Re: Open letter to the relativity NG from God

From: George Hammond (nowhere1_at_nospam.net)
Date: 03/12/05 

Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 08:12:58 GMT

"TMG" <TMG@Nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:xo2dne2nJIW-p6_fRVn-vg@comcast.com...
> George Hammond wrote:
> > "Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:GY7Yd.111130$pc5.35504@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> >>Existence is independent of your brain or awareness.
> >
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > How can you prove that when every demonstration of
> > "existence" (e.g. "something existing") depends
> > ENTIRELY on some HUMAN confirming it!
> > THERE IS NO OTHER WAY of confirming that
> > "something exists" other than by the agency of
> > A HUMAN.
>
> That is the mistake you are clinging to - even though you have been told
> over and over that your terms are initially and fatally misdefined.
>
> The state of "exists" does not depend in any why on "observation" -
> human or otherwise.
>
> There are two conditions: "Exists" and "Observed". They are not
independent.
>
> "Exists" is not dependent on "Observed".
>
> Example 1: The ratio of chemicals in reactions has *existed* since the
> dawn of time. Dalton "observed" the relationship and made various
> conclusions. The "existence" was non-dependent on "observation".

[Hammond]
Wrong, "observation" is a function of human existence.
Therefore... no humans = no "existence" = no observations.
Since "existence" (which is a human sensory faculty only)
only came into being 100,000 years ago....
"the dawn of time" was only 100,000 years ago.
The "existence of the chemical ratios" only came into
"existence" when "existence" came into being... i.e.
100k years ago. Before that, there was no "existence
of chemical ratios". The 12 billion year "existence"
of the chemical ratios only came into "existence"
when "existence itself" came into being... which was
100,000 years ago when "humans" appeared and
"created existence" by appearing.

Look... sooner or later you're going to have to stop
playing "philosophy games" and deal with the
practial reality of the actual scientific facts of interest...
which in fact "prove their is a God" and explain what
it is and thereby explain the world's oldest and biggest
mystery... called "God and religion". Anyone competent
can see that the discovery I have made PROVES that
there is a real phenomon which "explains and proves
the existence of God" and once that is understood..
all of the "philosophy games" fall into place and
are easily understood. IOW... what you are really
up aginst is not a "philosophy game" but a
REAL AND PRACTICAL SCIENTIFIC
GAME.... and once that occurs...
"philosophy games" lose all their interest and
influence. Better start hedging your bets....
because the public is very PRACTICAL minded,
and not really interested in arcane "word games".

>
> "Observed" in a rational sense, IS dependent on "exists".

>
> Example 2: In order to "observe" a starfish, a starfish must "exist".

[Hammond]
No... "existence itself" must first be created before either a
"starfish can exist" or "observations can exist".

>
> You continue to cling to your misdefination.
>
> To plug into your example, when the 6 billion humans drop dead at 9AM
> tomorrow, where do the bodies go at 9:01? And the earth they dropped
> down onto, etc.
>
> They will be sitting out in the sun (at least half will be) rotting.

[Hammond]
without a human observer... there is no operational
way such a statment can be proved.

>
> Human perception is not required for physical existence.

[Hammond]
Yes it is.

> To say
> otherwise is, by definition, wrong.

[Hammond]
No it isn't.

> The unobserved side of the moon
> existed prior to Luna 3. You won't see this, and will spew.

[Hammond]
No you are spewing a tautology.
Neither the unobserved side of the moon, nor
Luna 3 "existed" prior to the creation of "existence
itself" 100,000 years ago... because "existence" is
a human faculty and certainly did not exist before
humans appeared.

>
> "Proof" has nothing to do with the issue. Remember, the chemical ratios
> existed before Dalton observed and proved. The other side didn't pop
> into existence when the first pictures from Luna 3 were observed.

[Hammond]
No, it "popped into existence" along with the moon itself and
the chemical ratios of the substances 100,000 years ago when
"existence itself" popped into being.

> There
> is reality, and there is observation. You continue to mistake "observed"
> with "exists". Things exist which are not yet observed. You mistake the
> condition of not YET observed, with UNobservable.

[Hammond]
No... you're going around in hopeless circles.
even the physicists themselves admit that anything
that is "not observable" does not exist. remember
"observable" means by any means... including,
deduction, inference, detection... in short "potentially
knowable or detectable by a human being". All of the
"observables" of Physics are said to "exist" and if
something is "not observable (knowable)" then it
does not exist.

>
> What caused the plague that killed 1/5 of Europe, before the invention
> of the microscope?
>
> You will now spew.

[Hammond]
You're the one who is spewing... and it's getting rather
tiresome.

The problem you can't address is the FACT
that Hammond has discovered and proven that
"subjective reality" is a "curved version" of
"objective reality" and therefore is intrinsically
a "curvature of space" and therefore isintrinsically
gravitational in origin. Such a discovery, by
ANY STANDARD is a stunning and monumental
scientific discovery... and gives an ENTIRELY
new and real meaning to the "existence of God"
issue. What YOU are trying to do is use age
old and pathetic and tired "philosophical"
arguments against a STUNNING SCIENTIFC
FACT. Your efforts are forlorn uselessness..
sooner or later the public is going to find out
that an actual STUNNING SCIENTIFIC FACT
has been discovered... and all you "philosophy"
razz a matazze is going to be judged to be
irrelevant in the face of the PRACTICAL
SIGNIFICANCE of what has been experimentally
discovered....... a NEW scientific fact.

   Another thing you're ignoring is that the "existence
doesn't exist without humans" is a very old and
time honored argument which has NEVER been
disproven (in fact can't be disproven). It is formally
as old as Bishop Berkeley.... and in the hands of
Mary Baker Eddy it founded an entire new Church
based on it. In fact... the argument is as old as
the Old Testament... because in point of fact
the Genesis Creation story is based on it.
  Now, however, an actual scientific explanation of
what the classical "God" actually is has been
discovered and proven and published which PROVES
that the argument is correct.. at least "classically"
(e.g. as far as the classical God goes... it is
absolutely proven to be true).
   Now i'm not going to get into what the theory of
"quantum gravity" may turn out to be and how a
"quantum gravity" explanation of God might look...
but no matter what it says... in the classical limit
it MUST reduce to the classical God of the Bible.
Fact is.... you're puny complaints are about to be
drowned out by one of the biggest social cataclysms
in the history of the world... and that is the uproar
that is ging to be heard when the world realizes
that a "scientific proof of God" has been
discovered... believe me.... you won't even be
able to get a world in edgewise for the cheering
and celebratin humanity we are about to witness.
====================================
   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: GOD=G_uv FOR IQs OVER 150
    ... Is God merely ... >> humans. ... >> am familar with this notion of existence that you describe here. ... > Your attempt to argue against a scientifc discovery using ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: GOD=G_uv A MESSAGE TO "Max"
    ... >> The existence of additional undetected planets is something that can ... But there was no reality because reality is only ... > No reality and no man, and no God. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: GOD=G_uv A MESSAGE TO "Max"
    ... >> The existence of additional undetected planets is something that can ... But there was no reality because reality is only ... > No reality and no man, and no God. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: GOD=G_uv A MESSAGE TO "Max"
    ... >> The existence of additional undetected planets is something that can ... But there was no reality because reality is only ... > No reality and no man, and no God. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: GOD=G_uv REPLY TO DEAN
    ... prior to 100,000 b.c. the word "existence" HAD ... Earth not to understand what God is. ... a scientific proof of God on HIS SIDE, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading