Re: GOD=G_uv A MESSAGE TO "Max"

From: George Hammond (research137_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 08/16/04 

Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 04:16:44 GMT

"Scot McDermid" <scotmc@optNOSPAMonline.net> wrote in message
news:rdVTc.367$vc4.154343@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
>
> "George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1gUTc.131845$8_6.45397@attbi_s04...
>
> Alan asked:
> > > But actual physical reality exists without this image. I fully expect
> > > actual physical reality to exist even after we're all dead. Don't you?
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Contrary to your expectations, the ANSWER IS NO !!!
> > The World would not exist if we were all dead!
>
> Aha! Well that actually ties a lot of your theory together.
> What you are saying might actually be internally consistent.
> Internally consistent but based on that false premise.
>
> Existence is not subjective. Existence is objective.
> Now I'm sure I won't be able to prove that to you.

[Hammond]
Of course you can't prove it.... it's a false statement.
The word "objective" means "outside the mind".
There is nothing that "exists" "outside the mind of Man".
If there was, we wouldn't know about it, would we!

>
> > First, let me say I am exceedingly grateful to have your focused
> > attention on this CRUCIAL issue.
>
> Yes... it is crucial. Your whole theory rests on it.

[Hammond]
Wrong. The proof of the discovery is not "linear" it is
"convergent" like any other major theory.
   Any scientific discovery (proven theory) must have the following
characteristics:

1. Must be comprehensive, i.e. must explain all knon evidence
2. Must be internally consistent
3. Must be sufficient
4. There must be NO contrary evidence

the scientific proof of God I've discovered and proven meets ALL of these
requirements, and is not "founded" on any one argument or piece of
evidence.

> > The fact is
> > that the world "exists" actually means:
> >
> > "exists" = "is existing" = "is observable by a human being"
>
> Yes "is *observable*" but when there is no human present
> to observe it, would you say that it continues to exist?

[Hammond]
Of course not. Because "reality" only exists in the perception
of the observer.... the "observer" in this case being the entire
body of mankind. If the eitire body of mankind died tomorrow,
"reality as we know it" OBVIOUSLY would no longer exist.

You know..... you can go round and round with "rethorical, semantic
and philosophical" arguments for only so long.... and then science
gets fed up and points to God=G_uv and the identity between
Factor Analysis and Linearized Gravity and the Curvature in
Psychometry Sapce and so on and quickly decides that your
"philawsephy" arguments are IRRELEVANT.

    Same is ture of any scientific theory..... you can argue that
"nothing can be proven" blah, blah, blah and plenty of kooks
on sci.physicis.relativity are.... and they argue that "relativity
cannot be true" becuse of this.... however, the mass of
world opinion is that it HAS BEEN PROVED and it IS
true.
   the same is true of the scientific proof of god.... you can
argue your "philawsephy" all you want... but the mass of
scientific evidence (comprehensive) shows that God=G_uv
and Science is only concerned with that, even if you aren't.

> Would you say it (pick an object) blip in and out of existence?

[Hammond]
Not unless the human race en toto blips in
and out of existence.

>
> > The reason for this is that Science CANNOT define "mass, length and
> > time" EXCEPT by reason of human "intuition". There IS NO
> > definition of "mass, length and time" other than the process of holding
> > up a brass cylinder of "mass" and a platinum rod of "length" and asking
> > for a "majority vote
> > of intuitive opinion" as to whether these represent EXAMPLES of
> > what is commonly "opined" to be "mass, length and time". Any physicist
> > will confirm this.
>
> Yes.. I'll actually agree. Without human to define mass, length
> and time, then these concepts would not exist.

[Hammond]
Your admission is equivalent to admitting that "human
perception creates reality"... which is about all that
Relgion actually says. And there is now a scientific proof
they are correct.

>
> > The concept and "definition" of "mass, length and time"
> > is SOLELY BASED on the existence of a HUMAN PERCEPTUAL
> > INSTINCT. They have no "existence" apart from the perceptual
> > system of a human being!
>
> I'll agree.
>
> > Ergo.... if all human beings die tomorrow, MASS, LENGTH AND TIME
> > die with them!!!!!
>
> Yes. I agree.
>
> > The "universe" and "reality itself" dies with them.
>
> No, wrong. That does not necessarily follow.
> Human conceptions would die. That brass
> cylinder of "mass" and platinum rod of "length"
> you mentioned above would continue to exist.

[Hammond]
Please tell me how you would PROVE that assertion.
I'll tell you in advance you CAN'T prove that assertion
because it is unprovable. The reason it is unprovable is
that without Man (the observer), the universe becomes an
"unobservable" and as any physicist knows, an unobservable
is not observable.
  The point is... "reality" is actually a product of the human
mind, and therefore disappears if all human minds disappear.
You would have to "redefine" the world "existence" in order
to say reality "exists" without Man, since in fact, the world
"existence" IS defined in terms of Mans ability to oberve
things that "exist".... "exist" MEANS "humanly observable".
If there is any OTHER kind of "existence" we certainly don't know
about it.

> There would simply be no one there to know
> the significance of those objects.

[Hammond]
More than that... there would be nobody here to "create the
existence" of those objects.

[Hammond]
ONE FINAL STATEMENT:

Don't go away thinking that you have been involved in an
"academic philosophy" discussion, YOU HAVEN'T.

There is an extremly PRACTICAL point to all this.
The practical consideration has to do with the fact that
history has noticed, and now science has explained and measured,
a significant VARIABILITY of "human perception" due to
brain growth (and particularly the lifting of repression of pent
up brain growth which unleashes "new reality"). This phenomena
explains MIRACLES.
  Moreover, it has been discovered scientifically that no one has a
"full grown brain"... and that means that part of reality is
INVISIBLE to all of us, and this explains the mysterious phenomena
called GOD.
   Fact is, modern science has found, at last, the rational, logical,
provable and measurable SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION OF GOD,
what has traditionally called "the scientific proof of God".
   This discovery is of TREMENDOUS IMPORTANCE to the
security and prosperity and civilization of the world!

====================================
   SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
        1st mirror site:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
        2nd mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
     new site (under construction):
http://home.comcast.net/~proof-of-god

Relevant Pages

  • Re: GOD=G_uv A MESSAGE TO "Max"
    ... Existence is objective. ... "reality as we know it" OBVIOUSLY would no longer exist. ... the same is true of the scientific proof of god.... ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: GOD=G_uv A MESSAGE TO "Max"
    ... Existence is objective. ... "reality as we know it" OBVIOUSLY would no longer exist. ... the same is true of the scientific proof of god.... ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: GOD=G_uv Y GENESIS IS TRUE
    ... our reality when the end of the Secular Trend arrives. ... the scientific proof of GOD--G_uv PROVES the ... I'v got a Masters degree in Physics... ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: GOD=G_uv Y GENESIS IS TRUE
    ... our reality when the end of the Secular Trend arrives. ... the scientific proof of GOD--G_uv PROVES the ... I'v got a Masters degree in Physics... ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: GOD=G_uv A MESSAGE TO "Max"
    ... Once again, Hammond has proved that he is the most self-centred, ... >> Existence is not subjective. ... > the scientific proof of God I've discovered and proven meets ALL of these ... > the same is true of the scientific proof of god.... ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading