Re: God=G_uv PURE PHYSICS
From: George Hammond (research137_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 08/30/04
- Next message: Theo Wollenleben: "Re: thought experiment"
- Previous message: Androcles: "Re: Einstein's performance as a Patent Examiner?"
- In reply to: Scot McDermid: "Re: God=G_uv PURE PHYSICS"
- Next in thread: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv PURE PHYSICS"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 13:18:02 GMT
"Scot McDermid" <scotmc@optNOSPAMonline.net> wrote in message
news:gBDYc.16129$Es2.7824278@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
>
> "George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:tspYc.203496$8_6.92538@attbi_s04...
> > [Hammond]
>
> > Please write on the black board 25 times
> > the following statement.... memorize it!!
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > "God is a modification of "visible reality" caused by
> > the brain, NOT and "idea" caused by the brain"
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > -
> >
> > Until you MEMORIZE that statement, you don't know
> > what is being discussed here.
>
> MEMORIZE that statement but don't try to EVALUATE IT.
> See, if you start to evaluate it you might think :
> If God is a modification caused by the brain THEN
> God does not exist in His own right.
> But if you thought that then that would disagree with Hammond.
> So that is wrong.
> In another post, Hammond wrote that the statement above is
> [words to the effect] for pedants who can't understand a more
> precise statement. That is, George says you can't play
> 'phi-law-sophie" and pick that statement apart for details.
[Hammond]
Thqat's the complaint of a sore loser.
The only statement of what God is that is "pedantically correct"
is the 13 page scientific explanation, which of course he is
UNABLE TO READ because of a lack of scientific
qualifications.
Then.... when he asks me to "put it in simple language"...
he then turns around and starts arguing that
"common ideomatic language is pedantically inaccurate".
OBVIOUSLY McDermid is just "debating addict"
who makes "argument" a full time profession...
and actually could care less whether there is a God
or isn't a God.
====================================
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
====================================
- Next message: Theo Wollenleben: "Re: thought experiment"
- Previous message: Androcles: "Re: Einstein's performance as a Patent Examiner?"
- In reply to: Scot McDermid: "Re: God=G_uv PURE PHYSICS"
- Next in thread: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv PURE PHYSICS"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
