OPEN LETTER TO RICHARD DAWKINS
George Hammond
Internet letter to the attention of Prof. RICHARD DAWKINS.
I have read Prof. Dawkins' latest book _THE GOD DELUSION_
which has become notorious because chapter 4 is entitled:
"WHY THERE ALMOST CERTAINLY IS NO GOD"
Richard Dawkins is the world's most famous atheist. He has
repeatedly stated in print and on television that he does
not believe that there is any scientific evidence whatsoever
that there is a God, and has defied anyone to present such
evidence!
Therefore, it is of vital interest to him that he be
informed that the world's first bona fide scientific proof
of God has been discovered, experimentally proven and
published in the peer reviewed scientific literature by an
American physicist George Edwin Hammond. A copy of the
published paper and a full explanation of the discovery can
be found on my website (URL in signature file below).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am willing to present a private tutorial of the world's
first scientific proof of God to Prof. Dawkins privately, by
email, telephone, videocam chatroom, fax, picturephone,
closed circuit t.v. or even in person if necessary... and
absolutely and entirely CONFIDENTIALLY and OFF THE
RECORD.... if he is interested in finding out about the
discovery!
I make this offer, because it is my opinion that RICHARD
DAWKINS is the person most highly motivated to get to the
bottom of the scientific truth about God.
I do not trust the authorities in Sci-Rel because I
believe they have no personal vested interest in determining
the truth of the matter... because even if it were true....
none of them possesses a public mandate to say so... they
simply wouldn't dare! On the other hand... intuition tells
me that RICHARD DAWKINS actually has a mandate to find the
scientific truth- and if he did conclude that the discovery
was bona fide, I don't think he would have any qualms
whatsoever about publicly saying so... in short.... I
believe that Richard Dawkins actually does possess a social
mandate to "inform the public" whether Hammond's scientific
discovery is or is not, the world's first bona fide
evidentiary scientific proof of God.
As for the science involved, it certainly is not over
prof. Dawkins' head even though he is not a physicist. It
only involves undergraduate physics (elementary general
relativity) and in fact is mostly biology and elementary
Factor Analysis. In fact, the truth be known, the discovery
is "obvious" to any scientific professional of prof.
Dawkins' ability and experience. Fact is, no one of
competence has ever seen it! Given that prof. Dawkins' IQ
is 25 points above mine and that I was not even able to take
a PhD; if I could discover the theory, he should certainly
be able to understand it! I know very well that he can-
because I also know he's probably the only person in the
world besides me who would want to! After all, I remember
in 1970 seriously encountering the question of God for the
first time in my life, and concluding quite clearly and
unequivocally that there was "no such thing as God". It was
27 long years later when I accidentally stumbled across the
world's first scientific proof of God, that I found out what
God actually was... what they were actually talking about,
and why no one could ever explain it to met, and that there
are plenty of people who do know what it is even though they
can't prove it and can't even adequately explain it!
Needless to say I was pretty mad about being kept in the
dark all those years when I discovered it... but I suspect
that's nothing compared to Richard Dawkins' outrage when he
finds out about it!! I'm quite sure he'll be telling them
all aboutthe short comings of Religion in many more best
selling books in the future. That's just my hunch!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
========================================
George Hammond
Eric Gisse
George Hammond wrote:
[...]
Why are you posting this in every newsgroup *BUT* the one you
specifically created to rant in?
Are people not listening to you again?
Martin Phipps
> > Given that prof. Dawkins' IQ
> >is 25 points above mine and that I was not even able to take
> >a PhD;
I think the mere 25 point spread is either under estimating Richard
Dawkins' intelligence or over estimating yours.
I'm half way through the webpage cited in the above post. It's good
for a laugh really: equating Raymond B. Cattells' three dimension's of
psychology (extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism) with the three
dimensions of space and then relating that to relativity theory makes
about as much sense as using Dr. Phil's three dimensions of love
(commitment, passion and intimacy) and relating that to three
dimensional space and then claiming that the existance of God has been
"experimentally confirmed". It's the funniest thing I've read in a
long time! :D
Martin
JanPB
> I urge any responsible person-- to bring this public
> Internet letter to the attention of Prof. RICHARD DAWKINS.
>
> I have read Prof. Dawkins' latest book _THE GOD DELUSION_
> which has become notorious because chapter 4 is entitled:
>
> "WHY THERE ALMOST CERTAINLY IS NO GOD"
>
> Richard Dawkins is the world's most famous atheist. He has
> repeatedly stated in print and on television that he does
> not believe that there is any scientific evidence whatsoever
> that there is a God, and has defied anyone to present such
> evidence!
I haven't read Dawkins but if that's all he is doing then I don't know
why he bothers. Obviously if one assumes God is a person of some high
kind then mostly nonsense follows.
OTOH if one assumes some sort of mystic experience then none of physics
or science-based arguments apply. Someone like - I don't know, Jakob
Boehme, say - would claim to have a direct insight into certain things,
just like I have an ultimately unexplainable direct sensation of
"green-ness" when I look at this bit of Kleenex next to my computer.
Now try to *explain* this direct and irreducible sensation to someone
who is blind, for example. You'll only be able to use metaphors. And
Dawkins is - according to this view - like that blind person:
attempting to use those metaphors to prove or disprove something.
> Therefore, it is of vital interest to him that he be
> informed that the world's first bona fide scientific proof
> of God has been discovered, experimentally proven
No, that's in general impossible because it doesn't include direct
spiritual experience (of course it can't). You should rephrase it to
sound less grandiose and infantile. Perhaps "Scientific model of human
perception of certain aspects of God mentioned in the Christian Bible"
or some such.
--
Jan Bielawski
George Hammond
<martin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>George Hammond wrote:
>> > Given that prof. Dawkins' IQ
>> >is 25 points above mine and that I was not even able to take
>> >a PhD;
>
>I think the mere 25 point spread is either under estimating Richard
>Dawkins' intelligence or over estimating yours.
>
[Hammond]
If I'm ready to talk scientific turkey with Richard Dawkins
the world's leading atheist about a purported scientific
proof of God, I'm obviously not about to rise to insults
from an amature atheist from alt.atheism such as you.
>I'm half way through the webpage cited in the above post. It's good
>for a laugh really: equating Raymond B. Cattells' three dimension's of
>psychology (extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism)
[Hammond]
E,N,P were discovered theoretically by Hans Eysenck and
later rigorously confirmed by Raymond B. Cattell in
exhaustive experimental work.
> with the three
>dimensions of space
[Hammond]
E,N,P are caused by the 3-axis orthogonal cleavage of the
brain therefore are caused by the 3-axis orthogonal geometry
of space itself. That much is an elementary science
no-brainer to someone like me, or Richard Dawkins.
> and then relating that to relativity theory makes
[Hammond]
"Relativity theory" IS all about the orthogonal geometry of
space, and its slight deviation from orthogonality called
"curvature" by the experts (like me for instance)....
therefore brain cleavage geometry IS a relativistic theory.
It may be over your head.... but I don't think Dawkins will
have any trouble with it... since he IS dedicated to finding
the truth.... while you're not.
>about as much sense as using Dr. Phil's three dimensions of love
>(commitment, passion and intimacy) and relating that to three
>dimensional space and then claiming that the existance of God has been
>"experimentally confirmed". It's the funniest thing I've read in a
>long time! :D
>
>Martin
[Hammond]
At least Phil isn't insolent and stupid, which is more than
can be said for you.
Cgiorgio
human brains are mechanical. Maybe he came to his conclusions regarding a
mechanical brain model by self - observation.
"Martin Phipps" <martin...@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1168159240....@i15g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
George Hammond
<m...@nowhere.org> wrote:
>It does not make much sense to argue with this guy who appears to think that
>human brains are mechanical. Maybe he came to his conclusions regarding a
>mechanical brain model by self - observation.
>
>
[Hammond]
The human body, including the brain IS mechanical. The
human body is a "Cartesian mechanical machine" and the CROSS
is the Cartesian Coordinate System.... the fundamental
anatomy lesson of history is hanging on the front wall of
your church.... a Cartesian mechanical body nailed to a
Cartesina Coordinate System otherwise known as the
"Crusifix". The Cartesian cleavage of the human brain
causes four major brain lobes (L-R lobes, Front-Back
(Motor-Sensory) lobes) which cause 4 fundamental
personalities in Man historically named Matt, Mark, Luke and
John-- the 4-GOSPEL CANON of Religion!
Thus the fundamental psychological structure of Man is
CAUSED by the simple MECHANICAL STURUCTURE OF THE BRAIN!
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
========================================
>"Martin Phipps" <martin...@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
Martin Phipps
> On 7 Jan 2007 00:40:40 -0800, "Martin Phipps"
> <martin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >George Hammond wrote:
> >> > Given that prof. Dawkins' IQ
> >> >is 25 points above mine and that I was not even able to take
> >> >a PhD;
> >
> >I think the mere 25 point spread is either under estimating Richard
> >Dawkins' intelligence or over estimating yours.
> >
> [Hammond]
> If I'm ready to talk scientific turkey with Richard Dawkins
> the world's leading atheist about a purported scientific
> proof of God, I'm obviously not about to rise to insults
> from an amature atheist from alt.atheism such as you.
[Phipps]
Your comment on the bottom of this page would beg to differ. That
being said, I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my post as
you should appreciate the time I've taken to consider your "theory".
> >I'm half way through the webpage cited in the above post. It's good
> >for a laugh really: equating Raymond B. Cattells' three dimension's of
> >psychology (extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism)
>
> [Hammond]
> E,N,P were discovered theoretically by Hans Eysenck and
> later rigorously confirmed by Raymond B. Cattell in
> exhaustive experimental work.
[Phipps]
But they have nothing to do with the three dimensions of space.
> > with the three
> >dimensions of space
>
> [Hammond]
> E,N,P are caused by the 3-axis orthogonal cleavage of the
> brain therefore are caused by the 3-axis orthogonal geometry
> of space itself. That much is an elementary science
> no-brainer to someone like me, or Richard Dawkins.
[Phipps]
Excuse me, but I'm a university professor with a Ph.D. in physics whose
speciality was elementary particle physics and I know that your
"theory" is nonsense. I am only continuing to read about it because it
amuses me to do so.
> > and then relating that to relativity theory makes
>
> [Hammond]
> "Relativity theory" IS all about the orthogonal geometry of
> space, and its slight deviation from orthogonality called
> "curvature" by the experts (like me for instance)....
> therefore brain cleavage geometry IS a relativistic theory.
> It may be over your head.... but I don't think Dawkins will
> have any trouble with it... since he IS dedicated to finding
> the truth.... while you're not.
[Phipps]
But the curvature of space-time is due to the relationship between
space and time. In Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, he
discovered that the differing perceptions of different people in
different inertial frames of reference could be seen as rotations of
the space-time manifold. In General Relativity, he went one step
farther by making the analogy between gravity and non-inertial frames
of reference and found that the gravitational force behaves exactly
like an inertial force.
In order to make the analogy between space-time and
personality-intelligence, you have to show that personality and
intelligence do indeed have a relationship analogous to space and time.
So far I have yet to see any support for this claim, let alone
established that intelligence is "orthogonal" to the three dimensions
of personality. Indeed, you haven't even addressed the fact that
intelligence itself is not one dimensional, consisting of spatial /
mathematical intelligence, linguistic intelligence and social /
emotional inteligence.
