "Stew Dean"... or more likely someone like him... is
ultimately going to be the political key that unlocks the political
gridlock that now has Hammond's SPOG in a vice.
George. SPOG is a delusional rant. I could come up with a better proof
of god than you as it would have some kind of logic although
ultimately would be rubbish - instead you manage to avoid logic like
someone dodging raindrops.
And
the key to all this is the present ascendancy of the
Evangelical right wing, which presently controls the White
House and the Congress.
.... in the US. Like hellooooo.
They are going to find somone,
who has at least one foot in their camp, to talk to Hammond
(who is a Democrat btw), and get to the bottom of SPOG
in case it's a major piece of ammo that can forward their agenda
(which it is, even tho GH is a Democrat and believes that
his discovery will "float all boats").
Nope.
That's my read on "Stew Dean"..... based mainly
on his high profile name, and his "unnerving politeness"-
the rather unusual circumstance that you mentioned.
High profile? Nope. At least not yet. I'm also not omnipresent either.
Have some more guesses about me - like what do I do for a living -
where do I live - what's my favourite food - what music do I listen
to.
I'll be 100% honest with you and tell you if you get even warm.
Stew Dean
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: God=G_uv FOR DUMMYS |
12 Dec 2004 01:09:07 AM |
|
|
"Fencingsax" <christocbd@aol.com> wrote in
message news:1102829796.642553.108820@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Does this mean that all people that die as children (i.e. before age
18) go to Hell, because they don't technically have God in their souls?
[dnommaH]
?ti t'nsi ,tuo erugif ot uoy dna wonk ot em rof s'tahT
====================================
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: "George Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: God=G_uv FOR DUMMYS |
18 Dec 2004 08:06:01 PM |
|
|
"stew dean" <stewart@webslave.dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1103357758.790591.78190@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
George Hammond wrote:
"C.J.W." <watt2020@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:41C3CE1E.E1F4B805@bellatlantic.net...
If God can be represented by a sure mathematical equation of every
single
person's mind, then what of atheists? How do they escape God=G_uv?
--
--W
[Hammond]
They DON'T ESCAPE God=G_uv.
They only escape knowing about it!
(What you don't know won't hurt you)
The problem is, what you don't know
can't help you either.
This leads to an abvious question - what difference does God=G_uv make?
What technology can be glean from this? Usualy a sceintific theory has
a direct practical use or has an indirect implication on other
scientific research.
Can you give some examples of these? I'm not interested in the general
'it will change the world' type statements you have made previously. I
would appreciate something more down to earth and objective.
Stew Dean
[Hammond]
We all appreciate that a small mind like yours would hardly
be interested in the fact that the SPOG will "change the world",
after all that is the purview of historic intellectuals such as myself,
and people like the Pope, the president of the United States
etc. .. hardly a concern of an amateur such as you.
Of more interst to you is the "thrills and chills" that might
emerge from it which migh serve to fascinate and entertain you...
you can leave the saving of the starving billions to the big boys.
On that front... probably the most dramatically fascinating
thing to emerge from it is "visual religion". I'm talking about
virtual reality devices which will alter your perception of
reality itself. Virtual reality can esily provide this... the problem
is that without a "theory of invisible reality" the devices remain
simply toys.
The "invisible world" is the central fact of human existence,
and is at the root of all human success and failure, and human
competition. (e.g. God). So far Man has had only the very
crudest hadmade tools to explore this invisible world....
Artists are the first line of attack historically... they can (after
a fashion) draw and paint it, more recently Hollywood and
Television have made inroads into it with animation, movie
stars, makeup, stage props, computer aided special effects
etc.... some of it quite impressive. However... ALL of it
is based on "human intuition and imagination"... the work of
a few geniuses... there never has been any "hard scientific
theory of it". Now, with God=G_uv, it is possible, at
least in principle to make a REAL PENETRATION into
the invisible world using computer programmed "virtual
reality" devices. These devices will eventually be able
to "take you straight to Heaven"... to actually allow you
to "see the real world"...... and ESPECIALLY to see what
(who) other people really are... and even see who YOU
really are.
