Re: God=G_uv BACK TO PHILOSOPHY

From: George Hammond (research137_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 08/27/04 

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 02:10:25 GMT

"TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cc2dde17.0408261518.22877ff4@posting.google.com...
> "George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<_DkXc.94499$TI1.11579@attbi_s52>...
> > "Scot McDermid" <scotmc@optNOSPAMonline.net> wrote in message
> > news:tJbXc.3154$ZD4.3546870@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> > > "George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:Sh7Xc.68440$mD.43941@attbi_s02...
> > > >
> > > > "Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:q_4Xc.515673$Gx4.499921@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > > >
> > > > > There are thousands of God beliefs. Does his scientific proof of
God,
> > prove
> > > > > which God is the correct one and that all the others are fakes???
> > > >
> > > > [Hammond]
> > > > It proves all of the world's major religions... e.g. Christianity,
> > > > Islam, Judiasm, Hinduism and Buddhism are true,
> >
> No, it does not. <snippity snip>

[Hammond]
Yes it does to.

> >
> > > > and all
> > > > worship the same God.... namely the God described by
> > > > God=G_uv. This accounts for the overwhelming majority
> > > > of the world's estimated 5-billion religious adherents.
> > >

<snip trite common knowlege>

> > > It is your paper that you are pushing. It is your theory.
> > > So to be complete you really need to establish the link from
> > > G_uv to God. This, of course, brings us away from the
> > > PURE PHYSICS back to the philosophy.
> > >
> > > 1 -You have said that God is an invisible man that rules
> > > the universe. (But Brahman, for example is not a man
> > > at all. Brahman is attributeless.)
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > I take Brahman to be the analog of the "Holy Ghost" in
> > Christianity. He is in fact part of the Trinity that may be
> > identified in Hinduism. He is "personified" in fact by the
> > "Brahmins" (the priestly caste). He is in fact one member
> > of the "Trimurti" or Trinity in Hinduism.
> > the Hindu Trimurti however is a slight corruption of the
> > christian Trinity (which is scientifically correct) in that
> > the Trimurti ignores the "Son" and includes the "Devil".
> > the "Son of God" in Hinduism is Krishna, and the Devil
> > is Shiva. Thus the Trimurti is "Vishnu, Brahma, and Shiva"
> > while the true Trinity of Hinduism is actually "Vishnu,
> > Krishna and Brahma"... the "Father, Son and Holy Ghost".
> > This is all based on my observation that the "Trinity of
> > God" is the dynamical description of God's action in
> > society which is a feedback loop (input, output, feedback)
> > and theologically this was discovered in Apostolic times and
> > named "Father, Son and Holy Ghost"... I believe even
> > Jesus in the New Testament makes the statment that
> > people should be Baptized in the name of the "Father,
> > the Son and the Holy Ghost", so it was certainly recognized
> > 2,000 years ago.
> >

<snip... more common knowege tripe>

> > [Hammond]
> > Wrong. Clearly the term "Big Bang creation" is known to
> > you, AND the term "Biblical Creation" is known to you.
> > Both of them are given considerable credence in the
> > Western world.
> >

<snip>

> >
> > Fact is, my discovery proves that BOTH "creations"
> > are true. To wit:
> >
> > 1. 40,000 years ago the human brain and therefore
> > "perceptual reality" came into existence... this
> > explains the Biblical Creation. Without perceptual
> > reality there is no physical reality, because human
> > perception is the ONLY AGENCEY by which
> > we detect physical reality.
> >

<snip.. more oxymorons>

> >
> > 2. Because of 1, we see that when the Biblical Creation
> > occurred, it "Created" the "existence" of physical
> > reality including time itself.
> >

<snip... more unscientific crap of no interesst>

> >
> > Part of this Creation
> > of time was the creation of the "15-billion year
> > history" of the universe, including the Big Bang.
> >

<snip more pantywaist academy fat lip tripe>

> >
> > 3. So, therefore, "within Biblical Creation" there
> > is a "physical creation" known as the Big Bang.
> >

<snip.... yawn...>

> >
> > I don't see how this should be considered "incredible",
> > or "unbelieveable" or "irrational".... it seems as simple
> > as 1, 2, 3 to me.
> >

