13 sufficient points of evidence proving G_uv=God
George Hammond
Einstein's (scalar) Field Equation may be written:
G=T
where G is the curvature of spacetime and T is the
"mass density" causing the curvature.
Because it has been discovered that the 4-metrical variables of
spacetime XYZt PHYSICALLY CAUSE the 4-metrical variables of
Psychometry space ENPg via the 3-orthogonal Cartesian cleavages
of the brain, we have an identical equation in Psychometry space:
G4=T4
where G4 is the curvature of Psychometry space, and T4 is the
percentage of full brain growth of the indiviual.. it might
even be called "brain density" analogous to the gravitational
case.
Ok, G4 which can be measured to two decimal place accuracy
in Psychometry has been identified as "God" by Hammond. The
following poster would like to know how I prove that it is "God".
My answer consists of 13 reasons which I contend are "necessary
and sufficient" to prove that it is "God":
____________________________________________________________
Thomas in sci.physics.relativity wrote:
>
> I asked for evidence of a statement you made.
> That is how it works in science. You have to
> be able to back up statements you make in a proof.
> What evidence/facts/experimental results give
> you the indication that G4 is God?
B wrote:
Well Thomas, or can I call you Doubting,
if G4 isn't God, what is it?
[Hammond]
B has given you the short answer, now you are asking for
the long answer. The long answer is on my website but
I will condense it for you.
Ok, so what makes us (us=contemporary science)
think that G4, the higher order factor of the [ENPg] Metric
of psychomery space, is "God". OK, the long answer is this:
"God" is described in the Bible and in a history
which is thousands of years old and known to 5
billion living adherents of organized Religion and
billions more who lived and died in the past.
According to these documented sources, "God" causes
the following phenomena and/or has the following
properties:
1. God is an all powerful force
2. God is invisible
3. God is singular and unique (supreme Deity)
4. God supposedly has a human form.
5. God can transcend the (known) Laws of Physics
6. There is Polytheism vs. Monotheism
7. There is the Crucifixion (Cross)
8. There are Miracles and Revelation
9. There is Heaven
10. There is the Creation
11. There is Kingdom Come
12. There is Prayer
13. There is Eternal Life
14. And There is everything else ever written
about "God" and/or Religion.
OK, now we take the list item by item and show (briefly) how
Hammond's discovery "scientifically explains" every one of
these items:
1. God is an all powerful force
The discovery says that God is caused by the Secular
Trend brain growth deficit. Since the Brain forms our
"reality" supposedly in 1:1 ration with "absolute
reality", when we discover a "growth deficit" we
see that if the deficit is say 15%, that we will
only see .85:1 of reality, thus braingrowth has
supreme power over us by "dictating" our reality.
2. God is invisible
According to the above, a 100% grown man would be
"God in the flesh". Since the Secular Trend tells us
there is no such thing as a full grown man, God is
"invisible".
3. God is singular and unique (supreme Deity)
The scientific discovery proves that the 4-metrical
dimensions of spacetime (XYZt) cause the 4-metrical
dimensions of Psychometry space (ENPg). Since the
former fact is "axiomatic" (an axiomatic law of Physics),
therefore so is the latter. But a 4x4 matrix can only
have a single higher order Factor (Thurstone's Law),
therefore, "axiomatically" all of Psychology ends in
a single axiomatic Factor. The Factor (G4) is
axiomatically "singular and unique".
4. God supposedly has a human form.
If god is an invisible man, he certainly
has the form of a man.
5. God can transcend the (known) Laws of Physics
This WAS true before we discovered the scientific
explanation of God. Now we know that God obeys
the Laws of Relativity (as far as physics is
concerned). Of course in a sense (Theological
sense) it is still true, since Physics makes no
claim to be able to explain the "a priori"
existence of reality.
6. There is Polytheism vs. Monotheism
The full map of Psychometry contains:
1. About 35 1st order Factors
2. Exactly 13 2nd order Factors
3. Exactly 4 3rd order Factors
4. Exactly 1 4th order Factor
According to the theory:
1= The many gods (demigods) of Polytheism
2= The 13 Olympian gods of the Greco-Roman Pantheon
3= The 4 Gospel (demigods) Matt, Mark, Luke, John (Apostles)
4= The supreme Deity of world Religion= God=Allah=Yahwey=etc.
