Re: GOD=G_uv REPLY TO DEAN
From: George Hammond (nowhere1_at_nospam.net)
Date: 03/07/05
- Next message: Eric Gisse: "Re: Nature of matter Q."
- Previous message: Eric Gisse: "Re: The Redshift Paradox - The Size of Light"
- In reply to: xeno: "Re: GOD=G_uv REPLY TO DEAN"
- Next in thread: Gary Eickmeier: "Re: GOD=G_uv REPLY TO DEAN"
- Reply: Gary Eickmeier: "Re: GOD=G_uv REPLY TO DEAN"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 10:51:14 GMT
"xeno" <xeno@transbay.net> wrote in message
news:20050306085017.W27616@synergy.transbay.net...
>
>
> On Sun, 6 Mar 2005, George Hammond wrote:
>
> > [Hammond]
> > No I'm referring to the operational meaning of
> > the world "existence". The only way PHYSICS
> > can prove something "exists" is for an "observer"
> > (i.e. a human being) to "observe" it.
>
> & therefore what? If it's *observable* that light has a speed, & light
> from distant objects takes time to reach here, it's evident that things
> have existed more than 100,000 years or 6000 years, (which ever arbitrary
> airy fairy date you've decided, with the aid of myths, to claim when it
> all began).
[Hammond]
NO.... you're argument simply highlights your basic
STUPIDITY.
"time itself" including "passed time", "past history"... NONE
OF THESE THINGS have any "existence" without the
existence of "human beings":
ABOUT "PAST" HISTORY
"Past history" cannot "now exist" until and unless
"humans exist". In fact the word "existence"
itself is only defined with respect to a "human
observer". The existence of a human observer
is what makes things "exist".
Therefore, just because we (now.. after
humans have come into existence) recieve a
light signal which is a billion years old... does
NOT mean that the source "existed" prior ot Man
who is only 40,000 years old. Obviously
it's "billion year past" only came into "existence"
when the humans came into existence.
This statement is SO OBVIOUS that people including
scientists simply "take it for granted" and assume that
it has no "practical significance. However, it DOES
have a practical significance, since it in fact is at the
root cause explanation of the phenomena we call "God".
Until you are able to understand this... you are what
is called a "lay person"... which put into common
language means you are IGNORANT... ignorant of
what God is.
And please do not echolliatingly repeat your ignorant
arguments over and over agin on this thread... we know
what your problem is... and Science has finally found the
scientific proof that will shut you and the other ignorant
people up soon enough.
So long pedant... we've been listening to strutting
overprivileged loudmouths like you spewing your
mindless stupidy for centuries. Now the scientific proof of
God has turned the tables and you're about to be put back in
uniform and back into the ranks of the semiskilled where
you belong.
<snip rest of responder's ad hominem trash>
====================================
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
===================================
- Next message: Eric Gisse: "Re: Nature of matter Q."
- Previous message: Eric Gisse: "Re: The Redshift Paradox - The Size of Light"
- In reply to: xeno: "Re: GOD=G_uv REPLY TO DEAN"
- Next in thread: Gary Eickmeier: "Re: GOD=G_uv REPLY TO DEAN"
- Reply: Gary Eickmeier: "Re: GOD=G_uv REPLY TO DEAN"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
