Re: A call to George to do some philosophy
From: George Hammond (research137_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 07/22/04
- Next message: George Hammond: "Re: GOD=G_uv INVISIBLE WORLD"
- Previous message: Paul Stowe: "Re: Mileva Maric Einstein"
- In reply to: Kamerynn: "Re: A call to George to do some philosophy"
- Next in thread: Kamerynn: "Re: A call to George to do some philosophy"
- Reply: Kamerynn: "Re: A call to George to do some philosophy"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 14:32:30 GMT
"Kamerynn" <idon'tdoemail@sorry.com> wrote in message
news:10fu219rk9fdsc8@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> 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!
> > [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.
[Hammond]
Please leave questions of fatality to me, I really
don't think you're qualified.
> What gives the word "god" its meaning, George?
[Hammond]
WE KNOW what gives the word "God" its meaning:
1. The 3,500 year history of religion
2. The 1,024 page description of God in the Bible
3. The fact that every person in the world over
the age of 10 has heard and used the word.
4. The fact that the world's leading description
of "God" is that "he is an invisible man who
lives in the sky and rules the world".
5. The "scientific method" simply says, that if you
find a proven, internally consistent, comprehensive
explanation of such a well described phenomena
which can be confirmed by laboratory reproducible
experimental data, then you have "proved it".
THIS IS WHAT HAS BEEN DONE!
QED. I simply suggest you actually READ the theory
to find out how.
> So it turns out that I'm right in asserting that
> what you've proven isn't God as people know it,
[Hammond]
You're statement is egregious, totally ignorant,
AND utter FALSEHOOD. You are simply posting
your "cherished presumptions" as if they were facts.
NO, THE FACT IS, your cherished presumptions have been
proven UTTERLY WRONG, FALSE, AND EGREGIOUSLY IGNORANT.
and... they now properly belong on the ash heap of history
which is hwhere most normal logical people knew they
belonged 100 years ago.
>
> Kam:
> I might even go and read your paper -
> depending on how this discussion goes.
[Hammond]
That's a constructive idea.
> 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.
[Hammond]
I can appreciate your utter incredulity,
we know what we are up against, and we
know how it all will end... with a wimper
not a bang.
> 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.
[Hammond]
WRONG... that impression is merely your startled
reaction to a historical miracle which is now
looking you squarely in the face.... don't feel
bad.... the majority feels the same way.
> >
> > [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.
[Hammond]
WRONG..... this is EXACTLY what all "religious
leaders" in the history of the world have
known... it is also what every secular leader...
Kings, Presidents, Generals have known. It is
the world"s FIRST FACT OF LIFE.... problem is,
until now, it could not be proved!!
> > [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.
[Hammond]
There are two kinds of people:
1. People who have a desperate problem to solve
and therefore will find the answer.
2. People who know all the answers but don't have
any real problem and therefore are oblivious to
what the problem is.
I am from the first catagory and with all due respect I
think you (and the philosophers) are from the second
catagory.... therefore I am rather unoptimistic that
you can be of any real help.... you simply are not
desperately enough involved in the human condition.
> >
> > [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?
[Hammond]
Yes.... Jesus talked to thousands... but only 12
of them ever knew he was ushering in a new age.
I have made 47,000 posts to the Usenet news groups,
and 500,000 people have visited my websites...
but that doesn't mean there is a single "scientific
St. Paul" among them.
One never knows however from which direction he
may come or where he may be found.... for instance
Stephen Unwin Phd (physics) just hit the big time
with his _Probablility of God = 67%_. This is an example
of the kind of person who may be the first to recognize
that a scientific proof of God has been discovered..
Then again the vicissitudes of life may point to
someone else. At least Dr. Unwin did email me
a very helpful scientific suggestion, which quite
amazed me.
============================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
============================================
- Next message: George Hammond: "Re: GOD=G_uv INVISIBLE WORLD"
- Previous message: Paul Stowe: "Re: Mileva Maric Einstein"
- In reply to: Kamerynn: "Re: A call to George to do some philosophy"
- Next in thread: Kamerynn: "Re: A call to George to do some philosophy"
- Reply: Kamerynn: "Re: A call to George to do some philosophy"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
