Re: GOD=G_uv Tree falling in a forest is a better analogy for this debate

From: Andrew Cunningham (a.c.cunningham_at_btinternet.com)
Date: 08/20/04 

Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 02:28:35 +0000 (UTC)

I'm probably not the first person in the world to say that the outcome of
said razor depends entirely on whether the majority believe the statement to
be the most simple, logical and concise of the two opposing views. So, Prof
Ham, what exactly makes you think your "GODGuv" is so? Sheesh, can anyone
find an arbitrator, quickly, please?

"George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:QPNUc.183593$eM2.121780@attbi_s51...

>
> NOTHING can contradict the discovery of this experimentally
> proven new FACT... and that is where the "morass of word games"
> finally meets OCCUM'S RAZOR. And Occam's Razor
> clearly says in this case, that Hammond, Genesis, and Jesus
> are CORRECT. And that Classical Physics is going to have to add
> an epilog called "the scientific explanation of God" to their
> standard Physics Handbooks. Frankly, I don't think practical minded
> physicist are going to get upset about this... after all, one more
> scientific
> topic isn't going to bother them, no matter what it is, as long as it's
> axiomatic hard science... and THAT s what "God" is now.
>
> ====================================
> 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