Re: God=G_uv BACK TO PHILOSOPHY
From: TomGee (lvlus_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 08/26/04
- Next message: Uncle Al: "Re: Gravity as Falling Space"
- Previous message: OG: "Re: Gravity as Falling Space"
- Next in thread: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv BACK TO PHILOSOPHY"
- Reply: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv BACK TO PHILOSOPHY"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 26 Aug 2004 16:18:39 -0700
"George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<_DkXc.94499$TI1.11579@attbi_s52>...
> "Scot McDermid" <scotmc@optNOSPAMonline.net> wrote in message
> news:tJbXc.3154$ZD4.3546870@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> > "George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:Sh7Xc.68440$mD.43941@attbi_s02...
> > >
> > > "Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > > news:q_4Xc.515673$Gx4.499921@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > >
> > > > There are thousands of God beliefs. Does his scientific proof of God,
> prove
> > > > which God is the correct one and that all the others are fakes???
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > It proves all of the world's major religions... e.g. Christianity,
> > > Islam, Judiasm, Hinduism and Buddhism are true,
>
No, it does not. Just because humans inherently contain psychological
defense mechanisms against the whims of nature does not mean any of
those mechanisms are reality. Billions of people have often believed
wrongly about various concerns, but their belief - or prayers, if you
will - cannot make their false beliefs true. To believe that
something which has always been will always be is fallacious thinking,
and the same goes for something which has been believed to be true by
many people for a long time.
>
> > > and all
> > > worship the same God.... namely the God described by
> > > God=G_uv. This accounts for the overwhelming majority
> > > of the world's estimated 5-billion religious adherents.
> >
But reality is not a democracy - even if every single person on the
planet believes something is true, it can still turn out that they are
wrong. Reality does not depend on majority votes any more than the
sun requires observers so that it may rise in the East. What accounts
for any overwhelming religious majority has more to do with the power
accrued by particular religions against any other ruler. Look at the
religious TV shows today: They prey on the old and infirm, the
ignorant and the conservative. They clearly have a continuing agenda
to run time back to the Dark Ages, but with them on top this time.
They won't do it in my lifetime, but the corruption that comes with
absolute power insures that they will surely rise again to impose
horror upon the inhabitants of this planet.
>
> > It is your paper that you are pushing. It is your theory.
> > So to be complete you really need to establish the link from
> > G_uv to God. This, of course, brings us away from the
> > PURE PHYSICS back to the philosophy.
> >
> > 1 -You have said that God is an invisible man that rules
> > the universe. (But Brahman, for example is not a man
> > at all. Brahman is attributeless.)
>
> [Hammond]
> I take Brahman to be the analog of the "Holy Ghost" in
> Christianity. He is in fact part of the Trinity that may be
> identified in Hinduism. He is "personified" in fact by the
> "Brahmins" (the priestly caste). He is in fact one member
> of the "Trimurti" or Trinity in Hinduism.
> the Hindu Trimurti however is a slight corruption of the
> christian Trinity (which is scientifically correct) in that
> the Trimurti ignores the "Son" and includes the "Devil".
> the "Son of God" in Hinduism is Krishna, and the Devil
> is Shiva. Thus the Trimurti is "Vishnu, Brahma, and Shiva"
> while the true Trinity of Hinduism is actually "Vishnu,
> Krishna and Brahma"... the "Father, Son and Holy Ghost".
> This is all based on my observation that the "Trinity of
> God" is the dynamical description of God's action in
> society which is a feedback loop (input, output, feedback)
> and theologically this was discovered in Apostolic times and
> named "Father, Son and Holy Ghost"... I believe even
> Jesus in the New Testament makes the statment that
> people should be Baptized in the name of the "Father,
> the Son and the Holy Ghost", so it was certainly recognized
> 2,000 years ago.
>
All of which should make anyone wary of false prophets. It is odd
that all humans seem to characteristically require similar fantasy
outlets for the anxiety created by the uncertainty of reality, no?
>
> [Hammond]
> Wrong. Clearly the term "Big Bang creation" is known to
> you, AND the term "Biblical Creation" is known to you.
> Both of them are given considerable credence in the
> Western world.
>
What humans think holds no credence against what nature is.
>
> Fact is, my discovery proves that BOTH "creations"
> are true. To wit:
>
> 1. 40,000 years ago the human brain and therefore
> "perceptual reality" came into existence... this
> explains the Biblical Creation. Without perceptual
> reality there is no physical reality, because human
> perception is the ONLY AGENCEY by which
> we detect physical reality.
>
Your opinion is totally egocentric - whether or not we detect reality
has nothing to do with reality. It has to do only with what we detect
and what we do not detect.
>
> 2. Because of 1, we see that when the Biblical Creation
> occurred, it "Created" the "existence" of physical
> reality including time itself.
>
You can say it created those things as such _for humans_, but you
cannot shorten that statement as you have done and remain within the
real world. Reality and time both existed long before humans came
along.
>
> Part of this Creation
> of time was the creation of the "15-billion year
> history" of the universe, including the Big Bang.
>
Reaching for straws, are we? Humans cannot create history in which
they are not involved, although we can think and believe that we did.
>
> 3. So, therefore, "within Biblical Creation" there
> is a "physical creation" known as the Big Bang.
>
What about within physical creation there is a Biblical creation known
as one view of history?