There is no doubt that these devices will replace the
psychiatrists couch, will propel psychology, and even
religion into a brave new world.. an era of the perception
and knowlege of LIFE such as has never been known
before in the world. I wouldn't doubt that it could probably
wipe out crime... simply by showing a criminal where he actually
is.. and what the world actually is. It certainly will be a
godsend in the treatment of the mentally disturbed. But
beyond that.... it will surely transform normal society..
everybody since the beginning of Religion has been
dreaming of and talking about the "Grand Miracle".. the
actual appearnace of God on Earth and the appearance
of Kingdom Come before our eyes.... well... when these
virtual reality devices are perfected.. and programmed with
God=G_uv... we are going to:
ACTUALLY "SEE" THE KINGDOM OF GOD DESCEND
FROM HEAVEN AND APPEAR ON EARTH.... even if it
is only in a virtual reality and not in physical reality....
believe me... just getting a look at it will be a major miracle!
Believe me, it will make Cecile B. Demille look like a
old fashoined silent movie.
====================================
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: "George Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: God=G_uv ..Nomination for PBAREOTM |
02 Dec 2004 05:31:42 PM |
|
|
"stew dean" <stewart@webslave.dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2b68957a.0412021332.6e06214e@posting.google.com...
"George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.net> wrote in message
news:<Rnord.404$Va5.362@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
"Thomas H. Faller" <faller@sgi.com> wrote in message
news:41ADFC48.34F599B@sgi.com...
stew dean wrote:
Luba Luft <luba.luft@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:<k4vqq01lcbmq2v3qud4o547rq771jn52m1@4ax.com>...
<snip... cheaptalk>
[Hammond]
Your point is well taken. There is something remarkable about
Stew Dean's approach to this controversy.
The way I read it is this:
1. Stew Dean is probably a Republican.. altho probably not by
choice. More or less in a position where the Republican
right can claim him any time they want to.
They don't have republicans in the UK.
[Hammond]
We've been over this before... ALL political parties
are either "Left wing" or "Right wing".
In England the right wing is called "the conservative
party", and the Left wing is called "the Labor party".
<snip... cheaptalk>
You'd never make a psychologist.
[Hammond]
Having discovered the world's first scientific proof
of God, I'm de facto the world's leading psychologist
right now.... successor to Sigmund Freud!
God=G_uv, the envy of every physicist, psychologist
and theologian in the world was discovered an published
by GEORGE HAMMOND!
<snip... cheaptalk>
George. SPOG is a delusional rant.
[Hammond]
No.... you're denial of SPOG, is a delusional rant.
<snip... cheaptalk>
Stew Dean
====================================
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: "fencingsax" |
|
| Title: Re: God=G_uv ..Nomination for PBAREOTM |
02 Dec 2004 09:07:26 PM |
|
|
"George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.net> wrote in message news:<mPNrd.1639$714.39@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
"stew dean" <stewart@webslave.dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2b68957a.0412021332.6e06214e@posting.google.com...
"George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.net> wrote in message
news:<Rnord.404$Va5.362@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
"Thomas H. Faller" <faller@sgi.com> wrote in message
news:41ADFC48.34F599B@sgi.com...
stew dean wrote:
Luba Luft <luba.luft@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:<k4vqq01lcbmq2v3qud4o547rq771jn52m1@4ax.com>...
<snip... cheaptalk>
[Hammond]
Your point is well taken. There is something remarkable about
Stew Dean's approach to this controversy.
The way I read it is this:
1. Stew Dean is probably a Republican.. altho probably not by
choice. More or less in a position where the Republican
right can claim him any time they want to.
They don't have republicans in the UK.
[Hammond]
We've been over this before... ALL political parties
are either "Left wing" or "Right wing".
In England the right wing is called "the conservative
party", and the Left wing is called "the Labor party".
<snip... cheaptalk>
Yes, so there are no republicans. Thanks for affirming this.
You'd never make a psychologist.
I doubt many of us here have the qualifications to be a psychiatrist.
[Hammond]
Having discovered the world's first scientific proof
of God, I'm de facto the world's leading psychologist
right now.... successor to Sigmund Freud!
God=G_uv, the envy of every physicist, psychologist
and theologian in the world was discovered an published
by GEORGE HAMMOND!
Wow, this isn't an arrogant rant of bull. By the way, how did you
prove God scientifically? How does God fit in with the rest of
science? Why hasn't God exploded in a puff of Logic. (since proof and
evidence destroys faith). And why does God only invovle the forces G,
u, and v? What about all the other forces in the universe? Since God
is everything, doesn't that require a bit more complicated a proof? I
highly doubt the supreme, all knowing being equals G_uv.