> >about as much sense as using Dr. Phil's three dimensions of love
> >(commitment, passion and intimacy) and relating that to three
> >dimensional space and then claiming that the existance of God has been
> >"experimentally confirmed". It's the funniest thing I've read in a
> >long time! :D
>
> [Hammond]
> At least Phil isn't insolent and stupid, which is more than
> can be said for you.
[Phipps]
Actually, I think I've proven I'm not stupid whereas you have proven
nothing so far.
Martin
Cgiorgio
writing? Can you also scientifically prove the existence of Osiris, the
Easter Bunny and Freya?
"George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.org> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1ef1q29ltt9hnf44u...@4ax.com...
Martin Phipps
> On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 10:23:49 +0100, "Cgiorgio"
> <m...@nowhere.org> wrote:
>
> >It does not make much sense to argue with this guy who appears to think that
> >human brains are mechanical. Maybe he came to his conclusions regarding a
> >mechanical brain model by self - observation.
>
> [Hammond]
> The human body, including the brain IS mechanical.
[Phipps]
Yes but the different aspects of human personality or intelligence are
not as rigorously orthogonal as the three dimensions of space which is
what you assumed from the beginning.
> The
> human body is a "Cartesian mechanical machine" and the CROSS
> is the Cartesian Coordinate System.... the fundamental
> anatomy lesson of history is hanging on the front wall of
> your church.... a Cartesian mechanical body nailed to a
> Cartesina Coordinate System otherwise known as the
> "Crusifix". The Cartesian cleavage of the human brain
> causes four major brain lobes (L-R lobes, Front-Back
> (Motor-Sensory) lobes) which cause 4 fundamental
> personalities in Man historically named Matt, Mark, Luke and
> John-- the 4-GOSPEL CANON of Religion!
[Phipps]
You do realise, don't you, that people are going to label you as
insane? At least in your website you made it clear you were being
"metaphorical".
Martin
Martin Phipps
> How about the myriad of other gods known to manhood since the invention of
> writing? Can you also scientifically prove the existence of Osiris, the
> Easter Bunny and Freya?
He's very confused. On his website, he equates God with Buddha as if
Buddha were God and not the founder of the Buddhist religion. I guess
that's where theists get the idea that 78% of people in the world
believe in God: they think that Buddhists believe in God. It's sad.
I'm still going through the website: he's had papers published in New
Ideas in Psychology Vol. 12(2) and The Noetic Journal Vol. 4 No. 3
but nothing in any physics or neurology journals. I commend him for
seeking the advice of somebody like Richard Dawkins who has a
background in hard sciences but he needs to understand that there's a
good reason why no such person has accepted his theory to date, namely
because it is utter nonsense.
Martin
Marc
The only people who listen to Hammond are the voices in his head, and they
only listen for amusement. However should he come to their attention, he
might well be listened to by psychiatrists.
Marc
jusholm
"Martin Phipps" <martin...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1168164145.2...@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
oh here we go'. Anyway what ever his mental state is that is not necessarily
a reason to dismiss everything that he is putting forward. I find one aspect
of particular interest, from a philosophical point of view. He is rightly,
in my opinion, pointing out that the 'world' and therefore space-time runs
through us. Often philosophers seem to assume that the world starts on the
other side of their eyeballs where as in fact we are emersed in it.
Wittgenstein may have hinted at this in the Tractatus I think, when he talks
about our field of vision?
I have studied a bit of psychology and there are other psycometric systems,
that are more modern and regarded as more useful, involving 5, 8 and even
more dimensions. I find it hard to see any necessary connection between such
measurement systems and physics. The fact that Eysenck chose just 3 factors
to differentiate human being's personality traits is just coincidental or
indeed influenced by the nature of physical measurement systems, rather than
the other way around. This seems to be quite a jump of faith in George's
argument.
There is an even bigger jump from this to equating God with intelligence and
physical size/human growth.
Page 3 we see some very odd ideas in my opinion.
Martin Phipps
> Have to agree that as I read George's last post I thought something like 'Oh
> oh here we go'. Anyway what ever his mental state is that is not necessarily
> a reason to dismiss everything that he is putting forward. I find one aspect
> of particular interest, from a philosophical point of view. He is rightly,
> in my opinion, pointing out that the 'world' and therefore space-time runs
> through us. Often philosophers seem to assume that the world starts on the
> other side of their eyeballs where as in fact we are emersed in it.
> Wittgenstein may have hinted at this in the Tractatus I think, when he talks
> about our field of vision?
Yes, as Stephen Hawking says, the human brain is a machine and thus
obeys the laws of thermodynamics and this would explain why we perceive
the direction of the arrow of time as defined by the laws of
thermodynamics. But George here argues in his "scientific" paper that
"the human brain is structuraly cubic" and this crude approximation is
actually one of the axioms of his "theory"!
> I have studied a bit of psychology and there are other psycometric systems,
> that are more modern and regarded as more useful, involving 5, 8 and even
> more dimensions. I find it hard to see any necessary connection between such
> measurement systems and physics. The fact that Eysenck chose just 3 factors
> to differentiate human being's personality traits is just coincidental or
> indeed influenced by the nature of physical measurement systems, rather than
> the other way around. This seems to be quite a jump of faith in George's
> argument.
As I am sure you know, psychologists started with 200 dimensions of
psychometry and based on a survey(!) of 5000 people reduced it to as
few as three. Basically this is analogous to drawing a one-dimensional
curve on a two-dimensional xy-plane: the line shows that there is a
linear relationship between the x and y variables. Similarly, the 200
variables of psychometry are being expressed in terms of three
dimensions of psychometry -but this is by no means rigorous!
> There is an even bigger jump from this to equating God with intelligence and
> physical size/human growth.
He says "since the human body is growing larger, the human brain is
getting larger, and this contributes to a rising level of world
intelligence". Alas, so does education. He seems to forget that
people with larger brains are not necessarily more intelligent:
Einstein's brain was no bigger than yours or mine. The fact is that
the growth of the human body and the rise in people's average IQs can
both be linked to better nutrition.
Martin
bramble
Martin Phipps ha escrito:
Don't bother about arguing with a moron like this.
These sort of Christians have borrowed the gibberish language of some
French philosophers. By mixing abstract words from here and there,
they concoct a pseudoscientific language to dupe most people. In
general, people are so ignorant that cannot discriminate between a
sound argument and a fake one.
This argument of Eysenck about ortogonal dimensions of psychology is
nothing but bullshit.
Extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism, are nothing but labels that
can be atached to some elements of behaviour.
Extroversion is the behaviour that is produced towards other people,
and most of it is the regular behaviour of most people. This is not
any dimension wahtever, but just plain behaviour.
The word neuroticism can be applied to any piece of behaviour outwardly
expresed, or just can be an internal or a hidden behaviour, of people
thinking about how sad or stressful, or unworthy life is or so. This
behaviour is like related to whining, and the person that abuse of it
are those that have learned to received personal atentions by
complaining about his life conditions, or the general conditions of
life.
As for psychoticism is when a person shows a behaviour of delusions or
loss of contact with reality. We can contemplate two cases in that
psychotic behaviour. One sort
is people that do this with a lucrative purpose, like mystics, prophets
and other religious fanaticals. The other group of psychotics are
those that earn nothing with this behaviour except some personal and
verbal atentions from family, friends and psychiatrists.
In a way, all behaviour emited before other people is plainly
extroverted. So in a way, the neurotic and the psychotic behaviour are
extroverted. They are not when this behaviour is done virtually inside
our brain, and nobody can watch it. But in this case, all virtual or
hidden behaviour is introverted. So a person who has much wortheless
behaviour toward other people is called, extroverted, while the people
that dont like to chat with others of speak out his thoughts or
feelings are called introverted. All these subdivisions are nothing
but bullshit science and do not advance our knowlegde of human
behaviour a bit.
Bramble
BioFreak
> I urge any responsible person-- to bring this public
> Internet letter to the attention of Prof. RICHARD DAWKINS.
I strongly urge you to keep this between you and him
only :-) You're made for each other. Two ends of the
same warped thing.
--
"khodAyA, roshde elmi va aghliye marA az
fazilate _ta'assob_ va _ehsAs_ va
_eshrAgh_ mahrum nasAz."
- Ali Shari'ati
Clive
The relevant word here is 'SCIENCE'
You don't have any so he ain't gonna read your
piffle is he?
Seek help....but don't stop posting as I'd miss the
laughs.
-C-
"George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote in message
news:skv0q2h8aicm29r4c...@4ax.com...
pba...@worldonline.nl
Martin Phipps schreef:
Why should you think it is funny
God certainly belongs to the realm of psycholigy
and does indeed exist as an idea in the human mind.
Only outside of the brain he ceases to exist.
Even in my brain their is a notion about what God
I think does not exist outside of it.
That being said,
even in psychology the power of God is less than that of a man in a
white coat.
This had been experimentally confirmed.
about 60% of the people will tortore someone
if a man in a white coat tells them it is for a scientific experiment.
I bigger expertiment carried out between 1933 and 1945
proofed that even 80% will comply willingly
if the state institutions ask one to commit a "sin".
I wonder thought why mr. Hammond wants to publish this on alt.atheism
if he does not want to discus it with us "amateurs"
He should go to www.brights.net shouldn't he?
Peter van Velzen
Amateur#1107
January 2007
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
pba...@worldonline.nl
Gary Eickmeier
bramble wrote:
> Don't bother about arguing with a moron like this.
Amen. It is very easy to get sucked into an argument with George,
because it is kind of fun. He sounds so sure of himself, trying to play
scientist and savior of the world, and we continue to try and convince
him about the holes in his "theory." Ain't gonna work. He HAS the "God
Delusion" and almost certainly some degree of mental illness.
Gary Eickmeier
Gary Eickmeier
George Hammond wrote:
> [Hammond]
> The human body, including the brain IS mechanical. The
> human body is a "Cartesian mechanical machine" and the CROSS
> is the Cartesian Coordinate System.... the fundamental
> anatomy lesson of history is hanging on the front wall of
> your church.... a Cartesian mechanical body nailed to a
> Cartesina Coordinate System otherwise known as the
> "Crusifix". The Cartesian cleavage of the human brain
> causes four major brain lobes (L-R lobes, Front-Back
> (Motor-Sensory) lobes) which cause 4 fundamental
> personalities in Man historically named Matt, Mark, Luke and
> John-- the 4-GOSPEL CANON of Religion!
> Thus the fundamental psychological structure of Man is
> CAUSED by the simple MECHANICAL STURUCTURE OF THE BRAIN!
This is about as much sense as he is ever going to make.
Gary Eickmeier
foolsrushin.
The delightful and instructive Tompkins books are not, alas, to be
found in most bookshops or libraries. I therefore offer the following
link as a starting point.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Tompkins>.
--
Yrs,
John.
Gary Eickmeier
Midjis wrote:
> George Hammond <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote :
>
>
>>On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 08:01:07 GMT, George Hammond
>><Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote:
>
>
> ...another desperate attempt to get a real scientist to look at him - if
> only for a moment.
He writes each new thread as if no one of importance has had a chance to
"discover" him yet. But he has been read and rejected by every major
science figure he could scrounge or pester. He has staying power.
Gary Eickmeier
Martin Phipps
His "scientific" paper was hilarious. This is an unedited quote:
"Psychometry incidentally is well known to be nonlinear. Hence there
is little question of the correctness of the mathematics."
