Re: A call to George to do some philosophy

From: Kamerynn (idon'tdoemail_at_sorry.com)
Date: 07/22/04 

Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 18:18:26 -0600

George Hammond wrote:

> "Kamerynn" <idon'tdoemail@sorry.com> wrote in message
> news:10fs7v11tjejd3d@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>
>>George Hammond wrote:
>>
>>
>>>GOD=G_uv INVISIBLE WORLD
>>>
>>>
>>>"RELIGION" is founded on two major premises:
>>>
>>>1. There is an invisible man called God.
>>>
>>>2. There is an invisible world called Heaven
>>> and God lives there.
>>>
>>>3. Nominally, it is believed that the "invisible
>>> world" is actually an invisible portion of
>>> the real world; which we simply cannot see.
>>>
>>>The following discovery PROVES that this is true and
>>>explains why, and calculates the precise location of
>>>the "event horizon" which separates the visible world
>>>from the invisible world.. i.e. the event horizon that
>>>separates Heaven and Earth. It PROVES in other words,
>>>that THERE IS AN INVISIBLE WORLD!
>>
>>Kam:
>> To continue the same line of thinking from
>>my other response: why should we believe that
>>this invisible world is heaven? Do you simply
>>define "heaven" and "God" in ways that guarantee
>>their existence?
>
>
> [Hammond]
> Thanks... it's nice to have your serious attention
> for a change.. even if only for the few fleeting
> seconds that your attention span dictates.
> Your question:
>
> "Why should we believe this
> invisible world is heaven"
>
> immediately demonstrates that you have not read (or
> do not comprehend the theory). So.. given that, I simply
> have to guess as to where to start explaining it to you.
> The answer is this: God is a perfect man. A perfect man
> sees a perfect world, because the world is created by his
> brain. A perfect brain creates a perfect world. Therefore,
> the difference between the world as we know it, and the
> perfect world (called Heaven) is in fact this "invisible
> world" described above.
> Now before you go beserk and say "I don't understand it"
> and "you haven't proved it"...

Kam:
      I'm not interested in criticizing your proof, and
am perfectly capable of conceding, for the sake of
argument, that you have in fact proven something. After
all, I'm not here to do science, but philosophy. What
I'm after is what all philosophers are ultimately after:
clarification.
      I asked how you knew that the invisible world was
heaven. Your response is essentially: the invisible
world is a perfect world, and that makes it heaven.
Ok. How do we know that the invisible world is perfect?

> let me remind you that you
> actually have to READ a theory before you can know what it
> is about.

Kam:
      Agreed. That's precisely why I'm asking for
clarification.

> And furthermore.... let me inform you that
> this is not "all theoretical deduction"... fact is, THOUSANDS
> of scholars and theologians (psychologists and priests)
> ALREADY KNOW about this "invisible world" and talk about it
> day and night in their sermons and lectures.... it has been known
> for THOUSANDS of years.. but could never be PROVED AND
> SCIENTIFICALLY EXPLAINED, until HAMMOND came along and proved
> it.
>
>
>
>>> This is not a hypothesis, experimental Psychometry
>>>data explained by axiomatic physics verifies this
>>>result to 2-decimal point accuracy.
>>>
>>>FIRST OF ALL, it has now been discovered that the
>>>equation GOD=G_uv means that birth and childhood
>>>growth in PSYCHOMETRY SPACE is caused by a
>>>BIG BANG expansion in CLASSICAL GRAVITY SPACE
>>>(see my post "GOD=G_uv UNWIN EXPAINS BIRTH
>>>on sci.physics.relativity 7-18-04)
>>
>>Kam:
>> Again, it sounds like you're talking about
>>something other than God.
>
>
>
> [Hammond]
> Correction... you means it "sounds to YOU" like
> that... but again, that is merely an artifact of
> your ignorance of the theory, not a defect in the
> theory.

Kam:
      That could be.

>
>
>> If the equation
>>"God=G_uv" *means that* "birth and childhood..."
>>Then you aren't discussing the gods that others
>>discuss.
>
>
> [Hammond]
> I certainly am. You have to remember that "others"
> DO NOT ACTUALLY KNOW what God is, and are constrained
> to simply repeat the parables and metaphors that the
> few greats who have passed before them left as
> instructions for them to learn. I AM THE ONLY ONE,
> (having discovered and proved it scientifically)
> who actually knows what GOD is.

Kam:
      There is a fatal problem in the above thought.
What gives the word "god" its meaning, George?
Answer: use of the word "god." Hence, people
already know what "God" is. You define "God" differently
from them and say that you know what God really is.
Fine. So it turns out that I'm right in asserting that
what you've proven isn't God as people know it, but
something else (such as God as *you* know it). So,
telling people that you proven the existence of God
gives them the false sense that you've constructed
a proof of the ultimate being of their religions - and
you just admitted that you've done no such thing. You
have, I repeat, proven something else, and admit this
when you write, "I AM THE ONLY ONE... who actually
knows what GOD is."