<snip... cheaptalk>
George. SPOG is a delusional rant.
[Hammond]
No.... you're denial of SPOG, is a delusional rant.
Not really. God cannot be scientifically proven, because his
influence cannot be proven. We don't see how he affects any part of
the phyical universe. You could make the arguement God= Quantum
force, and be more correct.
By the way are there more than one proofs of God? How was it an
accident that you came up with it? How is the discovery of God
psychological? How does a tiny amount of Gravity affect electricity?
By the way, please relabel your figures. You label Fig2 as Fig7. (the
faces one) The figure has absolutely nothing to do with anything
except drawing, and you create whole personalities our of one
expression.
By the way, the idea that the knowledge of this improves mental
health is ludicrous. The mind electric. Tiny amounts of Gravity
don't affect it. We know this because people in outside the atmosphere
act in generally the same way they did on earth.
The Bible is not a scientific text, so it really shouldn't be used as
a source.
you have some stuff you need to edit out. "Speed correlates with
time" is kind of a given, what with the definition of speed and all.
Assuming that the God is the Judeo-xtian one is highly arrogant. Also,
why only human brains. Most of the brains in the world are not human.
I don't understand what you mean by man is developing according to the
Secular Trend. You give the higher standard of living, especially
nutrition as a reason. This is true. It means we have more energy to
grow.
This is intersting, because I though specific intelligence had nothing
to do with brain size. And adults are always 100% grown. There is a
point were average size will stop increasing, but every adult is 100%
grown.
With figure 1, I don't understand where your proof is coming from. Who
theorized our size that way? Who measured our actual size that way?
How can God be caused by something?
Your age levels are definitely arbitrary. It is well known that
people develop at different times, and at different speeds. So people
grow at different times, and 18 is an arbitrary age.
You don't define the orders of intelligence well. How does how much
people can see with age, once their eyes start working? You never
actually established a connection between Gravity and the human brain,
as opposed to all the other brains.
Again, how can God be caused by something? I thought he was the
creator. You have a lot of tenses wrong. The equation reflects the
quadratic metric exists, not the equation created a quadratic metric.
(meter?)
"It is for this reason, that Nature uses the Cartesian Body Plan for
all (multicellular) plants and animals including Man." makes no sense.
Nature isn't a calculator. These things happen because they are
simple shapes, not because of some graphing method.
Are you suggesting Nature knows(and I mean knows) complex
triginometry, calculus, graphing styles, etc?
How is a human simply and only a Cartesian machine? Aren't we a bit
more complex than that?
More to come later, maybe.
<snip... cheaptalk>
Stew Dean
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Hammond" |
|
| Title: Re: God=G_uv ..Nomination for PBAREOTM |
02 Dec 2004 10:29:01 PM |
|
|
"fencingsax" <christocbd@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c1aaf5a4.0412021921.a595f2b@posting.google.com...
"George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.net> wrote in message
news:<mPNrd.1639$714.39@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
"stew dean" <stewart@webslave.dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2b68957a.0412021332.6e06214e@posting.google.com...
"George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.net> wrote in message
news:<Rnord.404$Va5.362@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
"Thomas H. Faller" <faller@sgi.com> wrote in message
news:41ADFC48.34F599B@sgi.com...
stew dean wrote:
Luba Luft <luba.luft@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:<k4vqq01lcbmq2v3qud4o547rq771jn52m1@4ax.com>...
<snip... cheaptalk>
[Hammond]
Your point is well taken. There is something remarkable about
Stew Dean's approach to this controversy.
The way I read it is this:
1. Stew Dean is probably a Republican.. altho probably not by
choice. More or less in a position where the Republican
right can claim him any time they want to.
They don't have republicans in the UK.
[Hammond]
We've been over this before... ALL political parties
are either "Left wing" or "Right wing".
In England the right wing is called "the conservative
party", and the Left wing is called "the Labor party".
<snip... cheaptalk>
Yes, so there are no republicans. Thanks for affirming this.
You'd never make a psychologist.
I doubt many of us here have the qualifications to be a psychiatrist.
[Hammond]
Having discovered the world's first scientific proof
of God, I'm de facto the world's leading psychologist
right now.... successor to Sigmund Freud!
God=G_uv, the envy of every physicist, psychologist
and theologian in the world was discovered an published
by GEORGE HAMMOND!
