Re: God=G_uv Proof of 'Intelligent Design'

From: Rob Duncan (robduncan_at_gbronline.com)
Date: 09/15/04 

Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 00:00:15 -0700

"George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GaGdnVYqFOeGsaDcRVn-gw@comcast.com...
> [Hammond]--------------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE: PLEASE USE " [your name] " format above what
> you post to this thread, otherwise it gets confusing
> as to who said what after a few replies, thank you
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

--
> -
>
>
> "sam ende" <sam@sende.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:2q47g4Fr8d7qU1@uni-berlin.de...
>
> > > [Russell E. Rierson]
> > > 5. The laws of physics are a set of organizing principles.
> > >
> > > 6. The only true example we have of an organizing
> > > principle is that of a "MIND"
> > >
> > > 7. The universe came from a MIND.
> >
> > [Sam Ende]
> > Why ? I don't think so. I think it is like the distinction we make of
> > mind and brain and finding no answer, maybe it is because it is
> > superfluous, .... <snip>
> >
> > sammi
> >
> >
>
>
> "sam ende" <sam@sende.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:2q46rsFr2tltU1@uni-berlin.de...
>
> > > [George Hammond]
> > > Hammond has discovered, proven and published the fact that
> > > the classical "person-God" of Religion exists and is explained
> > > by CLASSICAL EINSTEINIAN GRAVITY.
> >
> >[Sam Ende]
> > hammond must be a twit.
> >
> > sammi
>
> [Hammond]
> OK... if I've got this correctly, Russel Rierson believes Intelligent
Design
> exists and that it proves God exists.  Sam Ende says Intelligent Design
> does not exist and is therefore not a proof that God exists.  If I've
> got this wrong, please correct me.
>
> Meanwhile, I would like to take a position on the question of
> "Intelligent Design".  My position is:
>
> 1.  Intelligent Design is manifest in observable phenomena.
> 2.  This is because Man is the observer.
> 3.  It does indicate the existence of "God".
> 4.  It is not sufficient to "prove" the existence of God.
> 5.  Therefore it falls in the same category as the "5-proofs
>      of God" published by Aquinas in the Summa;  it is
>      "necessary but not sufficient" to prove the existence
>      of God.
>
> Now let me explain what I mean by this.  Here I am speaking
> strictly within the "Classical Physics Approximation", which
> is:
>
> -----------Classical Physics Approximation---------
> 1.  There exists an absolute physical reality.
> 2.  Man is an independent observer of this reality.
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> As we all know this is only an approximation.  The breakdown of
> this appears in Quantum Mechanics where among other things it
> produces the "Uncertainty Principle".  But it is not necessary
> to get into Quantum Mechanics for me to explain points 1-5
> above.
>
>
> Classical Physics holds that the human brain and sensory system
> creates a "faithful image" of absolute physical reality.  I.e., if we
> see it-  it is really there.  Furthermore, Physics ignores such things
> as "mental illness", "head injury", "temporary blindness",
> intoxication", blah, blah, blah, when it makes this assertion.
>
> Therefore, Physics proceeds on the assumption that this image
> is "nominally a 1:1 reproduction" of actual physical reality.
> At least, there is no "systematic and fundamental" departure
> from this 1:1 relationship that we have to worry about.
>
> INTERESTINGLY,  Hammond has pointed out that there
> IS A FUNDAMENTAL AND SYSTEMATIC DEPARTURE
> from this presumption.  And in fact it is this fundamental
> departure that causes what we call "God".
>
> It turns out, that while Physics ignores the fact that children
> have only partly grown brains and therefore don't see a
> 1:1 image of absolute physical reality until they reach age 18
> .... Physics ignores this on the grounds that it is "only
> temporary until they grow up and everybody knows about it".
>
> HOWEVER, Hammond has discovered that no one ever actually
> "fully grows up".  The SECULAR TREND in human growth
> shows that the average adult person has a "terminal growth
> deficit" amounting to some 15% or greater, and not only
> that it is variable among people, and even timewise variable
> in a single individual (hence 'miracles').
>    Hammond has proven that this "Secular Trend growth deficit"
> causes a Relativistic Curvature in the presumed 1:1 ratio between
> "perceptual reality" and "actual reality".  This significant
> CURVATURE then explains why we perceive the existence of
> a "supernatural God" who can "change reality".
