Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin

From: A. Carlson (amcarls_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 12/07/04 

Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 03:13:09 +0000 (UTC)

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 02:21:18 +0000 (UTC), "George Hammond"
<nowhere@nomailspam.net> wrote:

>
>"A. Carlson" <amcarls@hotmail.com> wrote in message

<Clip heading>

>> > 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.

Other than your obvious arrogance, do you have any proof of either of
these contentions?

I'm talking about both your claimed expertise in BOTH fields and your
claim that none of the tens of thousands of physicists out there can
match your intellect with regards to religion (or physics for that
matter).

>> > 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.

So you've had a personal chat with God then? Exactly how, other than
circular arguments dealing with your so-called 'proofs' are you better
qualified than most, if not all, with understanding theology?

Newton also did not limit himself to others' viewpoints. He wrote
about his own interpretations of biblical prophecies. Needless to say
they were wrong, as most are ultimately proven to be. This is one
point that he does share with Mary Baker Eddy. This just goes to show
that anyone can pontificate, even you.

>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.

Ahh..A circular argument then. Just as I suspected. Someone is only
an expert theologian if they buy into your crap. How unoriginal!

>Jesus on the other hand certainly understood this.

And this is based on what?

By the way, your comparison of Newton with Eddy is still pretty much
falsified. In fact what I find interesting is that you are obviously
aware of Newton's extensive writings on religion and yet you still
made the bogus comparison that you did. Perhaps you're aware of
millions of words Mary Baker Eddy wrote on physics as well? Somehow I
don't think so.

>> 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.

Arrogance noted. By the way, are you going to just summarily dismiss
what such a person would say if they don't see eye-to-eye with you? I
get the impression that validation is all you are willing to accept.

>> > 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.

Or see it as nothing but crap (see point two below).

><snip amateur argumentative crap>

Now let's see what you consider 'amateur argumentative crap':

>>1. It does not follow that because one is an expert in science
>>or religion, one is automatically not well versed in the other.
 
This you summarily dismissed by hand waving. Not too convincing.
Don't blame you for dodging it.

>>2. If you truly have 'proof' in the scientific sense, then the
>>theological question should be immaterial to that proof.

Now this is the one that I really want an answer to. Your claim is
essentially scientific in nature and yet you insist that theology is a
must to understand it. How can that be? Can't blame you for dodging
this one either.

>>3. If your answer is truly beyond the comprehension of others
>>then perhaps the solution lies in the possibility that you haven't
>>made the discovery that you are claiming.

Now this is actually material to your overall claim because it
reflects the type of argument that so many whackos in the past have
made concerning their own scientific claim, that is their claim is so
significant and yet so far beyond a mere mortal's comprehension.

Considering some of your amateurish arguments on your own web page as
well as here, I wouldn't put much weight behind what you're claiming.

<End of clipped/dodged text>

And are you claiming expertise in both these disciplines as well? If
that is also a fundamental problem with the understanding of your
theory then why not initially seek experts who are well versed in both
religion and theology instead of just complaining about those who are
not? (or perhaps just assuming they're not!)

>> > 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.

And how could something be really that remarkable and yet no one but
it's own author can see it? It's either not there to begin with or
you are making very poor arguments in support of it. How many years
have you been at this?

Alex

Relevant Pages

  • Re: online religion test - do you believe in God?
    ... manager of research, including vice-president for science. ... H. Parker Sharp Professor of Theology and Ethics at Pittsburgh Theological ... having been for most of his life Professor of Physics at the ... Firestone Professor of Religion at the University of Southern California ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin
    ... > The COUNTERBALANCE FOUNDATION FORUM ... >Theologians expert in Physics. ... someone being an expert at both theology AND physics, ... religion than he did on Physics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Casanova compares apples to oranges, gets his facts wrong, fails to look at all of the numbers,
    ... makes the claim, according to the review, that western theology made a ... "I say that religion isn't about believing things. ... rendering native Americans to make candles for the Church? ... The issue was the subjectivity of atheism and the horrors that it ...
    (talk.origins)
  • God --> Retroactive Teleogical Causation
    ... book The Physics of Immortality, which is available ... the universe is spatially closed (has finite spatial size and has ... should be identified with God. ... My theology is defended by Professor Wolfhart Pannenberg, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... > unimaginable is about god. ... >> lost count of the number of theology books I've read. ... >> adherents usually claim they have the only universal truth. ... >> foundational statement of your religion. ...
    (sci.cognitive)