Re: GOD=G_uv A MESSAGE TO "Max"

From: Alan (gper_at_mindless.com)
Date: 08/21/04 

Date: 21 Aug 2004 10:35:00 -0700

[snip]
> > > > If you can "prove" something that does not exist, there is something
> > > > wrong with your proof. There is a well-known "proof" that 1=0. Do you
> > > > mean that if someone actually believed that (that it "existed" in his
> > > > mind), that the "proof" would be valid - just because that person
> > > > refuses to acknowledge that dividing by zero is not mathematically
> > > > acceptable (which is the flaw in this particular proof)?
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > "Ghosts" have nothing to do with the scientific proof of God that
> > > I have discovered.

You didn't answer the question. Would the "proof" in the above example
be valid? You seem to be saying it would be.

 
> >
> > Yes, they do, since if you now claim that your theory can "prove"
> > ghosts, ESP, unicorns, and invisible pixies, you have adequately
> > demonstrated that YOUR reality is radically different than everyone
> > else's. If your SPOG effectively "proves" that 1=0, it MUST be flawed
> > [end restore snippage]
> >
> >
> > I have presented an argument against the validity of SPOG. YOU may
> > FEEL that my argument is without merit - but is that because you've
> > analyzed it and found a flaw in it, or because you're so attached to
> > your theory that you're sticking your fingers in your ears?
> >
> > If you've found a flaw in my argument against the validity of SPOG,
> > please point it out.
>
> [Hammond]
> Sure... be glad to.... SCIENCE agrees with my definition of
> existence (or I should say... I agree with theirs... since they
> defined it first:

THAT is not the argument I'm presenting HERE. You said your theory can
"prove" ghosts, among other things. It apparently can "prove"
anything, just like dividing by zero can, BECAUSE IT DENIES REALITY.

That is not considered sane, Mr. Hammond.

     [snip rest]

Quantcast