Re: GOD=G_uv A MESSAGE TO "Max"

From: George Hammond (research137_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 08/23/04 

Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 23:28:25 GMT

"Scot McDermid" <scotmc@optNOSPAMonline.net> wrote in message
news:72tWc.24811$Nk4.9727062@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
>
> > > [Hammond]
> > > YOU haven't pointed out any defects in my logic.... as for
> > > his complaints, I think McDermid's "gedanken experiment"
> > > clears that one up:
> > >
>
> "ZenIsWhen" <ZenIsWhen@anywhere.com> wrote in message
> > Everyone else has pointed out problems with your insane claims .. and
you
> > only ignore or insult them!
>
> Please be careful here. In general, people have pointed out
> problems with George's claims. That is true.
>
> On the specific issue of "existence" most people have
> misunderstood what George has been saying.
> So, I wrote the "gedanken experiment" (I called it a
> thought experiment) in order to clear up the misunderstanding
> of what George had been saying. And now that George's
> statement is more clear, I think George's erroneous definition is
> much easier to understand.

[Hammond]
fact is, McDermid is erroneous when he refers to
"George's definition of existence". there is no
such thing. George simply agrees with SCIENCE'S
DEFINITON OF EXISTENCE, which is:

           SCIENCE'S DEFINITON OF EXISTENCE

               Only "observables" exist. And an Observable
               is that which is "capable in principle of being
               observed by a human being".

Hence. if there are no human beings, then the Universe
does not "exist".

I would have to ask that people quit calling this "Hammond's" definition
of existence. Clearly it is NOT. It is the underlying definition of
existence assumed by the entire field of SCIENCE. And it was
discovered by THEM, not ME.

====================================
   SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
        1st mirror site:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
        2nd mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
     new site (under construction):
http://home.comcast.net/~proof-of-god
====================================

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Debating Uncertaintity uncertainly...
    ... | saying that when a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to ... | peak-a-boo that they literally disappear from reality. ... You can't think a new skyscraper into existence, you have to build it, ... You are a computer that controls a crane, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Dawkins makes painfully clear what creationists have said for
    ... Saying that one is and one isn't requires a monumental amount of hubris. ... And this is essentially what Dawkins is saying in Chapter 2, "The God ... "An even if God's existence is never proved or disproved with certainty ... Yet you don't know what hte probability is for any case, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Dawkins makes painfully clear what creationists have said for
    ... Dawkins has his, I have mine. ... And the existence of a creator deity with infinite powers who no one has ever detected is many orders of magnitude less probable than Its nonexistence. ... And this is essentially what Dawkins is saying in Chapter 2, "The God Hypothesis" of his book. ... "There is no reason to regard God as immune from consideration along the spectrum of probabilities. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: TAN/ MEGA/ Lurkers & Posters
    ... between my knowledge of something's existence - and it existing. ... now you're saying it may or may not exist or be accurate? ... I haven't been speaking in generalities ... ... insistence, or demand, that's your interpretation. ...
    (rec.arts.tv.soaps.cbs)
  • Re: what did the bible say about Mohammad
    ... Bible" that Jesus existed. ... George is one of those guys who think that any bit of graffiti ... the existence of King David. ... Moses, credited with writing the first five books of the Old Testament, ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)