Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin

From: George Hammond (nowhere_at_nomailspam.net)
Date: 01/04/05 

Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 02:46:41 GMT

"TMG" <TMG@Nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:Gb6dneaKNe23X0XcRVn-1Q@comcast.com...
> George Hammond wrote:
>
> > "Uno Hoo!" <kev@dropthisbigfoot.com> wrote in message
> > news:cr65el$mh8$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> >>"George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.net> wrote in message
> >>news:8y6zd.12441$Z47.4947@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >>
> >>
> >>>[Hammond]
> >>>No content posts are boring.
> >>>and don't *** with the headers dip***.
> >>
> >>What puzzles me George is why a self professed academic and intellectual
> >>feels the need to resort to the language of a street yob when debating.
> >>Certainly demonstrates something about your personality.
> >
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Tell me something... if you were on a quiz show and they
> > asked you:
> >
> > "Can you describe what kind of a person you think
> > it will be who discovers the world's first scientific
> > proof of God; assuming such a discovery is
> > possible?'
> >
> > What would you give for an answer?
>
>
> Can anyone play this guessing game?
>
>
> A white male from New England. Grew up in the late 1950s or early 1960s.
> Was retarded socially, and kept mostly to himself. Was thought to be a
> bit of a prodigy, but was never given the family support. Thought to be
> a bit "odd", and probably compared to a more conventional sibling -
> maybe an older brother who was a sports star.
>
> Probably from modest means. In high school, he would have gravitated to
> one or maybe two teachers who seemed to see a spark. These teachers
> would have also been a bit off or non-conventional.
>
> Might have received a recommendation to a technical school, possibly
> from a favorite teacher with a connection. Received passing, but not
> superior college marks. College social relations were also limited, but
> may have included testing homosexual bounds, as well as misanthropic
> hetero relationships.
>
> Continued education would have only been undertaken after evaluation of
> viable professional attempts. There may have been quite a bit of family
> conflict with the decision not to enter the workforce.
>
> Social, personal, and familial pressures - when combined with a less
> than stellar scientific mind, conspire against him. He dabbles in
> unconventional relationships (by this time, it's the late 1960s),
> perhaps mind altering drugs.
>
> Having moved from an "odd" big fish in a small pond to a venue where
> actual knowledge is valued, he suffers another setback. Rather than face
> the realization that family, friends, and educators are in fact right -
> he "allows" himself a psychotic break. A descent into madness that
> absolves him of any missteps, miscalculations, or shortcomings.
>
> He ends up instutionalized. Strapped down and shot full of mind altering
> drugs. A ward of the state.
>
> It is during this psychotic break, that he "discovers the world's first
> scientific proof of God; assuming such a discovery is possible?"
>
>
> Close?
>

[Hammond]
Well... we can be sure of a few things:

1. The person must have a scientific background including
     Relativity, meaning most likely it will be a trained physicist.

2. Since (in hindsight) "God" proves to be a mental (perceptual)
     phenomena, a physicist with a mental history is also quite likely.

3. Interestingly, both these qualifications seem to eliminate
     anyone with a strong religous persuasion. As in the case
     of St. Paul he is more likely a common agnostic or even
     a run of the mill religous ignorant.

4. The 3 items above indicate that the discovery will be
     almost totally accidental (serendipitous) rather than the
     result of an overt plan to investigate "God".

5. It is true that the individual will more likely come from a
     liberal advanced culture where a premium is put on
     "common sense" while "social rigidity" or presecution
     is strongly frowned upon. This does make New England
     a likely place for it to happen.

At any rate, I think its clear that we are not looking for the
second coming of Jesus of Nazareth. It turns out that what
we're looking for is a crazy physicist who decides that he's
going to spend 20 years investigating the "physics of
Psychology". This turns out to be a cake walk since there
isn't a soul in the entire field of Psychology who can even read
a physics book, as you know. He easily discovers the
biological cause of the "Structural Model" everyone in
Psychology has been looking for ever since Hippocrates said
there was such a thing...So then... while he's beating his chest
and being a bigshot among the featherweight psychologists...
lo and behold... he stumbles on something that's so big
it turns out it's big enough to kill him.... so much for being a
big shot!

====================================
   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
===================================