[fencingsax]
Wow, this isn't an arrogant rant of bull. By the way, how did you
prove God scientifically? How does God fit in with the rest of
science? Why hasn't God exploded in a puff of Logic. (since proof and
evidence destroys faith). And why does God only invovle the forces G,
u, and v? What about all the other forces in the universe? Since God
is everything, doesn't that require a bit more complicated a proof? I
highly doubt the supreme, all knowing being equals G_uv.
<snip... cheaptalk>
George. SPOG is a delusional rant.
[Hammond]
No.... you're denial of SPOG, is a delusional rant.
[fencingsax]
Not really. God cannot be scientifically proven, because his
influence cannot be proven. We don't see how he affects any part of
the phyical universe. You could make the arguement God= Quantum
force, and be more correct.
By the way are there more than one proofs of God? How was it an
accident that you came up with it? How is the discovery of God
psychological? How does a tiny amount of Gravity affect electricity?
By the way, please relabel your figures. You label Fig2 as Fig7. (the
faces one) The figure has absolutely nothing to do with anything
except drawing, and you create whole personalities our of one
expression.
By the way, the idea that the knowledge of this improves mental
health is ludicrous. The mind electric. Tiny amounts of Gravity
don't affect it. We know this because people in outside the atmosphere
act in generally the same way they did on earth.
The Bible is not a scientific text, so it really shouldn't be used as
a source.
you have some stuff you need to edit out. "Speed correlates with
time" is kind of a given, what with the definition of speed and all.
Assuming that the God is the Judeo-xtian one is highly arrogant. Also,
why only human brains. Most of the brains in the world are not human.
I don't understand what you mean by man is developing according to the
Secular Trend. You give the higher standard of living, especially
nutrition as a reason. This is true. It means we have more energy to
grow.
This is intersting, because I though specific intelligence had nothing
to do with brain size. And adults are always 100% grown. There is a
point were average size will stop increasing, but every adult is 100%
grown.
With figure 1, I don't understand where your proof is coming from. Who
theorized our size that way? Who measured our actual size that way?
How can God be caused by something?
Your age levels are definitely arbitrary. It is well known that
people develop at different times, and at different speeds. So people
grow at different times, and 18 is an arbitrary age.
You don't define the orders of intelligence well. How does how much
people can see with age, once their eyes start working? You never
actually established a connection between Gravity and the human brain,
as opposed to all the other brains.
Again, how can God be caused by something? I thought he was the
creator. You have a lot of tenses wrong. The equation reflects the
quadratic metric exists, not the equation created a quadratic metric.
(meter?)
"It is for this reason, that Nature uses the Cartesian Body Plan for
all (multicellular) plants and animals including Man." makes no sense.
Nature isn't a calculator. These things happen because they are
simple shapes, not because of some graphing method.
Are you suggesting Nature knows(and I mean knows) complex
triginometry, calculus, graphing styles, etc?
How is a human simply and only a Cartesian machine? Aren't we a bit
more complex than that?
More to come later, maybe.
[Hammond]
You're "almost but not quite" serious enough for me to respond to.
However, obviously you think all this is an "academic game" or
something. I can't waste my time talking to such fatuous people.
You simply aren't abused, oppressed, desperate or serious
enough to be of interest.
BUT, you have given me an idea. Perhaps I've been talking to the
wrong people.... I mean I've tried to reach the "intelligensia" and
the "academics".... maybe I've been looking in the wrong place
for someone serious. Maybe I should be looking for peope who
know what abuse, oppression, persecution and struggle actually
are.... rather than mod squad hip style fat lipped academics who
want to discus "philaaawsephy" and math games and who don't
have a CLUE as to what God is.... or what those 1.3 billion Christians
have been talking about for the past 2000 years.
I've tried the Jews of course... but the problem there is they
simply CAN'T support a scientific proof of God under any
circumstances... simply for fear of initiating another Holocaust...
can't blame them for that... Jesus discovered the same thing
2000 years ago. It's impossible to make Israel an offer it
can't refuse, that's obvious.
On the other hand... maybe I should be trying sinners... you
know.. what about that crazy bomb guy... Kazinski... he's got
a PhD in mathematics and is doing a life stretch somewhere...
I wonder if he has an email address... maybe he would consider
coming out of retirement and using his PhD for something useful
rather than blowing up people trying to save the Redwoods?