Translation: "Even though I am treating the mathematics as linear, I
know it isn't. The math is clearly wrong."
This quote, also from his "scientific" paper, says it all:
"'God' used throughout this paper refers to the percentage of the brain
which is ungrown."
Martin
Mark K. Bilbo
> Given that prof. Dawkins' IQ
>>is 25 points above mine
More like 100 points...
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"If 50 million people believe a foolish thing,
it is still a foolish thing" - Anatole France
Scott H
> Internet letter to the attention of Prof. RICHARD DAWKINS.
>
> I have read Prof. Dawkins' latest book _THE GOD DELUSION_
> which has become notorious because chapter 4 is entitled:
>
> "WHY THERE ALMOST CERTAINLY IS NO GOD"
>
> Richard Dawkins is the world's most famous atheist. He has
> repeatedly stated in print and on television that he does
> not believe that there is any scientific evidence whatsoever
> that there is a God, and has defied anyone to present such
> evidence!
>
> Therefore, it is of vital interest to him that he be
> informed that the world's first bona fide scientific proof
> of God has been discovered, experimentally proven and
> published in the peer reviewed scientific literature by an
> American physicist George Edwin Hammond. A copy of the
> published paper and a full explanation of the discovery can
> be found on my website (URL in signature file below).
If you equate God with forces of nature (i.e., G_uv), then how would you say
that your professed knowledge of God is different from pantheism?
"The quotations I gave all suggest that Einstein was a pantheist, and this
is what I mean by Einsteinian religion ... In this sense, I too am
religious." -Dawkins
George Hammond
"Cgiorgio" <m...@nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:enqffb$mel$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
<SNIP>
I urge any responsible person-- to bring this public
Internet letter to the attention of Prof. RICHARD DAWKINS.
I have read Prof. Dawkins' latest book _THE GOD DELUSION_
which has become notorious because chapter 4 is entitled:
"WHY THERE ALMOST CERTAINLY IS NO GOD"
Richard Dawkins is the world's most famous atheist. He has
repeatedly stated in print and on television that he does
not believe that there is any scientific evidence whatsoever
that there is a God, and has defied anyone to present such
evidence!
Therefore, it is of vital interest to him that he be
informed that the world's first bona fide scientific proof
of God has been discovered, experimentally proven and
published in the peer reviewed scientific literature by an
American physicist George Edwin Hammond. A copy of the
published paper and a full explanation of the discovery can
be found on my website (URL in signature file below).
competence has ever seen it! Given that prof. Dawkins' IQ
is 25 points above mine and that I was not even able to take
a PhD; if I could discover the theory, he should certainly
be able to understand it! I know very well that he can-
because I also know he's probably the only person in the
world besides me who would want to! After all, I remember
in 1970 seriously encountering the question of God for the
first time in my life, and concluding quite clearly and
unequivocally that there was "no such thing as God". It was
27 long years later when I accidentally stumbled across the
world's first scientific proof of God, that I found out what
God actually was... what they were actually talking about,
and why no one could ever explain it to met, and that there
are plenty of people who do know what it is even though they
can't prove it and can't even adequately explain it!
Needless to say I was pretty mad about being kept in the
dark all those years when I discovered it... but I suspect
that's nothing compared to Richard Dawkins' outrage when he
finds out about it!! I'm quite sure he'll be telling them
all aboutthe short comings of Religion in many more best
selling books in the future. That's just my hunch!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
George Hammond
<SNIP>
competence has ever seen it! Given that prof. Dawkins' IQ
is 25 points above mine and that I was not even able to take
a PhD; if I could discover the theory, he should certainly
be able to understand it! I know very well that he can-
because I also know he's probably the only person in the
world besides me who would want to! After all, I remember
in 1970 seriously encountering the question of God for the
first time in my life, and concluding quite clearly and
unequivocally that there was "no such thing as God". It was
27 long years later when I accidentally stumbled across the
world's first scientific proof of God, that I found out what
God actually was... what they were actually talking about,
and why no one could ever explain it to met, and that there
are plenty of people who do know what it is even though they
can't prove it and can't even adequately explain it!
Needless to say I was pretty mad about being kept in the
dark all those years when I discovered it... but I suspect
that's nothing compared to Richard Dawkins' outrage when he
finds out about it!! I'm quite sure he'll be telling them
all aboutthe short comings of Religion in many more best
selling books in the future. That's just my hunch!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
BanderStern
<Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote:
>On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 08:01:07 GMT, George Hammond
><Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote:
>
>>I urge any responsible person-- to bring this public
>>Internet letter to the attention of Prof. RICHARD DAWKINS.
<SNIP>
Which god do you have proof of? There are hundreds of them...
George Hammond
Internet letter to the attention of Prof. RICHARD DAWKINS.
I have read Prof. Dawkins' latest book _THE GOD DELUSION_
Immortalist
George Hammond wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 08:01:07 GMT, George Hammond
> <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote:
>
> >Internet letter to the attention of Prof. RICHARD DAWKINS.
> >
> >I have read Prof. Dawkins' latest book _THE GOD DELUSION_
> >which has become notorious because chapter 4 is entitled:
> >
> > "WHY THERE ALMOST CERTAINLY IS NO GOD"
> >
At this youtube video Dawkins claims that his theory about God is just
that and he cannot eliminate the possibility that God exists but he
claims he can make a strong theoretical case;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWL1ZMH3-54
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/help/3681938.stm
http://www.amazon.co.uk/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0593055489
The God Delusion
Dawkins interview
In The God Delusion, the scientist Richard Dawkins sets out to attack
God "in all his forms".
He argues that the rise of religious fundamentalism is dividing people
around the world, while the dispute between "intelligent design" and
Darwinism "is seriously undermining and restricting the teaching of
science".
The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins is published by Bantam Press at
£20.00.
THE GOD DELUSION
by Richard Dawkins
FROM CHAPTER 7: The "Good" Book and the changing moral Zeitgeist
There are two ways in which scripture might be a source of morals or
rules for living. One is by direct instruction, for example through the
Ten Commandments, which are the subject of such bitter contention in
the culture wars of America's boondocks. The other is by example: God,
or some other biblical character, might serve as - to use the
contemporary jargon - a role model. Both scriptural routes, if followed
through religiously (the adverb is used in its metaphoric sense but
with an eye to its origin), encourage a system of morals which any
civilized modern person, whether religious or not, would find - I can
put it no more gently - obnoxious.
To be fair, much of the Bible is not systematically evil but just plain
weird, as you would expect of a chaotically cobbled-together anthology
of disjointed documents, composed, revised, translated, distorted and
'improved' by hundreds of anonymous authors, editors and copyists,
unknown to us and mostly unknown to each other, spanning nine
centuries. This may explain some of the sheer strangeness of the Bible.
But unfortunately it is this same weird volume that religious zealots
hold up to us as the inerrant source of our morals and rules for
living. Those who wish to base their morality literally on the Bible
have either not read it or not understood it, as Bishop John Shelby
Spong, in The Sins of Scripture, rightly observed. Bishop Spong, by the
way, is a nice example of a liberal bishop whose beliefs are so
advanced as to be almost unrecognizable to the majority of those who
call themselves Christians. A British counterpart is Richard Holloway,
recently retired as Bishop of Edinburgh. Bishop Holloway even describes
himself as a 'recovering Christian'. I had a public discussion with him
in Edinburgh, which was one of the most stimulating and interesting
encounters I have had.
THE OLD TESTAMENT
Begin in Genesis with the well-loved story of Noah, derived from the
Babylonian myth of Uta-Napisthim and known from the older mythologies
of several cultures. The legend of the animals going into the ark two
by two is charming, but the moral of the story of Noah is appalling.
God took a dim view of humans, so he (with the exception of one family)
drowned the lot of them including children and also, for good measure,
the rest of the (presumably blameless) animals as well.
Of course, irritated theologians will protest that we don't take the
book of Genesis literally any more. But that is my whole point! We pick
and choose which bits of scripture to believe, which bits to write off
as symbols or allegories. Such picking and choosing is a matter of
personal decision, just as much, or as little, as the atheist's
decision to follow this moral precept or that was a personal decision,
without an absolute foundation. If one of these is 'morality flying by
the seat of its pants', so is the other. In any case, despite the good
intentions of the sophisticated theologian, a frighteningly large
number of people still do take their scriptures, including the story of
Noah, literally. According to Gallup, they include approximately 50 per
cent of the US electorate. Also, no doubt, many of those Asian holy men
who blamed the 2004 tsunami not on a plate tectonic shift but on human
sins, ranging from drinking and dancing in bars to breaking some
footling sabbath rule. Steeped in the story of Noah, and ignorant of
all except biblical learning, who can blame them? Their whole education
has led them to view natural disasters as bound up with human affairs,
paybacks for human misdemeanours rather than anything so impersonal as
plate tectonics. By the way, what presumptuous egocentricity to believe
that earth-shaking events, on the scale at which a god (or a tectonic
plate) might operate, must always have a human connection. Why should a
divine being, with creation and eternity on his mind, care a fig for
petty human malefactions? We humans give ourselves such airs, even
aggrandizing our poky little 'sins' to the level of cosmic
significance!
When I interviewed for television the Reverend Michael Bray, a
prominent American anti-abortion activist, I asked him why evangelical
Christians were so obsessed with private sexual inclinations such as
homosexuality, which didn't interfere with anybody else's life. His
reply invoked something like self-defence. Innocent citizens are at
risk of becoming collateral damage when God chooses to strike a town
with a natural disaster because it houses sinners. In 2005, the fine
city of New Orleans was catastrophically flooded in the aftermath of a
hurricane, Katrina. The Reverend Pat Robertson, one of America's
best-known televangelists and a former presidential candidate, was
reported as blaming the hurricane on a lesbian comedian who happened to
live in New Orleans.* You'd think an omnipotent God would adopt a
slightly more targeted approach to zapping sinners: a judicious heart
attack, perhaps, rather than the wholesale destruction of an entire
city just because it happened to be the domicile of one lesbian
comedian.
In November 2005, the citizens of Dover, Pennsylvania voted off their
local school board the entire slate of fundamentalists who had brought
the town notoriety, not to say ridicule, by attempting to enforce the
teaching of 'intelligent design'. When Pat Robertson heard that the
fundamentalists had been democratically defeated at the ballot, he
offered a stern warning to Dover:
I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover, if there is a disaster
in your area, don't turn to God. You just rejected him from your city,
and don't wonder why he hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they
begin, and I'm not saying they will. But if they do, just remember you
just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, then don't ask
for his help, because he might not be there.
Pat Robertson would be harmless comedy, were he less typical of those
who today hold power and influence in the United States. In the
destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Noah equivalent, chosen to be
spared with his family because he was uniquely righteous, was Abraham's
nephew Lot. Two male angels were sent to Sodom to warn Lot to leave the
city before the brimstone arrived. Lot hospitably welcomed the angels
into his house, whereupon all the men of Sodom gathered around and
demanded that Lot should hand the angels over so that they could (what
else?) sodomize them: 'Where are the men which came in to thee this
night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them' (Genesis 19: 5).
Yes, 'know' has the Authorized Version's usual euphemistic meaning,
which is very funny in the context. Lot's gallantry in refusing the
demand suggests that God might have been onto something when he singled
him out as the only good man in Sodom. But Lot's halo is tarnished by
the terms of his refusal: 'I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I
pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your
eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the
shadow of my roof' (Genesis 19: 7-8).