>
> I don't see how this should be considered "incredible",
> or "unbelieveable" or "irrational".... it seems as simple
> as 1, 2, 3 to me.
>
But you are so much more omnipotent than anyone else who sees it as
pure fantasy stemming from human defense mechanisms.
>
> Problem is.... most people would say "so what... what is the
> PRACTICAL SIGNIFICANCE of such a theory"?
> And up until NOW there was no proven scientific significance
> of this "philosophical argument".
> But NOW, Hammond has discovered that there is a
> significant, fundamental and systematic DEPARTURE
> of "perceptual reality" from "absolute physical reality".
> that this difference can be measured to two decimal points,
> is at a minimun at least 15%, and it CAUSES the phenomena
> that we call "God" as well as all of Psychology... and in
> fact accounts for the existence of Religion.
>
We have long known what accounts for the existence of religion. It is
no mystery to anyone who has taken psychology 101. Man has survived
to become master of the planet due to his fundamental drive for
self-preservation. This drive motivates us to survive death in almost
any way we can. Once we learned about mortality and the fact that we
are mortal, our psyche developed ways to cope with such high anxiety
and the belief of immortality in the hereafter caught on really well
after the religious found that preaching was not bad work.
>
> And of course..... it finally ENDS the philosophical
> dispute that has been going on for 1700 years as to whether
> "reality" is "perceptual" or "absolute". Turns out it is
> BOTH.... and the DIFFERENCE between the two explains
> the existence of the "God of the Bible".
>
As I said , reality has nothing to do with our perception of it,
unless we egomaniacally believe the universe revolves around our
planet.
>
> [Hammond]
> I certainly have made a historic discovery irregardless of whether
> you agree with it or not.
>
Why sure, of course you have, Hammond. The world will beat a path to
your door.
>
> Einstein in fact said he did
> not believe in a "personal God" (anthropomorphic God)
> and believed in a "cosmical God". Basically this is the
> what Spinoza advocated.... Spinoza said "God is Nature".
> Well, the fact is my discovery indicates that BOTH views
> i.e. the "person-God" and the "cosmic God" are correct.
> However, we must point out that said discovery clearly shows
> that both Spinoza and Einstein were INCORRECT when they
> said that the "person-God"... that is the "invisible man God"
> did not exist. He does exist!
>
No, he doesn't.
>
> And moreover, it is the
> "person-God" that has been, and still is, the workhorse of
> religion for 3,500 years. And no doubt will remain so!
>
No doubt.
>
> OK, the reason my discovery confirms that BOTH views
> of God are correct is that my discovery shows that "God is
> caused by Gravity". The invisible person-God is caused
> by Classical Gravity, which indicates immediately that when
> the theory of Quantum Gravity is ever discovered, we are
> going to get a "cosmological" description of God. And,
> people are already working on this despite the fact that the theory
> of Quantum Gravity hasn't even been discovered.
>
Um....theories are not "discovered"; rather, they are created and
proposed.
>
> The whole
> field of "Consciousness Research" is in fact a search for this
> "cosmological God".
>
No, that is not a fact at all.
>
> However, the "cosmological God" theory
> is very old... and Spinoza is a well known example of it.
> However... to start a speculative digression into quantum
> gravity and the nature of the cosmological God at this point,
> when what we have on the table before us is an ACTUAL PROOF
> of the "classical God"
>
No it isn't. That's just wishful thinking on your part.
>
.... that is the invisible man God... I
> consider nothing but an attempt to change the subject or
> an attempt to obfuscate the dramatic proven discovery that
> we have before us now.
>
Yours is neither a discovery, dramatic, and nor is it proven.
Yours is simply an opinion.
>
> So.. to answer your query.... YES the "God of Spinoza"
> is a correct theory.... and this theory does make it's appearance
> in many of our "unsophisticated Third World religions".
> Why? Because when all is said and done.... the "cosmological
> God" is actually a LESS SOPHISTICATED idea than the
> PERSON-GOD of classical religion.
>
Right! It doesn't pretend to be wearing clothes.
>
> After all.... saying things
> like "God is energy" which any office secretary is apt to say...
> is a far less sophisticated rumination than discovering that
> God is "an invisible man" which is what classical religion
> discovered thousands of years ago, and is the MAINSTAY
> of world religion today.
> Fianlly, however... don't think I am pooh poohing the
> importance of the "cosmological God"... or what we might
> call the "quantum God". After all, comparing the "person God"
> to the "quantum God" is sort of like comparing the
> "political theory of Man" to the "medical theory of Man".
> While it is true that Politics is more important than Medicine
> in terms of direct impact on Civilization.... we all appreciate
> that Medicine is vital to human survival. Likewise, it turns
> out that the "classical theory" of God cannot answer the question
> of "Life After Death"... and it is highly likely that we won't
> get an answer to that until the "quantum God" (quantum gravity)
> is discovered.
>
The question is moot since we can't know if there is life after death;
we can only wish there is. It becomes a matter of personal opinion,
one side being as correct or incorrect as the other.
- Next message: Uncle Al: "Re: Gravity as Falling Space"
- Previous message: OG: "Re: Gravity as Falling Space"
- Next in thread: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv BACK TO PHILOSOPHY"
- Reply: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv BACK TO PHILOSOPHY"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
