Re: GOD=G_uv INVISIBLE WORLD

From: Rick Cvejic (hybridgex_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 07/26/04 

Date: 25 Jul 2004 19:50:47 -0700

> > And who is Mary Baker Eddy? Has ANYONE heard of her
> > besides this old fool?
>
> [Hammond]
> You gotta be kiddin... she founded the Christian Science
> Religion 130 years ago. Ever heard of the Christian
> Science Monitor?

No. You see, I am an agnostic by choice, and a catholic by education.
I dont know or care about US-based sects, any more than I care about
Orthodox or Roman churches. I REALLY dont trust anything that tries to
combine religion with science - I think they tried that around
Galileos time, didnt they? But that is neither here nor there. The
point is, you have the backing of a miniscule sect. Get a worthwhile
organisation to back you. I say again:

> > Go on, Hammond. Send your theory to your peers... the Pope, or the
> > Archbishop.
> > I dare you. Get something more substantial than a tiny door-to-door
> > cult behind you. Your peers are the people who invented the inflatable
> > dartboard and the million-dollar space ballpoint pen.

> > I think its safe to say its clean trousers all round on the science
> > front.
>
> [Hammond]
> That's what you think. I talked to Chris Isham
> and I could smell *** from here, and I'm on the
> other side of the Atlantic.

Thats because you were talking. You might like to wipe your chin, and
brush your teeth.

> > Your "Proof" is not more than an interesting analogy between
> > psychometric
> > development and the development of the universe. And it is
> > interesting, I
> > will grant you that much. I'm sure you could even publish it in a
> > scientific journal, if you took out the God stuff. But your head is
> > about
>
> [Hammond]
> It's already been published in a well known peer reviewed
> scientific journal you jerk:
>
> HAMMOND G.E. (2003) _A Semiclassical Theory of God_
> Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) pp. 231-244

http://www.mindspring.com/~noeticj/#part1

"Noetics is the study of mind which utilizes the rigors of science,
the logic of philosophy, and the humility and absolute truth of
theology"

ABSOLUTE TRUTH OF THEOLOGY? Oh dear. A Christian fundamentalist
magazine. I thought I said a scientific journal? Oh wait, I did. Try
again. Ill accept a conference paper, if I must - I have one of those
myself, you know (although simulation architectures are probably not
especially relevant to this discussion).

> > I feel I should point out here that God and Religion are two very
> > different things. Religiousness does not require a proof of God. It is
> > possible to be religious and not believe in God, as it is also
> > possible to
> > believe in God and not be religious. These are linked subjects, but
> > they
> > are NOT the same thing.
>
>
> [Hammond]
> You're full of it too.
> The "GOD" of world religion is well defined and
> well known:
>
> 1. God is taken to be an invisible man
> 2. He lives in an invisible world called Heaven
> 3. He is the creator of the world
> 4. He can perform miracles
> 5. He was described by Jesus as
> "Our Father who art in Heaven"
> 6. He was painted on the Sistine Chapel ceiling
> by Michealangelo and can still be seen there.
> 7. He is described by Unwin (_Probability of God_
> 2003) as the "person-God of the major monotheistic
> religions".. a description that agrees with
> points 1-6 naturally I agree with also.

No, thats the God of the Judeo-Christian religion. There is more to
theology than Christianity. What about the Hindi and Shinto systems?
Hell, what about the ancient Greco-Roman, Nordic and Celtic gods? The
myriad of indigenous systems in Africa, Australia and the US? Your
proof assumes that Christianity (or monotheism) is correct - it does
not prove it correct. Learn the difference between an assumption and a
corollary.

> > Even if you have found a proof of
> > God, it is presumptuous in the extreme to suggest
> > that you know ANYTHING about
> > any religion you have not studied.
> >
> [Hammond]
> That's like telling FDR he can't fight a war because
> he's never been in the army.... get outta here.

No, its more like telling a psychologist not to try brain surgery.

Quantcast