On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 18:25:46 GMT, George Hammond
notspam.org> wrote:
>On 31 Oct 2006 08:44:55 -0800, chbg21808@
googlemail.com
>wrote:
>
>Dear [chbg21808]:
> Thank you for posting to this thread from one of the
>following religious newsgroups:
>
>alt.religion.christian.lutheran
>alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
>alt.religion
>alt.religion.christian.methodist
>
>I am a physicist posting from sci.physics.relativity but
>have crossposted to every major Christian newsgroup in hopes
>of making contact with someone like you.
>
>I believe RICHARD DAWKINS is a righteous and honorable
>scientist who isSIMPLY SEEKING THE SCIENTIFIC TRUTH ABOUT
>GOD. So am I... only I clam to have found it.
>
>According to the following Wikipedia article:
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins
>RICHARD DAWKINS has made the following statement:
>
> That the only area of theology which might
> command my attention would be the claim
> to be able to demonstrate God's existence.
> (R.Dawkins)
>
>Well... as you can see, HAMMOND now claims that he has
>PROVED GOD'S EXISTENCE and has published the result in the
>peer reviewed academic literature:
>
>Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
> New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
> Pergamon Press. Online copy of peer/published
> paper is posted at:
>
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/cart.html
>
>
>Accordingly, it is my conclusion that RICHARD DAWKINS must
>be highly interested in talking to me.... and likewise I am
>highly interested in talking to him about the "discovery of
>the world's first scientific proof of God".
>
>It seems to me that SOMEONE should inform Richard Dawkins of
>Hammond's discovery, and inform him that Hammond would be
>more than glad to visit Oxford and privately discuss this
>discovery over a spot of tea in Professor Dawkin's office.
>
>IF ANYONE is in a postition to inform Prof. Dawkins of this
>discovery, and of my published paper:
>
>
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1.html
>and of my explanatory website:
>
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
>and of the fact that he is readily able ot talk to me
>(publicly) on sci.physics.relativity under the thread
>HAMMOND vs. DAWKINS, or that I would be glad to talk to him
>confidentially by phone, private email, FAX, or even in
>person... PLEASE CONTACT HIM IMMEDIATELY and let him know
>about this crucial development!
>
>Thanks, Hammond M.S. Physics, Cape Cod
>
>>The Root of All Evil? ...A TV documentary written and presented by
>>Professor Richard Dawkins (popular science writer and holder of the
>>Charles Simonyi Chair in the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford
>>University).
>>
>>The title, Root of All Evil? is something of a compromise. The TV
>>company chose the title Root of All Evil (without the question mark).
>>Richard Dawkins fought against this title, he argued that "nothing is
>>the root of all of anything". Thus, Dawkins proposed a more
>>parsimonious title, something along the lines of his new book, which is
>>based on around the same ideas as the series: The God Dilution. The
>>producers were adamant however, but Dawkins did received a small
>>compromise in his favour.... They allowed him to add a question mark on
>>the end of the title.
>>
>>Dawkins starts of this two part series, by identifying that religion
>>and science are totally incompatible. He then expands on this theme
>>throughout the series. He goes on from here to show that the world
>>would be a better off place, without religion.
>>
>>He calls religion a "virus of the mind" and he uses the analogy of a
>>computer virus to suggest religion spreads in much the same way as
>>computer viruses do. A computer virus spread itself around and often
>>does some damage on the way. Religion Dawkins tells us, "does the same
>>thing".
>>
>>He demonstrates that the young child mind is set up (for good Darwinian
>>reasons) to believe what adults tell it. The reason being that a child
>>cannot afford to get involved in naturalist experimentation to know not
>>to swim in the river because of the crocodiles, there simply isn't time
>>for such experimentation and any child who did so, would wind up dead.
>>Thus, from here he states that the mind of a child is perfectly set up
>>to be poisoned with "viruses of the mind".
>>
>>He also demonstrates the divisive nature of religion. He draws an
>>analogy with politics: adults would not dream of calling children
>>little Marxists or capitalists, for example... Yet, religion for some
>>bizarre reason is the exception. No one even blinks at the comment --
>>"look at the little Muslim child" or "look at the little Christian
>>child" or the Jewish or catholic child. Dawkins talks about the need
>>for consciousness raising ...when one hears an adult tag a child with a
>>religious label, one should consciously wince at the idea. Dawkins goes
>>on to say that "children are simply to young to have an opinion on such
>>matters".
>>
>>Dawkins demonstrates that religious fundamentalism is on the increase,
>>particularly in America. One interview Dawkins had was with a group of
>>closet atheists in America's bible belt. One of these individuals
>>compared this religious extremism to the McCarthy era, in that being an
>>atheist may seriously damage you job prospects and Dawkins went on to
>>call it religious fascism.
