Re: A call to George to do some philosophy
From: Kamerynn (idon'tdoemail_at_sorry.com)
Date: 07/22/04
- Next message: greywolf42: "Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits"
- Previous message: greywolf42: "Re: Mileva Maric Einstein"
- In reply to: George Hammond: "Re: A call to George to do some philosophy"
- Next in thread: George Hammond: "Re: A call to George to do some philosophy"
- Reply: George Hammond: "Re: A call to George to do some philosophy"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 11:53:15 -0600
George Hammond wrote:
> "Kamerynn" <idon'tdoemail@sorry.com> wrote in message
> news:10fu0671oqf48b4@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>
>>George Hammond wrote:
>>
>>>"Kamerynn" <idon'tdoemail@sorry.com> wrote in message
>>>news:10fs7g6ajcfci8d@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>George Hammond wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>From : Stephen Unwin <xxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>>>Reply-To : <xxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>Sent : Thursday, July 15, 2004 5:08 PM
>>>>>To : "George Hammond" <xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>Subject : Re: GOD=G_uv your reply of 7/11
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>NOTE: Posted to sci.physics.relativity as:
>>>>> GOD=G_uv UNWIN EXPLAINS BIRTH
>>>>>
>>>>>George:
>>>>>Oh, I thought Guv was in literal spacetime. I guess then that in the
>>>>>perceptual space, a new born baby would be the analogy of a singularity
>>>>>(big bang rather than a black hole). Very interesting.
>>>>>Steve
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>NOTE: Stephen Unwin PhD (physics-quantum gravity) is author of
>>>>> _The Probability of God_ (Crown Forum, 2003) in which he
>>>>> uses Bayesian probability theory to calculate that the
>>>>> probability is P=67% that God exists.
>>>>
>>>>Kam:
>>>> What's interesting is that all proofs of God in the
>>>>history of philosophy first define God as something that
>>>>necessarily exists (or, e.g., has a 67% chance of existing).
>>>>Such a move guarantees the success of the proof, but
>>>>leaves us to wonder, "is that what God really is?
>>>>Why should *I* define God as scientists do?"
>
>
> [Hammond]
> All existing (e.g. historical) proofs of God are known to be
> inadequate (insufficient). This includes the 5 cited
> in the Summa Theologica and DesCarte's or Avicienna's proof
> for instance.
> There is no such thing as a "philosophical" proof of God.
> Only 100 years of (mainly computerized since 1960) Psychometry
> data combined with the 80 year old theory of General Relativity
> has finally solved the problem, essentially by brute force
> (Hammond, 2003, Noetic journal).
Kam:
But, you forget that science must first be
philosophy - in order to prove that God exists,
you must first state what God is. You've done
this elsewhere, and what you describe isn't
very much like the gods that most people worship.
You say that there is no such thing as a
philsophical proof of God - but do you know that
it is controversial as to whether or not there
is such a thing as a philosophical proof in the
first place?
Some might say that all proofs started in
philosophy. That is, math, geometry, and science
are all children of philosophy. But, these
disciplines are separated from philosophy today.
Whenever an area of philosophy became successful
enough to provide a degree of certainty, that
area became its own field.
Now, don't go saying that there can be
no philosophical proof of God but only a scientific
one. That muddies the waters. Any proof,
scientific or otherwise, is layden with philosophy
to begin with, and should be understood as a proof
to any competent philosopher who understands the
terms involved.
>
>
>>>> Unwin supposedly "calculated" the probability
>>>>of "God's" existence - well, which God?
>
>
> {Hammond]
> Unwin states catagorically that he is talking about
> the:
>
> "person-God of the major monotheistic religions"
> (Unwin 2003, page 17)
>
> So is Hammond and so is the majority of the rest of the world.
> YOU seem to be the only one who is confused about "which God"
> everyone is talking about... for heavens sake... his picture
> is painted on the Sistine Chapel ceiling!
Kam:
Sure, but *that* God isn't caused by gravity.
*That* god is an uncaused causer.
>
>
>
>>>> Is his
>>>>calculation based on the existence of a god from
>>>>one of our own religions, or is "god" defined as
>>>>something more obscure and vague, such as energy?
>
>
> [Hammond]
> Na.... no way. We are talking about the classical
> "person-God", the "invisible man".... "god the Father"
> of classical canonical world religion.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>> You may think that reporting on what you
>>>>consider to be science will impress philosophers
>>>>(that is why, I believe, you cross-posted it to
>>>>a philosophy NG). None of us are impressed,
>>>>George.