Whatever else this strange story might mean, it surely tells us
something about the respect accorded to women in this intensely
religious culture. As it happened, Lot's bargaining away of his
daughters' virginity proved unnecessary, for the angels succeeded in
repelling the marauders by miraculously striking them blind. They then
warned Lot to decamp immediately with his family and his animals,
because the city was about to be destroyed. The whole household
escaped, with the exception of Lot's unfortunate wife, whom the Lord
turned into a pillar of salt because she committed the offence -
comparatively mild, one might have thought - of looking over her
shoulder at the fireworks display.
Lot's two daughters make a brief reappearance in the story. After their
mother was turned into a pillar of salt, they lived with their father
in a cave up a mountain. Starved of male company, they decided to make
their father drunk and copulate with him. Lot was beyond noticing when
his elder daughter arrived in his bed or when she left, but he was not
too drunk to impregnate her. The next night the two daughters agreed it
was the younger one's turn. Again Lot was too drunk to notice, and he
impregnated her too (Genesis 19: 31-6). If this dysfunctional family
was the best Sodom had to offer by way of morals, some might begin to
feel a certain sympathy with God and his judicial brimstone.
*It is unclear whether the story... is true. Whether true or not, it is
widely believed, no doubt because it is entirely typical of utterances
by evangelical clergy, including Robertson, on disasters such as
Katrina. ... The website that says the Katrina story is untrue... also
quotes Robertson as saying, of an earlier Gay Pride march in Orlando,
Florida, 'I would warn Orlando that you're right in the way of some
serious hurricanes, and I don't think I'd be waving those flags in
God's face if I were you.'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FROM CHAPTER EIGHT: What's wrong with religion? Why be so hostile?
In July 2005, London was the victim of a concerted suicide bomb attack:
three bombs in the subway and one in a bus. Not as bad as the 2001
attack on the World Trade Center, and certainly not as unexpected
(indeed, London had been braced for just such an event ever since Blair
volunteered us as unwilling side-kicks in Bush's invasion of Iraq),
nevertheless the London explosions horrified Britain. The newspapers
were filled with agonized appraisals of what drove four young men to
blow themselves up and take a lot of innocent people with them. The
murderers were British citizens, cricket-loving, well-mannered, just
the sort of young men whose company one might have enjoyed.
Why did these cricket-loving young men do it? Unlike their Palestinian
counterparts, or their kamikaze counterparts in Japan, or their Tamil
Tiger counterparts in Sri Lanka, these human bombs had no expectation
that their bereaved families would be lionized, looked after or
supported on martyrs' pensions. On the contrary, their relatives in
some cases had to go into hiding. One of the men wantonly widowed his
pregnant wife and orphaned his toddler. The action of these four young
men has been nothing short of a disaster not just for themselves and
their victims, but for their families and for the whole Muslim
community in Britain, which now faces a backlash. Only religious faith
is a strong enough force to motivate such utter madness in otherwise
sane and decent people. Once again, Sam Harris put the point with
percipient bluntness, taking the example of the Al-Qaida leader Osama
bin Laden (who had nothing to do with the London bombings, by the way).
Why would anyone want to destroy the World Trade Center and everybody
in it? To call bin Laden 'evil' is to evade our responsibility to give
a proper answer to such an important question.
The answer to this question is obvious - if only because it has been
patiently articulated ad nauseam by bin Laden himself. The answer is
that men like bin Laden actually believe what they say they believe.
They believe in the literal truth of the Koran. Why did nineteen
well-educated middle-class men trade their lives in this world for the
privilege of killing thousands of our neighbors? Because they believed
that they would go straight to paradise for doing so. It is rare to
find the behavior of humans so fully and satisfactorily explained. Why
have we been so reluctant to accept this explanation?"
The respected journalist Muriel Gray, writing in the (Glasgow) Herald
on 24 July 2005, made a similar point, in this case with reference to
the London bombings.
Everyone is being blamed, from the obvious villainous duo of George W.
Bush and Tony Blair, to the inaction of Muslim 'communities'. But it
has never been clearer that there is only one place to lay the blame
and it has ever been thus. The cause of all this misery, mayhem,
violence, terror and ignorance is of course religion itself, and if it
seems ludicrous to have to state such an obvious reality, the fact is
that the government and the media are doing a pretty good job of
pretending that it isn't so.
Our Western politicians avoid mentioning the R word (religion), and
instead characterize their battle as a war against 'terror', as though
terror were a kind of spirit or force, with a will and a mind of its
own. Or they characterize terrorists as motivated by pure 'evil'. But
they are not motivated by evil. However misguided we may think them,
they are motivated, like the Christian murderers of abortion doctors,
by what they perceive to be righteousness, faithfully pursuing what
their religion tells them. They are not psychotic; they are religious
idealists who, by their own lights, are rational. They perceive their
acts to be good, not because of some warped personal idiosyncrasy, and
not because they have been possessed by Satan, but because they have
been brought up, from the cradle, to have total and unquestioning
faith.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/5372458.stm
> >Richard Dawkins is the world's most famous atheist. He has
> >repeatedly stated in print and on television that he does
> >not believe that there is any scientific evidence whatsoever
> >that there is a God, and has defied anyone to present such
> >evidence!
> >
This paragraph is acceptable since it is more (consistent) with his
"no_God" prescription.
Here is an essay that discriminates value judgments from descriptive
explainations;
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/msg/1e031c25d1cf2b9f
Peter.H....@gmail.com
George Hammond wrote:
>
> >closed circuit t.v. or even in person if necessary... and
> >absolutely and entirely CONFIDENTIALLY and OFF THE
> >RECORD.... if he is interested in finding out about the
> >discovery!
>
It is a remarkable thing to have evolved, I agree, the protection that
we are afforded from nutters is a magnificent gift of nature. Who could
have imagined that nutters would be completely unable to avoid
irregular capitalisation? It's almost enough to have one wondering if
there might be some sort of benign sprite that nudges evolution from
time to time.
It is true that not all nutters reveal themselves in quite this way,
but the true ravers just can't help it - if there were green ink
available on Usenet, they'd use it as well.
George Hammond
<martin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>[Phipps]
>Excuse me, but I'm a university professor with a Ph.D. in physics whose
>speciality was elementary particle physics and I know that your
>"theory" is nonsense.
[Hammond]
Making a statment like "I know that your theory is nonsense"
simply proves that you're intellectually incompetent to
discuss a scientific proof of God. Sir John Polkinhorne is
a PhD particle physicist and also an ordained Anglican
priest. You've got a long way to go before you're qualified
to talk to me about a scientific proof of God. I'll take my
chances with Richard Dawkins thank you.... at least he knows
better than to insult me, you don't.
>[Phipps]
> I am only continuing to read about it because it
>amuses me to do so.
>
[Hammond]
Dawkns doesn't look amused to me... and he's about ten times
your size. I'll argue with him if you don't mind.... at
least he's smart enough to be cautious when it comes to the
subject of a scientific proof of God.
>
>[Phipps]
>In order to make the analogy between space-time and
>personality-intelligence, you have to show that personality and
>intelligence do indeed have a relationship analogous to space and time.
> So far I have yet to see any support for this claim,
[Hammond]
The 4 dimensions of Psychometric space ENPg correspond
DIRECTLY (e.g. are causally related to) the XYZt dimensions
of spacetime.
Psychometric "g" is Intelligence and it has been long
established that the predominant biological cause of
Intelligence is in fact "Mental Speed" (in bits/second) of
brain processing speed. This is easily measured to be
approximately 16 bits/second, and explains for instance why
the movie film picture fusion frequency (PFF) is in fact 16
frames/second. The PFF varies DIRECTLY with measured IQ,
and in fact varies DIRECTLY with age up until the age of 18
(just as Intelligence does, because of simple overall brain
growth).
OK then, Mental Speed has the units of [time]^-1 and
therefore correlates -1 with TIME.... therefore "g" in
psychometric space is the equivalent of (is directly caused
by) the TIME DIMENSION of spacetime.
The fact that ENP are causally linked to XYZ (the space
dimension of spacetime) is a no-brainer. We all know that
the human body (nominally) linearly increases in SIZE for
the first 18 years of life, and so does the brain
(nominally). Therefore as the body gets bigger, the world
gets smaller. Hence the world gets SMALLER and SLOWER as we
grow up..... thus DEMONSTRATING AND PROVING that the "human
Secular Trend growth deficit" is (mathematical-physicswise)
equivalent to a "gravitational spacetime curvature". Hence
we have a proof that brain growth is the DIRECT cause of
God, and Gravity (spacetime curvature) is the ULTIMATE cause
of God.
Poker has gone up chief.... people like me, and Richard
Dawkins and many other scientists are developing a case of
tight jaws over the matter of scientific proof of God. Get
serious, you're not talkiing to a wild eyed creationist with
a high school education.... there are hard nosed competent
physicist in the game... and physicists who happen to know
what God is and what constitutes a scientific proof of God,
and you're talking to one of them right now.
>[Phipps]
> let alone
>established that intelligence is "orthogonal" to the three dimensions
>of personality.
[Hammond]
It is a well known experimental fact of (factor analytic)
Psychometry that ENPand g are ORTHOGONAL eigenvectors of
Psychometry space. Up until now it has alyways been assumed
that the 3 dimensional metric of Personality difference
(ENP) is Euclidean, while the 4 dimensional metric (ENPg)
has been unknown. Actually my research clearly shows that
the 4D metric of ENPg in Psychometry space is LORENTZIAN:
dS^2 = dE^2 + dN^2 +dP^2 - dg^2
In other words, inteligence difference subtracts from
personalty difference the same as time subtracts from space
in the Riemannian (Lorentz) metric. Evidence for this
comes from the appearnce of the Lemniscate of Bernoulli
(well known to Relativity theory) in both Psychometric space
and the Roll Call voting space of the Bicameral Two-Party
legislature (which is based on the quadrature of Personalty
clash itself so called).
> Indeed, you haven't even addressed the fact that
>intelligence itself is not one dimensional, consisting of spatial /
>mathematical intelligence, linguistic intelligence and social /
>emotional inteligence.
[Hammond]
Look, were not here to argue over a morass of experimental
trivia.... we're here to discuss the MAJOR BUILDING BLOCKS.
As far as the SPOG (scientific proof of God) is
concerned:
Intelligence = mental speed in bits/second
Forget the details... there are plenty of unemployed
housewives who can write tons of books about all that stuff.
George Hammond
..andnothingbut
news:45a10da6$0$5227$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
So does dog shit you step in.
george
Which particular god is this dweeb on about?
And, instead of posting nonsense here, why doesn't he just write a
letter to this Richard Dawkins
Or is that to sensible to be contemplated by the fool ?
And, why is he posting this drivel into sci. groups instead of alt. ?
Don Martin
<Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote:
>
>"Cgiorgio" <m...@nowhere.org> wrote in message
>news:enqffb$mel$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
>
><SNIP>
>
>I urge any responsible person-- to bring this public
>Internet letter to the attention of Prof. RICHARD DAWKINS.
What normal people would do in your situation is spend 39 cents on a
postage stamp and mail it to Dawkins in care of his publisher
(Houghton Mifflin). He will receive it.
And laugh at it, probably.
