Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin

From: George Hammond (nowhere_at_nomailspam.net)
Date: 12/07/04 

Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 02:21:18 +0000 (UTC)

"A. Carlson" <amcarls@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kb48r01ticsc91smeqb9eoe348e15djrbc@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 06:02:52 +0000 (UTC), "George Hammond"
> <nowhere@nomailspam.net> wrote:
>
> >George Hammond, Hyannis, Cape Cod MA
> >ghammond31415@hotmail.com
> >December 5, 2004
> >
> > The COUNTERBALANCE FOUNDATION FORUM
> > c/o Professor Chris Isham
> > Professor William Dembski
> >
> > http://www.counterbalance.org/bio/index-frame.html
> >
> >By email to:
> >
> >Chris Isham William Dembski Stephen Unwin
> >Sandra Faber Owen Gingerich Richard Arnowitt
> >Alan Guth John F. Haught Edward Kolb
> >David Latham Joel Primack Bob Russell
> >Seth Shostak Trinh Xuan Thuan Neil Turok
> >Steven Weinberg John Polkinhorne John Barrow
> >George Coyne Bruno Guiderdoni Wm. Stoeger
> >Richard Amoroso Phil Hefner Lee Smolin
> >
> >also posted to: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics,
> > alt.sci.physics, alt.sci.physics.new-theories
> > alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
> > alt.philosophy, alt.atheism, alt.religion.christian
> >________________________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> > God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin
> >
> >
> > Professors Chris Isham and William Dembski are
> >COUNTERBALANCE members. Physicist Dr. Stephen Unwin is
> >author of _The Probability of God_ (see SCIAM July 2004,
> >p. 46 for a review by Michael Shermer).
> >
> > All three have written opinions on my discovery that
> >God=G_uv and I wish to rebut their remarks in this
> >letter to the Counterbalance Forum.
> >
> > Physicists are not experts in Theology nor are
> >Theologians expert in Physics.
>
> Generally speaking perhaps, but can you preclude the possibility of
> someone being an expert at both theology AND physics, or at least well
> versed in both?

[Hammond]
No. I am.

>
> > It is just as doubtful that Isaac Newton understood
> >God is as it is doubtful that Mary Baker Eddy understood
> >the Principle of Least Action.
>
> And what is this assumption based on? Isaac Newton in fact wrote
> extensively about biblical matters. I'd be willing to bet that he
> wrote far more about religion than Mary Baker Eddy wrote about
> physics.

[Hammond]
Isaac Newton wrote 4-million words on religion.
I haven't read it all... but judging from what he wrote
about God in the General Scholium of the Principia,
it is absolutely clear that Newton's conception of God
was learned from religious textbooks and is not based on
personal discovery or observation. He certainly
DID NOT KNOW (at least in his 40's when he
wrote the Principia).... that "God" is actually a
mental perceptual phenomena whereby the
ungrown/latent part of the brain causes a substantial
part of reality to be invisible. Jesus on the other
hand certainly understood this.

>
> According to Stephen J. Gould, Isaac Newton wrote more extensively on
> religion than he did on Physics. Scientist & Science Fiction writer
> Isaac Asimov also appears to have studied and written extensively
> about both science and religion. I'm sure that with a little effort
> one can find several other exceptions to your assertion that negate it
> as a blanket statement.

[Hammond]
As far as I know I am the only exception... if you
run into any others, pleasde let me know... I'd
like to talk to them.

>
> > HENCE: If a scientific proof
> > of God is discovered we can be
> > certain that FEW will understand it!
>
> That strikes me as being false on its face:

[Hammond]
Isham, Dembski and Unwin certainly don't understand
it.

<snip amateur argumentative crap>

> > Such is the case with God=G_uv
> >
> > BECAUSE OF THIS FACT, I have received very pejorative
> >commentaries from Drs. Isham and Dembski. They have
> >even suggested God=G_uv is incompetent. Therefore I
> >feel obliged to inform the Sci-Rel community of the error
> >of their opinions and of the high handed carelessness
> >with which they have received this remarkable discovery.
>
> <Clip>
>
> Alex
====================================
   SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE

http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
        mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
====================================
please ask you news server to add:
alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
===================================

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Science Disproves Evolution
    ... God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the ... depth of philosophy, stating, "It is true, that a little philosophy ... men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon ... magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our ...
    (uk.philosophy.atheism)
  • 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: A Letter to George Hammond, and all Christians for that matter.
    ... certainly not in Physics. ... the Christian Religion such as the Bible.... ... We argued about a proof of god they had that went ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: A Letter to George Hammond, and all Christians for that matter.
    ... certainly not in Physics. ... the Christian Religion such as the Bible.... ... We argued about a proof of god they had that went ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: An Open Letter to [Hammond]
    ... > That's because there are many reasons why religion is not a good way ... > he spoke of the mind of God then he was using a metaphor, ... > Many other great scientists have been religous. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)