>
>
> [Hammond]
> Please speak for yourself Kam, unless you are
> offcially appointed spokesman for some identifiable
> group.
>
>
> The first step (defining the important
>
>>>>terms of debate) haven't been even outlined
>>>>and yet you believe it conclusive that one side
>>>>of the debate holds the truth. Without definition,
>>>>how is anyone supposed to know what that means?
>
>
> [Hammond]
> You're argument that the "person-God", "invisible man
> God" of classical world religion..,. the God painted on the
> Sistine Chapel ceiling is not the reigning, majdority
> opinion "God" of history is a strategy that is clearly
> passe and cannot credibly be maintained.... the world
> KNOWS which God we are talking about. Namely: "Our
> Father who art in Heaven".
Kam:
You mean, "our father, who art nothing but
a perceptual effect caused by BGD." You simply
haven't squared your notions with those of the
church, yet. Why should I be convinced that
the God of major religions is, contrary to
religious belief, caused? Caused by gravity,
even?
>
>>>[Hammond]
>>>OK.. I hate to get technical in Philosophy but you
>>>asked for it. In the first place there can be
>>>no such thing as a "definition of God". This simply
>>>because real objects do not have "definitions" they
>>>only have "descriptions". For instance there is no
>>>such thing as a "definition of the moon" or a
>>>"definition of Paris"... there are only physical
>>>DESCRIPTIONS of the moon and of Paris.
>>> A "definiton" is something that applys only to
>>>the realm of "arbitrary conventions" such as
>>>"how many holes in a golf course", or "what is the
>>>winning hand in 7 card stud" etc.
>>> God, it turns out is a REAL PHYSICAL PHENOMENA
>>>and therefore doesn't have a "definition" it only
>>>has a "physical description". Surely you are not so
>>>naive as to be unable to appreciate the political fact
>>>that the adversaries of Religion long ago dreamed up
>>>the phrase "definition of God" in order to give people
>>>the impression that God was an "arbitrary convention" made
>>>up by man, rather than an actual "real physicial object",
>>>which is what God is, it turns out.
>>
>>Kam:
>> "Getting technical" is no excuse for not providing
>>us with how you are using the word "god."
>
>
> [Hammond]
> I'm using the word God the same way the majority of the
> world uses the God.... ESPECIALLY in the educated West..
> e.g. Christianity, Judiasm, Islam etc.
Kam:
I don't think so. But, you haven't really tried
to convince me yet since you haven't squared the
scientific notions you have with the the God of the
west.
>
>
>
>
>> You've missed
>>the substantive point - if you proven that "God exists,"
>>what is it, exactly, that you've proven? Yes, a
>>description of God would do.
>
>
> [Hammond]
> My description is exactly the same as Jesu's description..
> "Our Father who art in Heaven".... and my mental conception
> of what he looks like is exactly the same as Michangelo's
> and Pope Leo's which is still stanging on the Sistine
> Chapel ceiling after 500 years.
Kam:
No, your description isn't *exactly* the same
at all - you call God a perceptual effect on reality
and you say that he's caused by gravity. God looks
like a *guy* in the Sistine Chapel - not like a
perceptual effect on reality. Unless that's what
men are.
>
>
>> Bertrand Russell suggested that names are nothing
>>but descriptions in disguise. That doesn't, of course,
>>absolve him of the responsibility of defining his terms
>>before using them. That simply means that he should
>>provide what he believes to be the meaning
>>of the important terms of debate before debating them...
>>he could do this by providing descriptions.
>> This is important, George: defining a term amounts
>>to providing the meaning of that term. If you wish to
>>do that in terms of description, that's OK - believe it
>>or not, that's how we define terms like "chair" and "cat."
>
>
> [Hammond]
> I don't need to define anything.... the defintion of
> God has already been well established by 2,000 years
> of Christianity, 3,500 years of Judiasm and 1300 years
> of Islam.... I (and "WE") are talking about Jesus's
> "Our Father which art in heaven".
Kam:
Funny that you say you don't need to define
God after saying something as hard to stomach
as "God is a perceptual effect on reality..."
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>>[Hammond]
>>>Hey... wait a minute chief.... I am using "semi-vernacular"
>>>English in most of my writings because that is the language
>>>people use within their respective disiplines. When I say
>>>"God is the BGD" that is simply scientific shorthand for saying
>>>"God is the perceptual effect on reality caused by the BGD".
>>
>>Kam:
>> The word "god" is not commonly used to mean "the perceptual
>>effect on reality..." God is not a perceptual effect, but,
>>in most religions, a "being" that created the universe -
>>a being that is all powerful and ultimately good.