Through a jaundiced eye darkly--rheum with a view.
The Squeeky Wheel
http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
George Hammond
from American physicist George Edwin Hammond who claims
to have discovered (and published) the world's first bona
fide scientific proof of God:
I urge any responsible person-- to bring this public
Internet letter to the attention of Prof. RICHARD DAWKINS.
I have read Prof. Dawkins' latest book _THE GOD DELUSION_
which has become notorious because chapter 4 is entitled:
"WHY THERE ALMOST CERTAINLY IS NO GOD"
Richard Dawkins is the world's most famous atheist. He has
repeatedly stated in print and on television that he does
not believe that there is any scientific evidence whatsoever
that there is a God, and has defied anyone to present such
evidence!
Therefore, it is of vital interest to him that he be
informed that the world's first bona fide scientific proof
of God has been discovered, experimentally proven and
published in the peer reviewed scientific literature by an
American physicist George Edwin Hammond. A copy of the
published paper and a full explanation of the discovery can
be found on my website (URL in signature file below).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am willing to present a private tutorial of the world's
first scientific proof of God to Prof. Dawkins privately, by
email, telephone, videocam chatroom, fax, picturephone,
closed circuit t.v. or even in person if necessary... and
absolutely and entirely CONFIDENTIALLY and OFF THE
RECORD.... if he is interested in finding out about the
discovery!
I make this offer, because it is my opinion that RICHARD
DAWKINS is the person most highly motivated to get to the
bottom of the scientific truth about God.
I do not trust the authorities in Sci-Rel because I
believe they have no personal vested interest in determining
the truth of the matter... because even if it were true....
none of them possesses a public mandate to say so... they
simply wouldn't dare! On the other hand... intuition tells
me that RICHARD DAWKINS actually has a mandate to find the
scientific truth- and if he did conclude that the discovery
was bona fide, I don't think he would have any qualms
whatsoever about publicly saying so... in short.... I
believe that Richard Dawkins actually does possess a social
mandate to "inform the public" whether Hammond's scientific
discovery is or is not, the world's first bona fide
evidentiary scientific proof of God.
As for the science involved, it certainly is not over
prof. Dawkins' head even though he is not a physicist. It
only involves undergraduate physics (elementary general
relativity) and in fact is mostly biology and elementary
Factor Analysis. In fact, the truth be known, the discovery
is "obvious" to any scientific professional of prof.
Dawkins' ability and experience. Fact is, no one of
competence has ever seen it! Given that prof. Dawkins' IQ
is 25 points above mine and that I was not even able to take
a PhD; if I could discover the theory, he should certainly
be able to understand it! I know very well that he can-
because I also know he's probably the only person in the
world besides me who would want to! After all, I remember
in 1970 seriously encountering the question of God for the
first time in my life, and concluding quite clearly and
unequivocally that there was "no such thing as God". It was
27 long years later when I accidentally stumbled across the
world's first scientific proof of God, that I found out what
God actually was... what they were actually talking about,
and why no one could ever explain it to me, and that there
are plenty of people who do know what it is even though they
can't prove it and can't even adequately explain it!
Needless to say I was pretty mad about being kept in the
dark all those years when I discovered it... but I suspect
that's nothing compared to Richard Dawkins' outrage when he
finds out about it!! I'm quite sure he'll be telling them
all aboutthe short comings of Religion in many more best
selling books in the future. That's just my hunch!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
George Hammond
competence has ever seen it! Given that prof. Dawkins' IQ
is 25 points above mine and that I was not even able to take
George Hammond
<martin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>George Hammond wrote:
>> On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 10:23:49 +0100, "Cgiorgio"
>> <m...@nowhere.org> wrote:
>>
>> >It does not make much sense to argue with this guy who appears to think that
>> >human brains are mechanical. Maybe he came to his conclusions regarding a
>> >mechanical brain model by self - observation.
>>
>> [Hammond]
>> The human body, including the brain IS mechanical.
>
>[Phipps]
>Yes but the different aspects of human personality or intelligence are
>not as rigorously orthogonal as the three dimensions of space which is
>what you assumed from the beginning.
>
[Hammond]
You don't know what you're talking about. ENP and g are
EIGENVECTORS of a symmetric matrix, and therefore BY
MATHEMATICAL DEFINITION THEY ARE
ABSOLUTELY THEORETICALLY STRICTLY ORTHOGONAL
In fact, the "obliquness" or "curvature" that indficates the
existence of God (higher order factor) is ROTATED into the
eigenvectors using a least squares hyperplane algorythm
which is entirely controlled by computer.
>> The
>> human body is a "Cartesian mechanical machine" and the CROSS
>> is the Cartesian Coordinate System.... the fundamental
>> anatomy lesson of history is hanging on the front wall of
>> your church.... a Cartesian mechanical body nailed to a
>> Cartesina Coordinate System otherwise known as the
>> "Crusifix". The Cartesian cleavage of the human brain
>> causes four major brain lobes (L-R lobes, Front-Back
>> (Motor-Sensory) lobes) which cause 4 fundamental
>> personalities in Man historically named Matt, Mark, Luke and
>> John-- the 4-GOSPEL CANON of Religion!
>
>[Phipps]
>You do realise, don't you, that people are going to label you as
>insane?
[Hammond]
What people?
Real men like me are not intimidated by
amateurs.
> At least in your website you made it clear you were being
>"metaphorical".
>
>Martin
[Hammond]
So sorry to disappoint you. There is nothing "metaphorical"
or "philawsephical" about the scientific proof of God I have
discovered and published in the peer reviewed literature.
TMG
> I urge any responsible person-- to bring this public
> Internet letter to the attention of Prof. RICHARD DAWKINS.
Done.
Anything else George?
George Hammond
from American physicist George Edwin Hammond who claims
to have discovered (and published) the world's first bona
fide scientific proof of God:
I urge any responsible person-- to bring this public
Internet letter to the attention of Prof. RICHARD DAWKINS.
I have read Prof. Dawkins' latest book _THE GOD DELUSION_
George Hammond
George Hammond
George Hammond
George Hammond
George Hammond
George Hammond
George Hammond
George Hammond
Richard Tobin
George Hammond <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote:
>I urge any responsible person-- to bring this public
>Internet letter to the attention of Prof. RICHARD DAWKINS.
Next time I see him, I'll tell him that there's this kook on Usenet
who wants him to read some absurd drivel. I expect he'll have a good
laugh about it.
-- Richard
--
"Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.
Dubh Ghall
> The following is an open letter to prof. Richard Dawkins
>from American physicist George Edwin Hammond who claims
>to have discovered (and published) the world's first bona
>fide scientific proof of God:
>
Let you out on xmas leave from the laughing academy, have they?
bramble
Immortalist ha escrito:
> Here is an essay that discriminates value judgments from descriptive
> explainations;
I want to comment on your statements on the following post.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/msg/1e031c25d1cf2b9f
The values, as religious people put it, are in a way a sort of "animal
conditioning".
If you want to know something about this, you can look for in the
google, on the way to tame dogs, or animals. Operant conditioning,
explains why so many people seem to believe in the holy truths of this
or that religion.
It is a case of domestication. Of course is rather imperfect, and that
is a good thing. If they were not for the imperfections of the
conditioning process, we would have been all fundies, and fanaticals.
We will be living by the strict tenets of any religion and... what is
worse, warring murderous wars of religion with our neighbours.
So, if a religion would teach you not to eat pork, or cow meat, or
lobster, your will probably be following these orders. We are tamed
animals. There is a saying about men being rational beings, but this
is bullshit.
I have said, "operant conditioning" is rather imperfect, most of the
times. So, the only agents that control our behaviour are not only
fanatical preachers, but friends, unknown people that one day talk
nicely with us, family members, teachers, and others. So, the result
of all these influences over our minds are in general umpredictable.
You can see that most of the people, simulate to be a good Christian,
but do not give much regard to fanatical exagerations. You have to push
them a little to make them to go out in demonstrations shouting against
this or that.
The trouble with fanatical teachings is that some people are unable to
discriminate the utter nonsense of a fanatical doctrine and the normal
behaviour to live in peace with your neighbours. Most people are able
to ignore bigotry teachings, but some unfortunate people don't.
Just try to imagine those four boys that put the bombs in the
undergound in London. Just imagine they were not satisfied with the
life they got. They thought their lives had not any meaning; they are
rather dull, they are not trascendental.
I have been writing in a forum of literature full of left wing people
for a few years and they often describe this feeling. Life as it is
has not any sense, is dull, is boring. They feel a sort of
trascendental vacuum. They are not happy with being nothing, with
being just ordinary people that have to work as a waiter, a
salesperson, a window cleaner, or an office clerc. They want to be
great, they want to be trascendental, they want to be heroes. Well,
this is not any easy.
There is not an easy way that could drive you there unless... you
become a suicidal murder.
Or a serial killer. A Latino in California in the 70's was proud that
he had broken a record as a serial killer. His case was even
meritorious because he had killed their victims by sliting their
throats with a knife. A sort of handicraft work.
Let us suppose, you are one of those that feel their lives are
unworthy of living and utterly dull. There is nothing in this world,
at the reach of your hand, that could make you a tracendental being.
Nothing is good enough for you. Nothing is sacred, nothing is... wait,
wait! Wait a moment! There is something big! There is something
holy. God is almighty, Alah is great! and so on. They had taught you
the faith in god. Then, you see now there is a path that goes right to
the heavens. You suddenly realize that you still believe in god.
That Alah is great, or whatever. Well, the only thing you need is a
little social reinforcement. You need a group of companions that could
help you to understand the best way to be a heroe. You will be a
religious heroe. But, if you do not believe in any god, you can
believe in some ideology. You can be a heroe to save the fatherland,
and so you can become a member of the IRA, or e member of ETA, or the
Tamil Tigers, or a communist Guerrillero in the ranges of Colombia, or
in Peru.
There are several ways to become a heroe. But you rarely would achieve
that condition, unless you got some companions to give you a hand "at
developing a will to act". This needs some time. Perhaps a year or
two. Perhaps a little more. If you are alone, you are not going to
suceed. But in a group, it is like a set of sacks of potatoes
paradigma. One sack alone is unstable and falls off easily, but
several sacks can suport each other and do not fall.
In a way, as religious people, we are a bunch of hypocrites. We do not
dare to reject, a few are able do it, the fanatical teachings openly.
The only thing we do is to ignore them.
So, we do not dare to break with the religion of our parents. Only
rarely we do. I do now remember that RCC preaches against birth
control, but you can see that, even in Poland and Ireland, they are now
controling the amount of kids they beget. So you see. We are slowly
getting rid of religion. And the Islamic clerics has seen that, and
they have ran a powerful drive to control their people, before it is
too late and loose all the power they have over them.
Bramble
George Hammond
from American physicist George Edwin Hammond who claims
to have discovered (and published) the world's first bona
fide scientific proof of God:
I urge any responsible person-- to bring this public
Internet letter to the attention of Prof. RICHARD DAWKINS.
I have read Prof. Dawkins' latest book _THE GOD DELUSION_
George Hammond
George Hammond
from American physicist George Edwin Hammond who claims
to have discovered (and published) the world's first bona
fide scientific proof of God:
I urge any responsible person-- to bring this public
Internet letter to the attention of Prof. RICHARD DAWKINS.
