Re: GOD=G_uv INVISIBLE WORLD
From: George Hammond (research137_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 07/27/04
- Next message: Mani Deli: "The Emptiness of Theology"
- Previous message: Androcles: "Re: Is special relativity falsifiable?"
- In reply to: Androcles: "Re: GOD=G_uv INVISIBLE WORLD"
- Next in thread: Rick Cvejic: "Re: GOD=G_uv INVISIBLE WORLD"
- Reply: Rick Cvejic: "Re: GOD=G_uv INVISIBLE WORLD"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 16:41:22 GMT
"Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:nbqNc.9106$e56.91728021@news-text.cableinet.net...
>
> "Rick Cvejic" <hybridgex@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:6ef5b8f1.0407261815.6fc6953e@posting.google.com...
> | "George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<CK7Nc.160886$a24.95523@attbi_s03>...
> | > [Hammond]
> | > that's funny... why did Jesus have to conquor the entire world
> | > with only the support of 12 fishermen? As far as I know
> | > NOT ONE reputable organization or person ever supported him.
> |
> | <more relevant stuff:>
> |
> | > > > [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.
> | >
> | > [Hammond]
> | > A "religious magazine" who the fcuk are you trying to kid.
> | > 8 of the 27 editorial board members are world famous PhD's
> | > in physicis, including the editor. Get the fcuk utta here.
> |
> | Jesus, no matter what else he was, was the leader of a Jewish cult
> | that exploded. He claimed no scientific developments, only spiritual
> | developments. If you want to start a cult, go for it. There is no
> | review for that. If you want acceptance from the religious world, that
> | means support from the main church organisations - and you will have a
> | bit of trouble with Islam, as there is no real leader of that
> | religion. But as long as you're purporting your idea to be science,
> | then you must follow scientific process. That means peer review in a
> | scientific journal or conference paper. Any journal that makes claims
> | as to the "absolute truth of theology" is NOT a scientific journal. It
> | is first and foremost a religious magazine, no matter who the editor
> | may be.
> |
> |
> | > > > [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.
> | >
> | > [Hammond]
> | > Yeah... there's more to world politics than the
> | > Nuclear Superpowers too... but who gives a fcuk?
> |
> | I dont see the point of switching letters in your swear words. It
> | doesnt make it any less offensive. In any case, YOU want acceptance.
> | You therefore need acceptance from ALL major religions - and pandering
> | solely to the fundamentalist conservatives in the US is not going to
> | help. In the religious universe, they are not very important.
> |
> |
> | > 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.
> | >
> | > [Hammond]
> | > my published paper CLEARLY explains the gods of POLYYTHEISM
> | > as well as the God of monotheism... problem is you're a garbage
> | > mouth impudent heckler who is TOO LAZY to even read the paper
> | > which is posted prominently on my website... get the fcuk
> | > outta here with your blabbermouth nonsense.
> |
> | I read your paper. See, I even posted my opinion on it:
> |
> | ---'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.'---
> |
> | Hell, people have recieved PhDs for more tenuous analogies. Its a very
> | good comparison, and you had a rare moment of brilliance when you
> | spotted it. BUT, your paper does not prove God. It works if you assume
> | God exists in the first place. If you assume God doesnt exist, your
> | final assertions are invalid.
> |
> |
> | And in response to something you noted in another branch: Just because
> | the Bible says God looks like a man does not mean it is true. More
> | fundamentalist nonsense. I bet you dont believe in evolution, or the
> | Big Bang.
>
> I check responses to George Hammond and those that jeer I simply kill-file
> to avoid having to bother with them further.
[Hammond]
Smooth move Andy.
> This reduces the number of
> posts I read dramatically and saves searching for worthwhile posts to
> respond to.
[Hammond]
You're so slick.
> You, on the other hand, are attempting to reason with him. Perhaps you are
> not aware that George has a long history of mental illness for which we
can
> only offer pity.
[Hammond]
That's what the Nazi's said about Pauli.
> Reasonable debate simply isn't possible.
[Hammond]
Its not possible for an oxymoron like you, you mean.
> If you agree with
> George you'll be his buddy, but anything you disagree with will make you
an
> instant enemy to be cursed.
[Hammond]
What happened to the people who simply "don't know"
and would like to politely find out.... I've never
seen any of those people on the internet!
> George cannot help himself, his mind is
> unbalanced. I'm afraid your task is futile.
[Hammond]
Andy is a "self appointed executive" apparently.
> Androcles
-- ============================================ SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god mirror site: http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com ============================================
- Next message: Mani Deli: "The Emptiness of Theology"
- Previous message: Androcles: "Re: Is special relativity falsifiable?"
- In reply to: Androcles: "Re: GOD=G_uv INVISIBLE WORLD"
- Next in thread: Rick Cvejic: "Re: GOD=G_uv INVISIBLE WORLD"
- Reply: Rick Cvejic: "Re: GOD=G_uv INVISIBLE WORLD"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