>    In fact Hammond has discovered that this departure from the
> 1:1 ration is described mathematically by G_uv, the Einstein
> Curvature.  Hence the equation God=G_uv.
>
> OK.... HOW DOES THIS CAUSE  "INTELLIGENT DESIGN"??
>
> As explained above, the "classical person-God" of Religion is in
> fact the "invisible part of Man" caused by the Secular Trend growth
> deficit.  "God" therefore is in fact measurable to two decimal points,
> in Psychometry.
>     Since human braingrowth then "creates new reality"... we say that
> "God creates the World".  In fact, since modern Man is only 40,000
> years old, we see that the advent of modern Man (Homo Sapiens
> sapiens) 40,000 years ago, is in fact the scientific explanation of the
> Genesis Creation.
>    Meanwhile however, Man as he currently exists is only seeing
> "absolute physical reality" through the eyes of an 85% (average)
> grown brain.  This is what gives us the impression that a "greater
> intelligence" is involved in what we see.... at least a 15% greater
> intelligence, and in many cases significantly more than that... even
> as much as 20 or 30% some cases.  this is why we see "intelligent
> design" in our perceived reality (which is the only reality we can
> actually see).   Physics does not detect this "intelligent design"
> because it is measuring "absolute physical reality" which as the
> physicists will tell you... manifests no intelligent design.  However,
> NO NONE CAN ACTUALLY SEE absolute physical reality.
> It can be measured, and the Laws of Physics accurately describe
> it.... BUT NO ONE CAN SEE IT!!
>    The only thing we can SEE is "perceptual reality" and this
> obviously manifests an "invisible intelligence", and the reason
> for this is now well known.
>
>   So... INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS PROVEN TO BE CORRECT.
>
> Since NO ONE is fully grown (no one has their full intelligence),
> Man has observed "Intelligent Design" in the functioning and appearance
> of Nature since the beginning of the Species 40,000 years ago
> and will continue to observe it until the Secular Trend ends and
> we are all full grown (Kingdom Come) many thousands of years
> from now.
>
> Finally, we should note that Hammond's discovery of God=G_uv
> has now proven:
>
> 1.  God exists.
> 2.  Intelligent Design is scientifically correct.
> 3.  Biblical Creation is scientifically correct.
>
> I certainly think it is high time that Fundamentalists and Evangelical
> Christians as well as the 1.3 billions of adherents of Christianity
> in general polished up the silver Crosses on their lapels and began
> to take a more serious stance towards the continued refusal of
> Science to take God seriously.
>   In view of the bloody massacre of 200 school children in
> Russia last week, fueled by Religious confrontation among other
> things, I think it is a high crime and misdemeanor for Science to
> continue to ignore Hammond's discovery of a comprehensive
> scientific proof of God.  It is not right that innocent people
> should pay with their lives while Science drags its feet on this
> important issue.
> ====================================
>    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
> ====================================
Youve gone off the deep end.
Rob

Relevant Pages

  • Re: God=G_uv Proof of Intelligent Design
    ... "God" classically speaking, is a perceptual phenomena ... CLASSICAL PHYSICS LEVEL. ... There exists an absolute physical reality. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: God=G_uv Proof of Intelligent Design
    ... > hammond must be a twit. ... Russel Rierson believes Intelligent Design ... does not exist and is therefore not a proof that God exists. ... There exists an absolute physical reality. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: ID -lack of a mechanism might not be so bad
    ... I firmly believe that physics and geology research have ... despite all that is wrong with Intelligent design; ... not allowed to ask about God because 1) it's pointless since God can do ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: God=G_uv Proof of Intelligent Design
    ... Sam Ende says Intelligent Design ... >> does not exist and is therefore not a proof that God exists. ... >> Classical Physics holds that the human brain and sensory system ... Hammond has discovered that no one ever actually ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Zoe obviously hasnt done any reading about the Origin of Life or Darwinism
    ... There are no such laws as far as we know. ... so much for 'intelligent design'. ... so i guess physics is wrong and we can replace it with 'god did it' ...
    (talk.origins)