>>
>>Dawkins also interviewed Christian evangelist Pastor Ted Haggard, the
>>founder of the New Life Church. Haggard has a very large congregation
>>and his evangelical stage shows (he himself compares them to a rock
>>concert), draw huge audiences. Haggard is a very powerful man and has a
>>lot of political clout. Indeed, he claims to have weekly phone calls
>>with George W. Bush. Haggard actually threw Dawkins and his film crew
>>of his church property, Dawkins apparently insulted him by comparing
>>his flock to animals ...of course in the strictly Darwinian sense,
>>that's exactly what we are, and that is all Dawkins meant .
>>
>>On the whole an excellent series. My only real criticism is that most
>>of the interviews were far to short.
>>
>>Source(s):
>>The World of Richard Dawkins
>>
>>
>>
>>George Hammond wrote:
>>> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 13:04:25 GMT, George Hammond
>>>
notspam.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>On 31 Oct 2006 01:12:23 -0800, "darwinist"
>>>>
gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>George Hammond wrote:
>>>>>[...]
>>>>>>>>> [Darwinist]
>>>>>>>>>A proof of God without any definition of "God". There you have it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>One can prove anything by these standards, true or false, real or
>>>>>>>>>imaginary.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [Hammond]
>>>>>>>> The SPOG is a "PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION OF GOD", not a
>>>>>>>> "DEFINITION OF GOD".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is no such thing as a "definition of God"!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. REAL OBJECTS have "DESCRIPTIONS".
>>>>>>>> 2. ARBITRARY CONVENTIONS have "DEFINITIONS".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> GOD is a "REAL MATERIAL OBJECT" and therefore has ONLY A
>>>>>>>> PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION, not a "definition".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "how many holes in a Golf course" requires a DEFINITION
>>>>>>>> because it is an ARBITRARY CONVENTION, but the MOON does not
>>>>>>>> have a "definition" it only has a PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION.
>>>>>>>> The same is true of God:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If the moon were as disputed as God, and you were trying to prove the
>>>>>>>moon's existence, you'd have to define what you were trying to prove,
>>>>>>>such as "a natural satellite to earth, visible from earth with the
>>>>>>>naked eye, and with an orbit of roughly 28 days",
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [Hammond]
>>>>>> That is a DESCRIPTION of the Moon... not a "definition of
>>>>>> the Moon". How many times do I have to tell you that?
>>>>>
>>>>>If you're trying to prove something is the moon then you need to define
>>>>>what you mean by "moon", likewise with "god".
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>[Hammond]
>>>>WRONG:
>>>> A REAL object or phenomenon is typically DISCOVERED,
>>>>DESCRIBED, and then NAMED! This goes for the MOON, the GOBI
>>>>DESERT, and GOD. They were all "observed, described and
>>>>named" thousands of years ago.
>>>>
>>>>Unlike the Moon and the Gobi Desert however, God happens to
>>>>be a more sophisticated phenomenon and nearly unrecognized
>>>>by the ignorant, the unintelliegent, exhausted and poverty
>>>>stricken, the uneducated and particularly by the lazy
>>>>corrupt and overpriviliged. THEREFORE my friend, the WORLD
>>>>HAS LONG AWAITED a "simple scientific explanation and proof"
>>>>that God exists.....
>>>>
>>>> AND HAMMOND HAS DISCOVERED AND PUBLISHED
>>>> SAID PROOF FOR THE ENTIRE WORLD TO SEE !
>>>>
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And naturally you being one of the "lazy
>>>> and overpriviliged" described above, are
>>>> INFURIATED by HAMMOND'S achevement
>>>> and continue to heckle, obstruct, smear
>>>> and suppress his discovery! But CLEARLY
>>>> your days are numbered and your defeat
>>>> is inevitable, so all I can say to you is:
>>>>
>>>> SAYANARA, SUCKER !!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> The Moon HAS NO DEFINTION because it is a REAL MATERIAL
>>>>>> OBJECT.... therefore it only has a"description", not a
>>>>>> "definition"
>>>>>
>>>>>If you're trying to use it in a proof, then you need to define your
>>>>>terms, since a description can't prove anything. A proof has
>>>>>definitions, premises and reasoning, otherwise it's just an argument.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Exactly THE SAME is true of "God". There IS NO SUCH THING
>>>>>> as a "definition" of God because God is a REAL MATERIAL
>>>>>> PHENOMENON..... therefore God only has a description, not a
>>>>>> definition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And furthermore, the BIBLE is precisely the historical
>>>>>> record of that "description" by eyewitness observers, of the
>>>>>> real material phenomenon of God.......... and NOW it turns
>>>>>> out that the SPOG is a newly discovered physics theory which
>>>>>> EXPLAINS said phenomeon and is CONFIRMED by direct
>>>>>> laboratory experiment (in Psychometry).... and therefore the
>>>>>> BIBLE IS SCIENTIFICALLY CONFIRMED TO BE TRUE........AND THE
>>>>>> EXISTANCE OF GOD IS SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN (e.g. the
>>>>>> eyewitness reports are SCIENTIFICALLY CONFIRMED AND
>>>>>> EXPLAINED by the SPOG)
>>>>>
>>>>>You've said that the bible contained a metaphorical description of god,
>>>>>but metaphors are no good in scientific arguments since they are too
>>>>>vague and multiple things can fit the same metaphor.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>[Hammond]
>>>> Hey look heckler.... you don't have any trouble figuring
>>>>out who Humpty Dumpty, Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny are
>>>>DO YOU? Reading "Grimm's Fairy Tales" or watching Walt
>>>>Disney Cartoons about Bugs Bunney, Donald Duck and Porky Pig
>>>>are no mystery to you, are they? People aren't stupid...