I mean a guy like that who owes a debt to society, might figure
he could cop some positive karma by helping to deliver the
world's first SPOG to the world?
Or what about some terminally ill PhD physicist dying of
inoperable colon Cancer.... maybe someone like that would be
willing to give this thing an honest to God serious review? If a
guy had a Phd in physics and only 6 months to live.... this would
be the ideal opportunity to mail his personal calling card to every
person on Earth. I'm absolutely serious!
And there are others who come to mind. There must be
physicists somewhere on Earth who were born in Third World
countries and have relatives or kinsman and certainly fellow
countrymen living in poverty and oppression.... maybe they
would have a more serious attitude about a scientific breakthrough
in world religion than your average "oh so wise and skeptical"
American physicist.
Maybe there are some newsgroups that would enable me to
contact some of these more serious people... basically
anyone who isn't a wiseass.... ; you know what I mean?
====================================
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: "fencingsax" |
|
| Title: Re: God=G_uv ..Nomination for PBAREOTM |
03 Dec 2004 09:07:30 AM |
|
|
"George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.net> wrote in message news:<2aSrd.1906$714.874@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
"fencingsax" <christocbd@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c1aaf5a4.0412021921.a595f2b@posting.google.com...
"George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.net> wrote in message
news:<mPNrd.1639$714.39@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
"stew dean" <stewart@webslave.dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2b68957a.0412021332.6e06214e@posting.google.com...
"George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.net> wrote in message
news:<Rnord.404$Va5.362@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
"Thomas H. Faller" <faller@sgi.com> wrote in message
news:41ADFC48.34F599B@sgi.com...
stew dean wrote:
Luba Luft <luba.luft@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:<k4vqq01lcbmq2v3qud4o547rq771jn52m1@4ax.com>...
<snip... cheaptalk>
[Hammond]
Your point is well taken. There is something remarkable about
Stew Dean's approach to this controversy.
The way I read it is this:
1. Stew Dean is probably a Republican.. altho probably not by
choice. More or less in a position where the Republican
right can claim him any time they want to.
They don't have republicans in the UK.
[Hammond]
We've been over this before... ALL political parties
are either "Left wing" or "Right wing".
In England the right wing is called "the conservative
party", and the Left wing is called "the Labor party".
<snip... cheaptalk>
Yes, so there are no republicans. Thanks for affirming this.
You'd never make a psychologist.
I doubt many of us here have the qualifications to be a psychiatrist.
[Hammond]
Having discovered the world's first scientific proof
of God, I'm de facto the world's leading psychologist
right now.... successor to Sigmund Freud!
God=G_uv, the envy of every physicist, psychologist
and theologian in the world was discovered an published
by GEORGE HAMMOND!
[fencingsax]
Wow, this isn't an arrogant rant of bull. By the way, how did you
prove God scientifically? How does God fit in with the rest of
science? Why hasn't God exploded in a puff of Logic. (since proof and
evidence destroys faith). And why does God only invovle the forces G,
u, and v? What about all the other forces in the universe? Since God
is everything, doesn't that require a bit more complicated a proof? I
highly doubt the supreme, all knowing being equals G_uv.
<snip... cheaptalk>
George. SPOG is a delusional rant.
[Hammond]
No.... you're denial of SPOG, is a delusional rant.
[fencingsax]
Not really. God cannot be scientifically proven, because his
influence cannot be proven. We don't see how he affects any part of
the phyical universe. You could make the arguement God= Quantum
force, and be more correct.
By the way are there more than one proofs of God? How was it an
accident that you came up with it? How is the discovery of God
psychological? How does a tiny amount of Gravity affect electricity?
By the way, please relabel your figures. You label Fig2 as Fig7. (the
faces one) The figure has absolutely nothing to do with anything
except drawing, and you create whole personalities our of one
expression.
By the way, the idea that the knowledge of this improves mental
health is ludicrous. The mind electric. Tiny amounts of Gravity
don't affect it. We know this because people in outside the atmosphere
act in generally the same way they did on earth.
The Bible is not a scientific text, so it really shouldn't be used as
a source.
you have some stuff you need to edit out. "Speed correlates with
time" is kind of a given, what with the definition of speed and all.
Assuming that the God is the Judeo-xtian one is highly arrogant. Also,
why only human brains. Most of the brains in the world are not human.
