Re: GOD=G_uv HAMMOND NOBEL SPEECH

From: George Hammond (research137_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 07/17/04 

Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 16:30:25 GMT

"Pyriform" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:40f91248$0$6449$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
> George Hammond wrote:
> > The ENTIRE POINT of religion
> > and God is the struggle of Good against Bad... Right against
> > Wrong, Good against Evil..... and obviously given 5-billion
> > adherents to organized religion worldwide... the majority recognizes
> > Good as overwhelmingly more prevalent than Evil... hence his
> > "recognition of goodness" is simply equivalent to the "worldwide
> > support of religion", which is an established fact, not a "guess".
>
> Hammond, you are an idiot. It means no such thing. The "recognition of
> goodness" is about recognising the difference between good and bad. I
> can do that without reference to any imagined supernatural entity. So
> can plenty of other people. The idea that morality necessarily derives
> from God is simply absurd. Hence "God-neutral" is an entirely fair
> assessment. It's *at least* as fair as the 50% prior probability figure.

[Hammond]
Hey.. ever heard of "majority opinion"? Your statement is a
"theoretical logical argument".... on the other hand the
fact that 5-BILLION people worldwide consider themselves
to be adherents to the major faiths, and since "religion" is
all about trying to promote "good against evil", we must assume
that 5-BILLION people have a "recognition of goodness"
like Unwin says.

>
> > Unwin is a PhD physicist, a U.K. diplomat and a successful
> > government consultant in "probablility analysis"... to put forward
> > your "amateur" opinions against his are rediculous, as just
> > demonstrated above.
>
> You have no way of knowing to what extent my opinions are "amateur",
> since I have not revealed my credentials. You are simply star-struck.

[Hammond]
You have not written a hot new science book that is being reviewed
in Time Magazine, I can be pretty sure of that. Everybody is
"star-struck" and for good reason. "Stars" are recognized authorities
and lead world opinion, in case you haven't noticed. George Bush
is a "star" for chrissakes.

> Besides, my argument is primarily with you, not Unwin. He readily
> concedes that his choice of evidentiary areas is not definitive, and
> that the probabilities he assigned to them are highly debateable. You,
> on the other hand, simply seized on his headline result as representing
> some kind of support for your ludicrous "theory".

[Hammond]
There's obviously no doubt that it is. For instance, if he had
come out with P=26% it would be evidence against me.

> Has Unwin endorsed your theory yet?

[Hammond]
He's just made a valuable theoretical suggestion to me which
has startled me and which I am working on now.... as soon as
I'm finished I'll post this (highly intriguing) result on
sci.physics.relativity.

> Maybe you could write encouraging
> remarks for each other's dust jackets. You are writing a book about
> this, aren't you Hammond?

[Hammond]
I've considered a book... but I'm waiting for a break in
the weather... some kind of recognition before I'd waste a
lot of time and effort like that.... if the educated professionals
can't understand it what's the use of trying to explain it to
laymen. I've got to find a way to flush out the big shots
before I try writing a book that nobody would read. The
theory just got published in the peer reviewed literature last week,
I'm hoping that some scholar will see that for instance.

> It's too good an opportunity to miss. Best to
> keep the equations to a minimum though, if you want to maximise your
> sales potential.

[Hammond]
Its too late for money to interest me.... I'm only
interested in revenge.

>
> >>> And BTW don't use a calculator to slog thru this
> >>
> >> You over-estimate the amount of time I am prepared to waste on this.
> >> I used Unwin's own calculator, helpfully provided on his website.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Calculator on his website?.... mind citing a URL for that?
>
> It took me a few seconds to find it. I realise that you are nowhere near
> as smart as I am, but even you should get there in a few minutes. After
> all, you did prove the existence of God <s***>.

[Hammond]
>From where I'm sitting a "few seconds" is a luxury I can't afford.

 ====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
====================================

Quantcast