I have read Prof. Dawkins' latest book _THE GOD DELUSION_
George Hammond
closed circuit t.v. or even in person if necessary... and
absolutely and entirely CONFIDENTIALLY and OFF THE
RECORD.... if he is interested in finding out about the
discovery!
George Hammond
from American physicist George Edwin Hammond who claims
to have discovered (and published) the world's first bona
fide scientific proof of God:
I urge any responsible person-- to bring this public
George Hammond
George Hammond
from American physicist George Edwin Hammond who claims
to have discovered (and published) the world's first bona
fide scientific proof of God:
I urge any responsible person-- to bring this public
Internet letter to the attention of Prof. RICHARD DAWKINS.
I have read Prof. Dawkins' latest book _THE GOD DELUSION_
Bryan Olson
> I urge any responsible person-- to bring this public
> Internet letter to the attention of Prof. RICHARD DAWKINS.
No, no; that's not an "OPEN LETTER TO RICHARD DAWKINS".
In the open-letter format, one addresses, at least in a
superficial sense of form and wording, the nominal
recipient. It's an essay phrased as a letter.
Here, I'll show you an example:
Professor Dawkins,
The multitude of flake theories in the world force you to
choose your battles carefully. I'm writing to note one that
you can skip. Unlike so-called "creation science" George
Hammond and his "scientific proof of God" are not fooling
anyone, save Hammond himself. Scientists and theologians who
have looked at Hammond's arguments agree: just nonsense.
If you are not familiar with the publication, you might be
amused to look at /The Noetic Journal/. Many trivial academic
journals exists merely to provide citations for papers no one
wants to read, but the Noetic Journal goes one better by
publishing only flakery.
Hammond may be amusing, but he's not even a good example of
how people fool themselves. Few self-deluded theorists will
see themselves in the same class as Hammond. Hammond has
started his own religion. He published, on the net, his
"Nobel Speech". In discussion groups where he constantly
proclaims the importance of his own work, he warns people
that history will record only those to whom he chooses to
responds.
Please, Professor Dawkins, waste none of your valuable time
on Hammond. I'm writing this as an "open letter" in hopes
that all this nonsense never comes to your attention.
--Bryan Olson
--
--Bryan
Martin Phipps
> On 7 Jan 2007 01:42:51 -0800, "Martin Phipps"
> <martin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >[Phipps]
> >Excuse me, but I'm a university professor with a Ph.D. in physics whose
> >speciality was elementary particle physics and I know that your
> >"theory" is nonsense.
>
> [Hammond]
> Making a statment like "I know that your theory is nonsense"
> simply proves that you're intellectually incompetent to
> discuss a scientific proof of God.
No, it means I read your "proof" and had a good laugh at your expense.
You say that "God is the percentage of the human brain that is ungrown"
so my advice to you is to grow up and then "God" will disappear for
you.
Martin
Otto Bahn
The troll will read the above and have a good laugh at
*your* expense.
--oTTo--
What's in your wallet?
Bryan Olson
> I urge any responsible person-- to bring this public
> Internet letter to the attention of Prof. RICHARD DAWKINS.
But it's not a letter.
As always, you ignore the refutations of your content. We know
to expect that, but can you not even get the form right?
--
--Bryan
JohnN
George Hammond wrote:
> The Cartesian cleavage of the human brain
> causes four major brain lobes (L-R lobes, Front-Back
> (Motor-Sensory) lobes) which cause 4 fundamental
> personalities in Man historically named Matt, Mark, Luke and
> John-- the 4-GOSPEL CANON of Religion!
All I get from this is your hear four voices in your head and have
given them names.
JohnN
Bryan Olson
> The following is an open letter to prof. Richard Dawkins
No; it isn't. Deluded as you may be as to your own discoveries,
can you not even understand the "open letter" concept?
--
--Bryan
Xcott Craver
>
>[Hammond]
>You don't know what you're talking about. ENP and g are
>EIGENVECTORS of a symmetric matrix, and therefore BY
>MATHEMATICAL DEFINITION THEY ARE
>
> ABSOLUTELY THEORETICALLY STRICTLY ORTHOGONAL
Wait, the identity matrix I is a symmetric matrix, and every vector
is an eigenvector of I.
Obviously two eigenvectors of a symmetric matrix don't have to be
orthogonal.
==
"Anyone born after the McDLT has no business stomping around acting punk rock"
--Roast Beef
Xcott Craver
Fine then, you don't believe in God, so let it rest already, okay?
George Hammond
<martin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>George Hammond wrote:
>> On 7 Jan 2007 01:42:51 -0800, "Martin Phipps"
>> <martin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> >[Phipps]
>> >Excuse me, but I'm a university professor with a Ph.D. in physics whose
>> >speciality was elementary particle physics and I know that your
>> >"theory" is nonsense.
>>
>> [Hammond]
>> Making a statment like "I know that your theory is nonsense"
>> simply proves that you're intellectually incompetent to
>> discuss a scientific proof of God.
>
>No, it means I read your "proof" and had a good laugh at your expense.
[Hammond]
No..l it means you are most likely another internet
phoney.... a fake.... an unbalanced and aggrevated fringe
element of academia spoiling for a fight and crawling around
the internet looking for someone to abuse... another low
life!. For one thing you didn't seem to realize that
eigenvectors of a matrix are DE FACTO ORTHOGONAL.... which
leads me to believe that your forensic science ability
leaves something to be desired.
>You say that "God is the percentage of the human brain that is ungrown"
>so my advice to you is to grow up and then "God" will disappear for
>you.
>Martin
[Hammond]
If you had half a brain in your head you would realize you
answered your own question.... that is EXACTLY what the
entire world is trying to do and fighting over all the
time... in case you didn't realize it.... life is not a
circle jerk liky you supposed... life is actually a struggle
by the human race (and every other living thing) to reach
FULL GROWTH.... and any lack of growth is what CAUSES THE
PHENOMENON OF GOD........... simpleton!!
Even Dawkins doesn't know that!
If you're a college professor and a PhD physicist why don't
you say something intelligent for a change... for instance
explain why Richard Dawkins is making a fool out of himself
in front of the Entirety of Christendom! Or are you as big
a fool as he is?
George Hammond
<jnor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[Hammond]
Wake up and learn something idjit.
George Hammond
George Hammond
from American physicist George Edwin Hammond who claims
to have discovered (and published) the world's first bona
fide scientific proof of God:
I urge any responsible person-- to bring this public
Internet letter to the attention of Prof. RICHARD DAWKINS.
I have read Prof. Dawkins' latest book _THE GOD DELUSION_
Immortalist
bramble wrote:
> Immortalist ha escrito:
Across the globe and throughout history, human beings have engaged in a
variety of religious practices and have held a diversity of religious
beliefs. These phenomena have been explained in a variety of different
ways by anthropologists, psychologists, and other scholars, as well as
by religious practitioners themselves, with varying degrees of success.
Perhaps more puzzling, and just in need of an explanation, is the fact
that human beings have religion in the first place.
...Religion is a by-product of the way our minds evolved to negotiate
the natural and, more importantly, the social world. Evolutionary
Psychology's naturalistic and cognitivist approach is at variance with
many established traditions in the study of the religion and his
approach may seem wrong-headed to many...
http://www.semcoop.com/detail/0465006965
The explanation for religious beliefs and behaviours is to be found in
the way all human minds work. I really mean all human minds, not just
the minds of religious people or of some of them. I am talking about
humanminds because what matters here are prop-erties of minds that are
found in all members of our species with normal brains. The discoveries
I will mention here are about the ways minds in general (menís or
womenís, British or Brazilian, young or old) function.
This may seem a rather strange point of departure if we want to explain
something as diverse as religion. Beliefs are different in different
people; some are religious and some are not. Also, obviously, beliefs
are different in different places. Japanese Buddhists do not seem to
share much, in terms of religious notions, with Amazonian shamans or
American Southern Baptists. How could we explain a phenomenon
(religion) that is so variable in terms of something (the brain) that
is the same everywhere? This is what I describe in this book.
http://artsci.wustl.edu/~pboyer/BoyerBook.htm
In my research I try to describe functional specialisations in various
mental systems, using and gathering evidence from cognitive
development, behavioural experiments, and neural functioning. An
important goal is to describe the way such functional systems emerge in
the course of cognitive development. A third goal is to show how this
understanding of the mind helps us understand and explain cultural
phenomena like social systems and religious representations. All this
is based on the assumption that evolution by natural selection resulted
in a particular cognitive architecture, in particular in the division
of labour between a large number of specialised learning systems.
http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~pboyer/Research.htm
Religious Thought and Behaviour As By-products of Brain Function.
Religious concepts activate various functionally distinct mental
systems, present also in non-religious contexts, and 'tweak' the
usual inferences of these systems. They deal with detection and
representation of animacy and agency, social exchange, moral
intuitions, precaution against natural hazards and understanding of
misfortune. Each of these activates distinct neural resources or
families of networks. What makes notions of supernatural agency
intuitively plausible? This article reviews evidence suggesting that it
is the joint, coordinated activation of these diverse systems, a
supposition that opens up the prospect of a cognitive neuroscience of
religious beliefs.
http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~pboyer/BoyerTiCS.pdf
Cognitive developmental evidence is sometimes conscripted to support
"naturalized epistemology" arguments to the effect that a general
epistemic stance leads children to build theory-like accounts of
underlying properties of kinds. A review of the evidence suggests that
what prompts conceptual acquisition is not a general epistemic stance
but a series of category-specific intuitive principles that constitute
an evolved "natural metaphysics". This consists in a system of
categories and category-specific inferential processes founded on
definite biases in prototype formation. Evidence for this system
provides a better understanding of the limited "plasticity" of
ontological commitments as well as a computationally plausible account
of their initial state, avoiding ambiguities about innateness. This may
provide a starting point for a "naturalized epistemology" that takes
into account evolved proper-ties of human conceptual structures.
http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~pboyer/Abstracts.htm
The Inferential Instinct:
(naive or "direct epistemology")
...a naturalistic account of cultural representations that describes
how evolved conceptual dispositions make humans likely to acquire
certain concepts more easily than others. The aggregated result of
these individual acquisition processes channels cultures along
particular paths, with the result that some concepts are both
relatively stable within a group and recurrent among different groups.
Cultural transmission, like other forms of human communication, does
not consist in a 'downloading' of concepts from one mind to
another. It requires inferential processes, whereby people attend to
cues in other people's behavior, infer their communicative
intentions, build concepts on this basis of what they inferred
(Tomasello, Kruger, & Ratner, 1993; Sperber,1996). As a result,
cultural transmission is a process whereby people constantly create
variants of other people's representations. Concepts that are stable
in one group and recurrent between groups are concepts that were
selected in the transmission process, against a whole variety of
variants that were forgotten, discarded and modified.
http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/esm/IAM/PBoyer.html
Culturally successful religious concepts are the outcome of selective
processes that make some concepts more likely than others to be easily
ac-quired, stored and transmitted. Among the constructs of human
imagination, some connect to intuitive ontological principles in such a
way that they con-stitute a small catalogue of culturally successful
supernatural concepts. Experimental and anthropological evidence
confirm the salience and trans-mission potential of this catalogue.