I don't understand what you mean by man is developing according to the
Secular Trend. You give the higher standard of living, especially
nutrition as a reason. This is true. It means we have more energy to
grow.
This is intersting, because I though specific intelligence had nothing
to do with brain size. And adults are always 100% grown. There is a
point were average size will stop increasing, but every adult is 100%
grown.
With figure 1, I don't understand where your proof is coming from. Who
theorized our size that way? Who measured our actual size that way?
How can God be caused by something?
Your age levels are definitely arbitrary. It is well known that
people develop at different times, and at different speeds. So people
grow at different times, and 18 is an arbitrary age.
You don't define the orders of intelligence well. How does how much
people can see with age, once their eyes start working? You never
actually established a connection between Gravity and the human brain,
as opposed to all the other brains.
Again, how can God be caused by something? I thought he was the
creator. You have a lot of tenses wrong. The equation reflects the
quadratic metric exists, not the equation created a quadratic metric.
(meter?)
"It is for this reason, that Nature uses the Cartesian Body Plan for
all (multicellular) plants and animals including Man." makes no sense.
Nature isn't a calculator. These things happen because they are
simple shapes, not because of some graphing method.
Are you suggesting Nature knows(and I mean knows) complex
triginometry, calculus, graphing styles, etc?
How is a human simply and only a Cartesian machine? Aren't we a bit
more complex than that?
More to come later, maybe.
[Hammond]
You're "almost but not quite" serious enough for me to respond to.
However, obviously you think all this is an "academic game" or
something. I can't waste my time talking to such fatuous people.
You simply aren't abused, oppressed, desperate or serious
enough to be of interest.
Excuse me? How am I not quite serious enough? I gave you serious
questions about your paper. The least you could do, if you want to be
taken seriously is answer them. This isn't a game. Again, I am
serious. My questions were serious questions.
BUT, you have given me an idea. Perhaps I've been talking to the
wrong people.... I mean I've tried to reach the "intelligensia" and
the "academics".... maybe I've been looking in the wrong place
for someone serious.
Like from who? How will you be taken seriously, if you won't answer
valid questions about your paper? How will it be taken
scientifically, if you don't give it it to the academics?
Maybe I should be looking for peope who
know what abuse, oppression, persecution and struggle actually
are
Why? How would they be qualified to judge your paper? Just because
they've been through a lot, doesn't give them expertise, by any means.
You are roding your position.
.... rather than mod squad hip style fat lipped academics who
want to discus "philaaawsephy" and math games and who don't
have a CLUE as to what God is.... or what those 1.3 billion Christians
have been talking about for the past 2000 years.
More arrogance? You think you know more about philosophy than those
who actually have degrees in it? I highly doubt that. You think you
know more about God (and the Bible) than those who went and graduated
from Seminary? Ha. and again I say Ha! ad hom noted, by the way.
I've tried the Jews of course... but the problem there is they
simply CAN'T support a scientific proof of God under any
circumstances... simply for fear of initiating another Holocaust...
can't blame them for that... Jesus discovered the same thing
2000 years ago. It's impossible to make Israel an offer it
can't refuse, that's obvious.
This makes no sense of course. You didn't try the 'Jews'. You tried
the academics. The people with the knowledge to judge your paper.
Your ramblings about the Holocaust make no sense. And Jesus wasn't
killed because he was the Messiah, so much as Rome was afraid of him.
You sent this to who in Israel? What Journals? How were they
qualified?
On the other hand... maybe I should be trying sinners... you
know.. what about that crazy bomb guy... Kazinski... he's got
a PhD in mathematics and is doing a life stretch somewhere...
I wonder if he has an email address... maybe he would consider
coming out of retirement and using his PhD for something useful
rather than blowing up people trying to save the Redwoods?
I mean a guy like that who owes a debt to society, might figure
he could cop some positive karma by helping to deliver the
world's first SPOG to the world?
Right...
Or what about some terminally ill PhD physicist dying of
inoperable colon Cancer.... maybe someone like that would be
willing to give this thing an honest to God serious review? If a
guy had a Phd in physics and only 6 months to live.... this would
be the ideal opportunity to mail his personal calling card to every
person on Earth. I'm absolutely serious!
I think they might have better to do than review your paper. And who
are you claiming hasn't given this a serious review? The paper itself
isn't written all that well. See my questions above for some
composition comments, as well as so substance comments.