> And it is easily
> demonstrated, and IS DEMONSTRATED in my paper
> (on my website) that the scientific explanation
> CLEARLY BEYOND ALL QUESTION explains the "God" that
> the theologians, and historians discuss in the vague
> terms that they are able to do so.

Kam:
      I might even go and read your paper -
depending on how this discussion goes.
I'm more convinced now that you've got your
finger on something important, but I'm not
yet convinced that it is God (or heaven)
that you've proven the existence of.
If we get beyond these first steps (to my
satisfaction), then your proof will worth
my read - that is, I'll have a chance of
getting something out of it.

>
>
>> So, again, you should use a word other
>>than "god" to refer to what you've discovered.
>
>
> [Hammond]
> No.. it just means that you are not able to challenge
> a proven discovery without actually reading it and
> understanding it. Sorry, there is no "royal road
> to authority".

Kam:
      If you understand what I assert, then you
understand that you are at least portraying your
"God" as something different from what people
normally think of God as. You admit this when
you state that "I AM THE ONLY ONE... who actually
knows what GOD is." My idea that you call it
something else doesn't arise from an imaginary
"royal road to authority," but from the contention
that you aren't using the word "god" as others
use it - something that you have indirectly admitted.

>
>
>>>GOD=G_uv starts at infinity at birth and then due
>>>to a Hubble expansion of perceptual reality decreases
>>>towards zero during childhood growth. If growth
>>>followed the theoretical (genotypic) growth curve
>>>G_uv would approach zero at age 18. However, because
>>>the SECULAR TREND in human growth says that there is a
>>>TERMINAL ADULT GROWTH DEFICIT in every one of us,
>>>G_uv never reaches zero, in fact it reaches a terminal
>>>value of about .15 (15% growth deficit). This
>>>"terminal adult curvature of perceptual reality" is
>>>called "GOD".
>>
>>Kam:
>> Again, that isn't how most people use the word
>>"god."
>
>
> [Hammond]
> YES IT IS. You're simply not aware of it, because
> you haven't even read the discovery and have no idea
> HOW the scientific discovery actually explains the
> "God" that the 6 billion people are discussing.

Kam:
      That's true, George - I have no clue as to
how the God people generally discuss amounts to
BGD or perceptual effects. That's because the
people who compose the world's major religions
don't think of God as BGD or in terms of mere
perceptual effects. But, you've already admitted
that your account of God is different from others...
so why does what you've discovered deserve the
name "God?"

>
>> So, what you've proven isn't the existence
>>of God, but of something that deserves its own name.
>
>
> [Hammond]
> WRONG. Sorry to prick you're balloon, and I can
> appreciate your apprehension.

Kam:
      I've got a lot of balloons, George. It makes
me happy when someone can prick one. Case in point
is andy k pricking my balloon of biological naturalism,
or Immoralist giving me new tools to use against
cultutal relativism, pricking the balloon containing
my beliefs about just how defensible cultural relativism
is. I'm not here to preserve balloons, but to do some
actual philosophy, engage others in actual thought.
If that means that a few balloons blow up, so much the
better for me - my thought thus becomes more refined,
and has a better chance of reflecting the truth.

>
>
>> I've snipped the rest of your post - I'd simply
>>respond to it in the same manner anyway, as I would
>>all of your posts. Do the philosophy - start with
>>defining the important terms such as "god." Only
>>then will posting to a phil. NG be at all relevant.
>>Otherwise, those who post here will ignore you
>>(or flame you, as I'm about to start doing again).
>>
>
>
> [Hammond]
> Do whatever you wanna do, makes no difference to
> me.

Kam:
      I believe that the opinions of others do mean
something to you, George, or else you wouldn't have
posted any of this - and you wouldn't be seeking
the acceptance of other professionals - to confirm
your discovery. If your proof of God is actually
a proof *of God*, then discussion might bring at
least one more person into the know - as you must
think that it might. That is why you're posting,
here, no?

Relevant Pages

  • Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin
    ... > Oh comon Kam... ... part of reality and an actual invisible man. ... God is believed to have in fact created the universe, ... An analogy between invisibility in reality ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin
    ... >>have a sound argument for what God is, ... > Well ok Kam... ... > 3 The brain growth deficit controls reality hence God rules the world. ... Besides - I've already written about how analogy isn't ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: A call to George to do some philosophy
    ... > George Hammond wrote: ... > philosophy - in order to prove that God exists, ... > you must first state what God is. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: A call to George to do some philosophy
    ... > All existing proofs of God are known to be ... Kam: ... philosophy - in order to prove that God exists, ... and you say that he's caused by gravity. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: A call to George to do some philosophy
    ... Kam, in response to the above, wrote: ... >>God given by the major religions. ... that you don't agree with the account of God ... given in the world's major religions. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)