Among these supernatural concepts, cog-nitive capacities for social
interaction introduce a further selection. As a re-sult, some concepts
of supernatural agents are connected to morality, group-identity,
ritual and emotion. These typical "religious" supernatural agents are
tacitly presumed to have access to information that is crucial to
social interac-tion, an assumption that boosts their spread in human
groups.
http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~pboyer/FunctionalOrigins.pdf
...Why are we humans predisposed to have only these kinds of religious
concepts? Boyer's answer, in brief, is that our brains have been
"designed by evolution" to employ particular cognitive systems that
help us to make sense of "particular aspects of objects around us and
produce specific kinds of inferences about them." There are, for
instance, brain-systems in this sense that deal with inanimate
objects, others that deal with human persons, and yet others that deal
with supernatural agents. Just as our brains have become by evolution
such that they inevitably (and mostly unconsciously) deploy the complex
inferential systems that permit us to survive and get around in a world
of inanimate objects, so they also have become such that we find ideas
about full-access strategic agents to be plausible because these
ideas generate for us rich inferences about how to behave and what
choices to make, and they do so with particular richness in a social
context in which we can reasonably assume that everyone else shares
such ideas.
Boyer thus reverses many traditional attempts to explain religion away.
It is not that we invent the gods because by so doing we can meet needs
otherwise difficult to satisfy, or because they permit us to explain
things otherwise hard to explain, or because they give us the illusion
of comfort in a harsh and comfortless world, or because they give us
persuasive reasons to act morally. It is, rather, that evolution has
equipped us (or most of us) with certain proclivities or dispositions
to explain misfortune, gain scarce social goods, and act morally (by
which Boyer means, roughly, acting in such a way as evolutionarily to
benefit either ourselves or the tribe). Moreover, these proclivities
dispose us to accept and act upon the idea that there are gods-or, if
you prefer, full-access strategic agents. Evolution, in Boyer's
story, makes all of us likely worshipers in much the same way that it
makes all of us likely language-users. We are innately predisposed
for both, and so such disparate religious traditions as Christian
theology, Islamic law, and Buddhist metaphysics are merely different
forms of baroque ornamentations added on to an evolutionary edifice.
...Boyer's explanation for the attractiveness of Mass-going is that
it is a "snare for thought that produces highly salient effects by
activating special systems in the mental basement."
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0201/reviews/griffiths.html
"(A) penetrating scientific analysis of religion. (...) Boyer is at his
best in describing the countless peculiar religious rituals he and his
anthropological brethren have recorded -- and especially in identifying
the shortcomings of virtually every explanation for religion ever
offered. As a consequence, however, Boyer himself fails to provide a
satisfactory explanation because he knows that religion is not a single
entity resulting from a single cause." - Michael Shermer, The
Washington Post
Boyer is careful not to focus merely on the religions his readers are
likely to be familiar with. He did field work in Cameroon, among the
Fang, and so he likes to use their belief-systems as examples, and he
also draws on other anthropological and historical accounts to bring in
the full, rich variety of religion. But his focus is on what is common
to all forms of religion -- or, more accurately, what leads mankind to
invent, adopt, and follow these belief-systems that, considered
rationally, are generally simply bizarre (and often quite ridiculous).
As he shows, there are some clear reasons why these odd belief-systems
arise, and why people follow them. From the idea of "memes" (see also
Susan Blackmore's The Meme Machine (see our review)) to why specific
beliefs are adopted and others aren't, Boyer suggests how belief
systems arise, adapt (and are adapted), and thrive. He offers many
particularly interesting biologically- and neurologically-based reasons
for specific beliefs and attitudes -- many of which, one finds, are
common (in some form) to practically all religions. And he finds common
templates behind supernatural concepts, for example.
...there are interesting scientific explanations behind many aspects of
religious thought.
http://www.complete-review.com/reviews/religion/boyerp.htm
There is, in addition, a further deep fissure in the book's fabric of
argument. Boyer wants to provide an evolutionary explanation for the
plausibility of religious belief and practice, and in so doing to show
that it should not be taken seriously in its claims about the way
things are. But such explanations ought to be applicable to Boyer's
own views, since he claims that everything about our cognitive life can
be explained by appeal to our evolutionary history. What is it, then,
about evolutionary selection that makes Boyer's views (his
physicalism, his evolutionism, his touching faith in science and its
high priests, his apocalyptic enthusiasm for what science can now do)
probative? Boyer does not say. His views are, apparently, exempt from
the very process of investigation they require. The whole program is
thus performatively incoherent, propounding as it does a method of
analysis that ought to be applicable to all claims and arguments, and
yet exempting itself from that very process. Again Boyer seems not to
see the difficulty, and this strains the credulity and the patience of
the reader.
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0201/reviews/griffiths.html
Pascal Boyer's Home Page;
author: ReligionExplained
http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~pboyer/
BanderStern
<Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote:
>On 7 Jan 2007 17:46:49 -0800, "JohnN"
><jnor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>George Hammond wrote:
>>> The Cartesian cleavage of the human brain
>>> causes four major brain lobes (L-R lobes, Front-Back
>>> (Motor-Sensory) lobes) which cause 4 fundamental
>>> personalities in Man historically named Matt, Mark, Luke and
>>> John-- the 4-GOSPEL CANON of Religion!
>>
>>All I get from this is your hear four voices in your head and have
>>given them names.
>>
>>JohnN
>
>
>[Hammond]
>Wake up and learn something idjit.
Oh yeah! That's really helping your case...
Martin Phipps
>
> Intelligence = mental speed in bits/second
If that were true then the simplest of computers would have to be
considered more intelligent than the human brain. Intelligence is more
than just speed of thought, and it isn't just determined by the size of
one's brain as you claimed.
What I find most interesting is the fact that you, at times, describe
intelligence as if it were a bad thing, for example when you described
new born babies as being closer to God because their brains weren't
fully "grown". You said "'God' in this paper refers to the percentage
of the human brain which is ungrown". Obviously if a person's brain
were fully grown then it would no longer be burdened with any belief in
God. Atheists happen to believe this as well.
Martin
BanderStern
<Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote:
>On 7 Jan 2007 17:46:49 -0800, "JohnN"
><jnor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>George Hammond wrote:
>>> The Cartesian cleavage of the human brain
>>> causes four major brain lobes (L-R lobes, Front-Back
>>> (Motor-Sensory) lobes) which cause 4 fundamental
>>> personalities in Man historically named Matt, Mark, Luke and
>>> John-- the 4-GOSPEL CANON of Religion!
>>
>>All I get from this is your hear four voices in your head and have
>>given them names.
>>
>>JohnN
Actually, since the moon phases are the same length of time as a
woman's menstrual cycle, it proves that humans, (specifically, human
females) were created by the Roman moon goddess, Luna.
It also proves that Georgie Porgie isn't the only one who can take two
irrelevant facts, put them together, and call it "proof of god."
Martin Phipps
> If you're a college professor and a PhD physicist why don't
> you say something intelligent for a change...
You first.
> for instance
> explain why Richard Dawkins is making a fool out of himself
> in front of the Entirety of Christendom! Or are you as big
> a fool as he is?
Ah but you already admitted that his IQ was "25 points" higher than
yours. I would estimate that I am, roughly, about as "big a fool" as
him but that you are much, much more of a fool than either of us. :)
Martin
Martin Phipps
> No..l it means you are most likely another internet
> phoney.... a fake.... an unbalanced and aggrevated fringe
> element of academia spoiling for a fight and crawling around
> the internet looking for someone to abuse... another low
> life!
Oh, by the way, in psychology this is refered to as "projection".
Martin
Martin Phipps
> On 7 Jan 2007 02:02:25 -0800, "Martin Phipps"
> <martin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >[Phipps]
> >Yes but the different aspects of human personality or intelligence are
> >not as rigorously orthogonal as the three dimensions of space which is
> >what you assumed from the beginning.
> >
>
> [Hammond]
> You don't know what you're talking about. ENP and g are
> EIGENVECTORS of a symmetric matrix, and therefore BY
> MATHEMATICAL DEFINITION THEY ARE
>
> ABSOLUTELY THEORETICALLY STRICTLY ORTHOGONAL
Based on a survey of 5000 people?!
Do you understand the meaning of the word "rigorous".
Martin
BioFreak
> I urge any responsible person-- to bring this public
> Internet letter to the attention of Prof. RICHARD DAWKINS.
But you don't seem to understand :-) Hehe :)
You don't know about religion enough to go after him,
and Dawkins has nice works but only when you subtract
his crusader activities from it. He's just a confused
limited man as far as the subject of religion is
concerned. Nobody in his lifetime has discussed
religion with him at the level that he attempts to
approach it. There has never been a book written in the
English language about religion at that level. Hence
all that one-way hit-or-miss blabbers.
There isn't even someone who could/would go give him a
hand in this. To point to a few things at least.
So just delete his remarks about religion and enjoy the
rest of his ideas. Bug off now, or you'll never hear
from me again addressing something to you.
--
"khodAyA, be man zistani atA kon ke dar
lahzeye marg bar bisamariye lahze'i ke
barAye zistan gozashteh ast hasrat
nakhoram, va mordani atA kon ke bar
bihudegiyash sugvAr nabAsham. begozAr tA
AnrA man khod entekhAb konam ammA
AnchenAn ke to dustmidAri."
- Ali Shari'ati
Gary Eickmeier
George Hammond wrote:
> Intelligence = mental speed in bits/second
>
> Forget the details... there are plenty of unemployed
> housewives who can write tons of books about all that stuff.
But what does that have to do with God? You still haven't made any
connection between your brain growth, mental speed, orthogonal whatsis,
and GOD. How do you get God from all this mumbo jumbo?
Gary Eickmeier
George Hammond
from American physicist George Edwin Hammond who claims
to have discovered (and published) the world's first bona
fide scientific proof of God:
I urge any responsible person-- to bring this public
Internet letter to the attention of Prof. RICHARD DAWKINS.
I have read Prof. Dawkins' latest book _THE GOD DELUSION_
George Hammond
George Hammond
George Hammond
[Hammond]
Your question has been answered a dozen times:
There are a dozen MAJOR PHENOMENAL CLAIMS ABOUT GOD in the
Bible and Xtianity in general.
A PROOF OF GOD then consists of showing that the "curvature
of subjective spacetime" I have identified and measured
comprehensively EXPLAINS EVERY ONE OF THESE MAJOR PHENOMENAL
CLAIMS.
In other worlds, the SPOG is a CLASSIC TEXTBOOK SCIENTIFIC
PROOF.
By the way, The 13 historically observed claims of
classical Religion (e.g. Christianity) are as follows:
1. There physically exists an "invisible world" known as
"Heaven" which is similar to Earth but is a paradise.
2. God is an "invisible man" who lives there and is all
powerful and rules the actual (visible) world from
there.
3. This God can effect miracles which transcend
the (known) laws of Physics.
4. Jesus said "God is a spirit" Jn 4:24
5. Historically Religion has evolved from Polytheism
(many demigods) to Monotheism (one supreme God).
6. Christianity predicts the world is transforming itself
into Heaven and will actually complete this at a
date known as "Kingdom Come"... or the "end of the
world".
7. There is such a thing as "Eternal Life".
8. Jesus was the physical "incarnation of God"
9. The Cross for some reason is the central symbol of
(Western) Religion.
10. For some reason our main canonical text is written
in 4 identical versions known as the "4-Gospel Canon".
11. God "created the world" only a matter of "thousands"
of years ago (Genesis) not "billions" of years ago
(Big Bang)
as Science believes.