And there are others who come to mind. There must be
physicists somewhere on Earth who were born in Third World
countries and have relatives or kinsman and certainly fellow
countrymen living in poverty and oppression.... maybe they
would have a more serious attitude about a scientific breakthrough
in world religion than your average "oh so wise and skeptical"
American physicist.
I doubt any of them have the qualifications to review your paper. You
seem to think an religious shmoe can review this thing, when in
reality it would take someone wih at least a PhD in Physics. I do not
have one, but my questions are still valid, because if you can't
explain my simple questions, how do you expect to be taken seriously?
I don't think I asked anything that would take a PhD to understand,
but again they are still valid. Like How can God be cause by anything?
Maybe there are some newsgroups that would enable me to
contact some of these more serious people... basically
anyone who isn't a wiseass.... ; you know what I mean?
More serious? Right...
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Hammond" |
|
| Title: God=G_uv FOR DUMMYS |
03 Dec 2004 06:17:52 PM |
|
|
"fencingsax" <christocbd@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c1aaf5a4.0412030722.546335c1@posting.google.com...
<snip... rubbish>
[fencingsax]
Not really. God cannot be scientifically proven, because his
influence cannot be proven. We don't see how he affects any part of
the phyical universe. You could make the arguement God= Quantum
force, and be more correct.
By the way are there more than one proofs of God? How was it an
accident that you came up with it? How is the discovery of God
psychological? How does a tiny amount of Gravity affect electricity?
By the way, please relabel your figures. You label Fig2 as Fig7. (the
faces one) The figure has absolutely nothing to do with anything
except drawing, and you create whole personalities our of one
expression.
By the way, the idea that the knowledge of this improves mental
health is ludicrous. The mind electric. Tiny amounts of Gravity
don't affect it. We know this because people in outside the atmosphere
act in generally the same way they did on earth.
The Bible is not a scientific text, so it really shouldn't be used as
a source.
you have some stuff you need to edit out. "Speed correlates with
time" is kind of a given, what with the definition of speed and all.
Assuming that the God is the Judeo-xtian one is highly arrogant. Also,
why only human brains. Most of the brains in the world are not human.
I don't understand what you mean by man is developing according to the
Secular Trend. You give the higher standard of living, especially
nutrition as a reason. This is true. It means we have more energy to
grow.
This is intersting, because I though specific intelligence had nothing
to do with brain size. And adults are always 100% grown. There is a
point were average size will stop increasing, but every adult is 100%
grown.
With figure 1, I don't understand where your proof is coming from. Who
theorized our size that way? Who measured our actual size that way?
How can God be caused by something?
Your age levels are definitely arbitrary. It is well known that
people develop at different times, and at different speeds. So people
grow at different times, and 18 is an arbitrary age.
You don't define the orders of intelligence well. How does how much
people can see with age, once their eyes start working? You never
actually established a connection between Gravity and the human brain,
as opposed to all the other brains.
Again, how can God be caused by something? I thought he was the
creator. You have a lot of tenses wrong. The equation reflects the
quadratic metric exists, not the equation created a quadratic metric.
(meter?)
"It is for this reason, that Nature uses the Cartesian Body Plan for
all (multicellular) plants and animals including Man." makes no sense.
Nature isn't a calculator. These things happen because they are
simple shapes, not because of some graphing method.
Are you suggesting Nature knows(and I mean knows) complex
triginometry, calculus, graphing styles, etc?
How is a human simply and only a Cartesian machine? Aren't we a bit
more complex than that?
More to come later, maybe.
[Hammond]
You're "almost but not quite" serious enough for me to respond to.
However, obviously you think all this is an "academic game" or
something. I can't waste my time talking to such fatuous people.
You simply aren't abused, oppressed, desperate or serious
enough to be of interest.
Excuse me? How am I not quite serious enough? I gave you serious
questions about your paper. The least you could do, if you want to be
taken seriously is answer them. This isn't a game. Again, I am
serious. My questions were serious questions.
[Hammond]
Yeah... but they're all elementary questions which are answered
ad nauseum on my website.... you're not serious because obviously
if you were you would have read my website and be asking
some non elementary questions. You're just too lazy to read
and would rather shoot the ***** with the author.... sorry, you're
not qualified.
This isn't an academy bull session.
Give me ONE GOOD REASON why YOU are worth explaining
a scientific proof of God to?
====================================
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
===================================
.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