>
>
> [Hammond]
> WRONG.... Jesus said in Johnj 4:24
> "God is a Spirit".
Kam:
I never said that God *wasn't* a spirit, George.
You ought to be more careful. I said that he is
a *being* - a spirit is a being.
> A "Spirit" is a
> "mental phenomenon". Turns out of
> course that Jesus was Right... my discovery
> proves that God is a "perceptual state"...
> THE perceptual state of the human mind.
> Human perception DOES "create the world".
Kam:
Do you mean that perception creates the
world if there are enough people that percieve
the same thing, or does anyone have creation
powers on their own? Was the world once flat?
>
>
>>>I mean... scientific discussion references such an astronomical
>>>galaxy of detail that some shorthand is necessary even to
>>>be able to speak at all. Same in any technical or involved
>>>field. These conventions of meaning within various contexts
>>>are well known to the experts in the various fields. You are
>>>simply taking my statement "out of context".
>>
>>Kam:
>> I've seen the word "god" in use, and your use
>>is most definitely the one that fits into no context
>>but yours.
>
>
> [Hammond]
> this tautological loser strategy of yours has been
> disproved now 10 times in a row.
Kam:
If it were tautological, then it would be
*obviously true*. Check the meaning of "tautological,"
George.
I am not putting forth a "strategy" to defeat
you. Again, I am simply asking for clarification...
for you to connect your scientific notions with
the notions of the church.
>>>>Hence, you are simply not talking about
>>>>the God that others discuss,
>>>
>>>
>>>[Hammond]
>>>Oh, yes I am!
>>
>>Kam:
>> You have yet to show me that such is true.
>
>
> [Hammond]
> Unwinjs states that he is talking about the "person-God
> of the major monotheistic religions"... so am I. My
> discovery explains:
>
> 1. Why this person-God is invisible.
> 2. Why this person-God is a man.
> 3. How this person-God rules the universe.
> 4. How this person-God created the Universe.
Kam:
Wait - so, gravity existed before the universe
existed? You did, after all, say that gravity caused
God.
> 5. How He causes miracles.
> 6. Why the Cross exists
> 7. Why there is God and demigods.
> 8. What "kingdom come" is and when it will arrive.
> 9. What Eternal Life is.
> etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum
>
> UNTIL YOU ACTUALLY READ THE THEORY, your tautological
> repiticious comments are of no force or meaning whatsoever.
Kam:
I believe the question I just asked has all
the force it needs, just as my other points do.
It is not you who is going to be affected by this
discussion, so the fact that you percieve no
force is irrelevant. I entered into this discussion
knowing that you would never change you mind on
anything - and so all I'm asking for is clarification.
Clarification which I'm not yet getting.
>>>[Hammond]
>>>No. Sorry to dash your forlorn hopes... you are
>>>simply grasping at straws like any drowning man
>>>faced with an overwhelming revolutionary overthrow
>>>of the status quo. Your worst fears HAVE been realized
>>>apparently.... 300 years of modern science HAS
>>>actually produced a rigorous axiomatic, experimentally
>>>confirmed, scientific proof of God. Surprise, surprise.
>>
>>Kam:
>> That would be a surprise if only you could show
>>me that the thing you have proven is God as people
>>generally think of God.
>
>
> [Hammond]
> this is demonstrated reducto ad absurdem in Section 6 of
> my paper entitled:
>
> "elementary Science Evidence that the 4th Order Factor is "God"
>
> A COPY OF THIS PAPER IS LOCATED AT:
>
> http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s2.html
>
> for crying out loud, PLEASE READ SEC 6 and stop posting
> your tautological error over and over again.
Kam:
C'mon, George. You just committed yourself to
the belief that gravity existed previous to the
existence of the universe. I can assess what you
say in these posts without reading the paper -
although I might still do so anyway.
It is, for example, fairly obvious that
Christians believe that God is an uncaused
causer. They have ever since before the great
theologians (you know, Anselm, Augustine, Aquinas...)
You say that he is caused by gravity. So, there's
a disagreement between you and Christianity. I
don't need to read your paper to know that...
although I might read it anyway, like I said.
- Next message: greywolf42: "Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits"
- Previous message: greywolf42: "Re: Mileva Maric Einstein"
- In reply to: George Hammond: "Re: A call to George to do some philosophy"
- Next in thread: George Hammond: "Re: A call to George to do some philosophy"
- Reply: George Hammond: "Re: A call to George to do some philosophy"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