12. God created man "in his own image".
13. There is a "Trinity of God", functionally or
operationally speaking.
And for the upteenth time, the fact that the curvature of
subjective spacetime (Psychometry space) PHYSICALLY EXPLAINS
all 13 of these claims IS WHAT CONNECTS "GOD" TO THE
SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION.
George Hammond
Craver) wrote:
>George Hammond <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote:
>>
>>[Hammond]
>>You don't know what you're talking about. ENP and g are
>>EIGENVECTORS of a symmetric matrix, and therefore BY
>>MATHEMATICAL DEFINITION THEY ARE
>>
>> ABSOLUTELY THEORETICALLY STRICTLY ORTHOGONAL
>
>Wait, the identity matrix I is a symmetric matrix, and every vector
>is an eigenvector of I.
>
>Obviously two eigenvectors of a symmetric matrix don't have to be
>orthogonal.
[Hammond]
What the hell are you talking about.... the eigenvectors
of a matrix are ORTHOGONAL since the eigenvectors represent
an ORTHOGONAL BASIS in the vector space of the matrix.
For instance, the EIGENVECTORS of a matrix are the
ORTHOGONAL AXES of the "Tensor Ellipsoid" of the matrix,
which are ORTHOGONAL BY DEFINITION.
You don't even understand elementary Linear Algebra never
mind the scientific theory of GOD for chrissakes.... college
professor.... PhD in physics....you sound like a jerk!
George Hammond
<martin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>George Hammond 寫道：
>
>> On 7 Jan 2007 02:02:25 -0800, "Martin Phipps"
>> <martin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >[Phipps]
>> >Yes but the different aspects of human personality or intelligence are
>> >not as rigorously orthogonal as the three dimensions of space which is
>> >what you assumed from the beginning.
>> >
>>
>> [Hammond]
>> You don't know what you're talking about. ENP and g are
>> EIGENVECTORS of a symmetric matrix, and therefore BY
>> MATHEMATICAL DEFINITION THEY ARE
>>
>> ABSOLUTELY THEORETICALLY STRICTLY ORTHOGONAL
>
>Based on a survey of 5000 people?!
>
[Hammond]
5,000 people.... who are you kidding. ENP and g have
been tested by thousands of researchers for 30 years on
thousands of people at a whack in a dozen countries. A
million people have been tested. Besides that the Curvature
of "subjective spacetime" is ENORMOUS compared to the
Curvature of Real Spacetime. The Obliquity of the XYZt axes
of Real Spacetime due to 1-g of Gravity only amounts to a
millionth of an angular degree..... but the obliquity
(Curvature) of the ENPg axes due to braingrowth amounts to
10 ANGULAR DEGREES! Therefore the "experimental flatness of
flat space" is not a problem in Psychometry space even with
only 5,000 people.
>Do you understand the meaning of the word "rigorous".
>
>Martin
[Hammond]
Do you understand the meaning of the question "Is the Pope a
Catholic"?
George Hammond
George Hammond
from American physicist George Edwin Hammond who claims
to have discovered (and published) the world's first bona
fide scientific proof of God:
I urge any responsible person-- to bring this public
Internet letter to the attention of Prof. RICHARD DAWKINS.
I have read Prof. Dawkins' latest book _THE GOD DELUSION_
George Hammond
from American physicist George Edwin Hammond who claims
to have discovered (and published) the world's first bona
fide scientific proof of God:
I urge any responsible person-- to bring this public
Internet letter to the attention of Prof. RICHARD DAWKINS.
I have read Prof. Dawkins' latest book _THE GOD DELUSION_
which has become notorious because chapter 4 is entitled:
"WHY THERE ALMOST CERTAINLY IS NO GOD"
Richard Dawkins is the world's most famous atheist. He has
George Hammond
Xcott Craver
>of a matrix are ORTHOGONAL since the eigenvectors represent
>an ORTHOGONAL BASIS in the vector space of the matrix.
Just answer yes or no:
(1) Is the vector x=[1 0 0] an eigenvector of the 3x3 identity matrix?
(2) Is the vector y=[1 1 1] an eigenvector of the 3x3 identity matrix?
(3) Are those vectors orthogonal?
Ans: yes, yes, and no.
Of course, when we refer to _the_ eigenvectors of a matrix we often don't
mean all of them, but rather an orthogonal basis. But that's
irrelevant: you said that if two vectors are eigenvectors, then they must
be orthogonal, which is obviously false.
For a more obvious counterexample, consider the fact that if x is
an eigenvector, so is 2x. Yet x and 2x are never orthogonal.
Mike
George Hammond wrote:
> On 08 Jan 2007 02:33:11 GMT, c...@spamela.brainhz.com (Xcott
> Craver) wrote:
>
>
> >Wait, the identity matrix I is a symmetric matrix, and every vector
> >is an eigenvector of I.
> >
> >Obviously two eigenvectors of a symmetric matrix don't have to be
> >orthogonal.
>
> [Hammond]
> What the hell are you talking about.... the eigenvectors
> of a matrix are ORTHOGONAL since the eigenvectors represent
> an ORTHOGONAL BASIS in the vector space of the matrix.
> For instance, the EIGENVECTORS of a matrix are the
> ORTHOGONAL AXES of the "Tensor Ellipsoid" of the matrix,
> which are ORTHOGONAL BY DEFINITION.
> You don't even understand elementary Linear Algebra never
> mind the scientific theory of GOD for chrissakes.... college
> professor.... PhD in physics....you sound like a jerk!
So which statement did you disagree with. The statement that the
identity matrix is symmetric? Or the observation that all vectors are
eigenvalues of the identity matrix and that all pairs of vectors are
not orthogonal?
I assume that what you meant to say is that two eigenvalues of a
symmetric matrix having distinct eigenvalues have to be orthogonal.
That statement would be correct. The statement you actually made is
wrong
Martin Phipps
> On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 23:37:10 -0500, Gary Eickmeier
> <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >George Hammond wrote:
> >
> >> Intelligence = mental speed in bits/second
> >>
> >> Forget the details... there are plenty of unemployed
> >> housewives who can write tons of books about all that stuff.
> >
> >But what does that have to do with God? You still haven't made any
> >connection between your brain growth, mental speed, orthogonal whatsis,
> >and GOD. How do you get God from all this mumbo jumbo?
> >
> >Gary Eickmeier
>
>
> [Hammond]
> Your question has been answered a dozen times
No it hasn't. At no time did you establish a link between gravity and
the workings of the brain, let alone between a man's size and his
intelligence. And any 4x4 matrix equation can be written as a linear
equation and compared to Einstein's equation if you ignore second order
terms. You say in your paper:
"We have only demonstrated this to first order, however in traditional
perturbation theory fashion we presume that it holds exactly."
This demonstrates a profound ignorance of perturbation theory! In
perturbation theory, second order terms can be neglected because they
are shown to be neglible compared to first order terms. Perturbation
theory is not only not exact but it is an approximation that you failed
to demonstrate to be valid. You continue:
"Psychometry incidentally is well known to be nonlinear."
So you admit the mathematics is wrong!
"Hence there is little question of the correctness of the mathematics."
No shit!
George, it is time for you to put up or shut up. What university did
you graduate from? With what degree? You claim to be a "physicist".
What are your credentials? Who are your collegues? What institution
do you work for? Normally it wouldn't matter if there were any merit
whatsoever to your theory and because there isn't you have accused
people here of being "frauds" and "amateurs". So I ask again: what are
your credentials?
Martin
Cardinal Chunder
> I urge any responsible person-- to bring this public
> Internet letter to the attention of Prof. RICHARD DAWKINS.
>
> I have read Prof. Dawkins' latest book _THE GOD DELUSION_
> which has become notorious because chapter 4 is entitled:
>
> "WHY THERE ALMOST CERTAINLY IS NO GOD"
Betcha you haven't read it at all. Certainly it seems that the logic and
reason running throughout have had absolutely no effect at quelling your
mania.
> Richard Dawkins is the world's most famous atheist. He has
> repeatedly stated in print and on television that he does
> not believe that there is any scientific evidence whatsoever
> that there is a God, and has defied anyone to present such
> evidence!
>
> Therefore, it is of vital interest to him that he be
> informed that the world's first bona fide scientific proof
> of God has been discovered, experimentally proven and
> published in the peer reviewed scientific literature by an
> American physicist George Edwin Hammond. A copy of the
> published paper and a full explanation of the discovery can
> be found on my website (URL in signature file below).
Except it isn't a bona fide scientific proof of God. Neither has it been
experimentally proven nor published in peer reviewed scientific
literature. Printing it in a pseudo-scientific mystical rag doesn't
count at all.
If Dawkins were to be sent your "proof" I'm sure it would be briefly
skimmed before being placed in the filing receptacle he keeps on the
floor by his desk.
> I am willing to present a private tutorial of the world's
> first scientific proof of God to Prof. Dawkins privately, by
> email, telephone, videocam chatroom, fax, picturephone,
> closed circuit t.v. or even in person if necessary... and
> absolutely and entirely CONFIDENTIALLY and OFF THE
> RECORD.... if he is interested in finding out about the
> discovery!
Why should he need to do that if your "proof" were experimentally
proven? Seems like your appeal to a private meeting is just a setup so
you can boo hoo some more that yet another noted scientist chooses to
ignore you totally.
--
"Hello. I'm Leonard Nimoy. The following tale of alien encounters is
true. And by true, I mean false. It's all lies. But they're entertaining
lies. And in the end, isn't that the real truth? The answer is: No."
Andro
"Mike" <mat...@hofstra.edu> wrote in message news:1168251997....@i15g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| George Hammond wrote:
{snip}
George Hammond has been in and out of mental care for years.
One should not mock the truly afflicted, he is unable to correct
his disability just as I am unable to correct my arthritic ankle.
There is no possibility of his understanding what you say.
Leave him alone and do not join the mob of vicious bullying
piss-takers.
You can have a go at me all you want to, I can stand up for
myself and hit back.
bob young
George Hammond wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 08:01:07 GMT, George Hammond
> <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote:
>
> >I urge any responsible person-- to bring this public
> >Internet letter to the attention of Prof. RICHARD DAWKINS.
> >
> >I have read Prof. Dawkins' latest book _THE GOD DELUSION_
> >which has become notorious because chapter 4 is entitled:
> >
> > "WHY THERE ALMOST CERTAINLY IS NO GOD"
> >
> >Richard Dawkins is the world's most famous atheist. He has
> >repeatedly stated in print and on television that he does
> >not believe that there is any scientific evidence whatsoever
> >that there is a God, and has defied anyone to present such
> >evidence!
> >
> >Therefore, it is of vital interest to him that he be
> >informed that the world's first bona fide scientific proof
> >of God has been discovered, experimentally proven and
> >published in the peer reviewed scientific literature by an
> >American physicist George Edwin Hammond. A copy of the
> >published paper and a full explanation of the discovery can
> >be found on my website (URL in signature file below).
ROFL .............Oh Dear Oh dear
>
> >
> >
> >-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >I am willing to present a private tutorial of the world's
> >first scientific proof of God to Prof. Dawkins privately, by
> >email, telephone, videocam chatroom, fax, picturephone,
> >closed circuit t.v. or even in person if necessary... and
> >absolutely and entirely CONFIDENTIALLY and OFF THE
> >RECORD.... if he is interested in finding out about the
> >discovery!
> >and why no one could ever explain it to met, and that there