>>>>especially Americans over the age of 50 or 60 or 70... or
>>>>even some of them merely over 30, or 40 ! The BIBLE has
>>>>been the world's number one read and best selling book for
>>>>2,000 YEARS for chrissakes.... are you trying to tell me
>>>>that the BILLIONS OF READERS of the Bible don't know that
>>>>"Jonah getting swallowed by a whale" is a message to RICHARD
>>>>SIMMONS that he better start helping the FAT GIRLS lose some
>>>>weight or they're going to eat him alive... and Jonah too.
>>>>Wake the fuck up..... the SPOG is for PEOPLE LIKE YOU who
>>>>are not smart enough (or more generally experienced enough)
>>>>to be able to "understand the Bible". The SPOG is designed
>>>>to RATIONALLY, LOGICALLY AND SIMPLY explain what God is
>>>>using elementary Science, to people like you who only have a
>>>>grade school understanding of society and life.... but who
>>>>CAN master simple science like "Einstein's time dilation",
>>>>"Factor analysis", "Linear Algebra", "Biology", "Cartesian
>>>>Stem Cell Cleavage", blah, blah, blah...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> how many times to I have to tell you this ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and then prove that
>>>>>>>all of these properties existed in the same entity, not in three
>>>>>>>different entities. If you are claiming to prove god of the bible, then
>>>>>>>you need to list the literal non-metaphorical properties of the entity
>>>>>>>you are aiming to prove, and then prove that they exist in the same
>>>>>>>entity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [Hammond]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> B-E-E-N T-H-E-R-E D-O-N-E T-H-A-T !!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is exactly what the SPOG has already done. And the
>>>>>> SPOG has been signed sealed and delivered for chrissakes !
>>>>>
>>>>>As I've already pointed out (included below), your list of logical
>>>>>properties that qualifies something as "god" are not literal but
>>>>>metaphorical and your target entity that qualifies as god keeps
>>>>>changing.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>[Hammond]
>>>>Look... the WORLD does not INGNORE 1.3 BILLION CHRISTIANS or
>>>>the BIBLE simply because YOU DO. Simply put, the
>>>>phenomena of Christianity is SO ASTRONOMICALLY HUGE that any
>>>>coherent, compelling, logical, and sufficient experimentally
>>>>confirmed theoretical physics "SCIENTIFICI PROOF" OF IT is
>>>>going to be IMMEDIATELY ACCEPTED BY THE WORLD AS A
>>>>
>>>> HISTORIC FAIT ACCOMPLI
>>>>
>>>>the minute they even HEAR ABOUT IT .... which is what you
>>>>and the internet hecklers are TRYING DESPERATELY TO PREVENT!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>The brain (which creates reality, but is not fully grown) is not the
>>>>>>>same entity as the fully grown brain
>>>>
>>>>[Hammond]
>>>>Never said it was... which is WHY Hammond, the SPOG, the
>>>>Vatican, and the whole body of Christianity knows and says
>>>>that God lives "partly in Heaven and partly on Earth" and is
>>>>continually "descending from Heaven to Earth" and by the
>>>>time of "Kingdom Come" will exist entirely on Earth.
>>>> Meanwhile the SPOG can PHYSICALLY MEASURE both "God on
>>>>Earth" (the conscious mind) and "God in Heaven" (the
>>>>unconscious mind) and therefore TOTAL GOD is in fact
>>>>MEASUREABLE TO TWO DECIMAL POINTS.
>>>>
>>>>You have no point, and your posts are simply going round and
>>>>round in "retorical circles".... you and the other internet
>>>>hecklers are simply STALLING FOR TIME since you KNOW YOU'RE
>>>>DAYS ARE NUMBERED BY THE DISCOVERY OF THE SPOG!
>>>>
>>>>Yawn
>>>>