<snip more one liner academy crap>

> >
> > Problem is.... most people would say "so what... what is the
> > PRACTICAL SIGNIFICANCE of such a theory"?
> > And up until NOW there was no proven scientific significance
> > of this "philosophical argument".
> > But NOW, Hammond has discovered that there is a
> > significant, fundamental and systematic DEPARTURE
> > of "perceptual reality" from "absolute physical reality".
> > that this difference can be measured to two decimal points,
> > is at a minimun at least 15%, and it CAUSES the phenomena
> > that we call "God" as well as all of Psychology... and in
> > fact accounts for the existence of Religion.
> >

<snip... more Reader's Digest crapola>

> >
> > And of course..... it finally ENDS the philosophical
> > dispute that has been going on for 1700 years as to whether
> > "reality" is "perceptual" or "absolute". Turns out it is
> > BOTH.... and the DIFFERENCE between the two explains
> > the existence of the "God of the Bible".
> >

<snip... more low grade moron typing>

> >
> > [Hammond]
> > I certainly have made a historic discovery irregardless of whether
> > you agree with it or not.
> >

<snip... more Reader's Digest cliches>

.
> >
> > Einstein in fact said he did
> > not believe in a "personal God" (anthropomorphic God)
> > and believed in a "cosmical God". Basically this is the
> > what Spinoza advocated.... Spinoza said "God is Nature".
> > Well, the fact is my discovery indicates that BOTH views
> > i.e. the "person-God" and the "cosmic God" are correct.
> > However, we must point out that said discovery clearly shows
> > that both Spinoza and Einstein were INCORRECT when they
> > said that the "person-God"... that is the "invisible man God"
> > did not exist. He does exist!
> >
> No, he doesn't.

yes he does

> >
> > And moreover, it is the
> > "person-God" that has been, and still is, the workhorse of
> > religion for 3,500 years. And no doubt will remain so!
> >
> No doubt.

already said that.... stop repeating me.

> >
> > OK, the reason my discovery confirms that BOTH views
> > of God are correct is that my discovery shows that "God is
> > caused by Gravity". The invisible person-God is caused
> > by Classical Gravity, which indicates immediately that when
> > the theory of Quantum Gravity is ever discovered, we are
> > going to get a "cosmological" description of God. And,
> > people are already working on this despite the fact that the theory
> > of Quantum Gravity hasn't even been discovered.
> >

<snip... more boring trivia cliches>

> >
> > The whole
> > field of "Consciousness Research" is in fact a search for this
> > "cosmological God".
> >
> No, that is not a fact at all.

Tis so.

> >
> > However, the "cosmological God" theory
> > is very old... and Spinoza is a well known example of it.
> > However... to start a speculative digression into quantum
> > gravity and the nature of the cosmological God at this point,
> > when what we have on the table before us is an ACTUAL PROOF
> > of the "classical God"
> >
> No it isn't. That's just wishful thinking on your part.

T'aint.

> >
> .... that is the invisible man God... I
> > consider nothing but an attempt to change the subject or
> > an attempt to obfuscate the dramatic proven discovery that
> > we have before us now.
> >
> Yours is neither a discovery, dramatic, and nor is it proven.

Nope, yup.

> >
> > So.. to answer your query.... YES the "God of Spinoza"
> > is a correct theory.... and this theory does make it's appearance
> > in many of our "unsophisticated Third World religions".
> > Why? Because when all is said and done.... the "cosmological
> > God" is actually a LESS SOPHISTICATED idea than the
> > PERSON-GOD of classical religion.
> >

<snip>

> >
> > After all.... saying things
> > like "God is energy" which any office secretary is apt to say...
> > is a far less sophisticated rumination than discovering that
> > God is "an invisible man" which is what classical religion
> > discovered thousands of years ago, and is the MAINSTAY
> > of world religion today.
> > Fianlly, however... don't think I am pooh poohing the
> > importance of the "cosmological God"... or what we might
> > call the "quantum God". After all, comparing the "person God"
> > to the "quantum God" is sort of like comparing the
> > "political theory of Man" to the "medical theory of Man".
> > While it is true that Politics is more important than Medicine
> > in terms of direct impact on Civilization.... we all appreciate
> > that Medicine is vital to human survival. Likewise, it turns
> > out that the "classical theory" of God cannot answer the question
> > of "Life After Death"... and it is highly likely that we won't
> > get an answer to that until the "quantum God" (quantum gravity)
> > is discovered.
> >
> The question is moot

Tis not.

Hey dude... where'd you get that frontal lobotomy,
or is that just a head injury from a car accident?
====================================
   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