So the discovery handily explains the entire history of
world religion, including every religion, Monotheistic
and Polytheistic, past and present.
7. There is the Crucifixion (Cross)
According to the discovery, the Cross is simply
the Cartesian Coordinate System itself, which is
also BTW the human "body plan", and "metrical structural
plan", and that is why we have a body nailed to
a cross in the front of the Church.. to give everybody
a (crude) Anatomy=Psychology=Theology=Physics lesson.
8. There are Miracles and Revelation
Since braingrowth controls reality, any increment
in braingrowth causes the creation of "new reality".
Also, braingrowth can be "repressed" or "pent up"
and suddenly released by emotional catharsis. Such
an event causes a spectacular change in reality and
hence the "world" and is called a "miracle". People
suddenly discovering that they can get up out of a
wheelchair and walk is a well known example.
9. There is Heaven
Obviously, if we see less than 100% of reality, this
means that if we could see the "rest of reality"
we would be perfect, and therefore in a perfect
world, which we traditionally call "Heaven". Therefore
the discovery proves de facto that "Heaven exists".
10. There is the Creation
According to this discovery, if all Men died tomorrow,
the "world as we know it" (e.g. reality) would no
longer exist, because our reality depends on the
human brain. Therefore, by the same token, reality,
or the "world" so called must have been "Created" when
the human brain came into existence. According to
the best information, Homo Sapiens sapiens came into
existence about 40,000 years ago. So the World was
"Created" 40,000 years ago and Genesis is a description
of what the first modern humans on Earth thought happened.
11. There is Kingdom Come
All experts are agreed that the Secular Trend is
a typical Logistics Curve i.e. a Sigmoidal Curve
(S-curve). Every S-curve reaches a plateau of
100% sooner or later. This event is obviously the
"kingdom come" of the lord's Prayer, since then
all humans will be 100% grown and we will have
obtained"Heaven on Earth".
12. There is Prayer
Prayer according to this discovery is a communication
between the conscious and unconscious minds, which is
stated in Theological terms as a communication between
"Heaven and Earth"... so yes, you are talking to God
in a prayer.
13. There is Eternal Life
Obviously according to the discovery indicates that
a condition of 100% growth IS a condition of "Eternal
Life", since in this condition there is no subjective
(gravitational) time dilation, and the person is in
"absolute reality". There is death in this condition,
but there is no such thing as "loss of life", since
only he time dilation itself represents a loss of reality
or "life".
14. And There is everything else ever written
about "God" and/or Religion.
This is a true statement, quite obvious from the above
13 items. Perhaps in my book I will find time and space
to discuss further details.
Now, if you don't find the scientific explanation of the above
13 items sufficient evidence that a scientific proof of God has
been discovered, all I can say is that you simply are not
educated or experienced enough to be discussing this theory.
Certainly any competent scientist would, according to the
standards of contemporary Science find these 13 leading items
to be "necessary and sufficient" to indicate beyond a reasonable
doubt that a scientific proof of God has been discovered.
QED, the world's first scientific proof of God has been
discovered.
=======================================================
GEORGE HAMMOND'S- SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/index.html
=======================================================
Spaceman
G=T
God = Time?
Yup.
that's physics all right..
<LOL>
the atomic clock is a God
an infallable joke to Science.
Please explain why
the paradox twins are both
the same revs of Earth wrt the Sun
old.
Relativity killed relativity almost 100 yrs
ago.,
When will these relativists learn
the theories are WRONG
don't use them in yours.
for your will be wrong too.
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
http://www.realspaceman.com
Marco Nelissen
> When will these relativists learn
> the theories are WRONG
> don't use them in yours.
> for your will be wrong too.
Oh man, Spaceman says Hammond is wrong! Which crackpot to believe?
The dilemma is almost unbearable!
Spaceman
>Date: 7/6/2002 10:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <ag6vgb$nnh$2...@news1.xs4all.nl>
>
>Oh man, Spaceman says Hammond is wrong! Which crackpot to believe?
>The dilemma is almost unbearable!
Excuse Me Marco Polo,
Why don't you get a clue,
I have never been wrong without admitting it.
too abd you won't admit
relativity itself Kills relativity.
Or are you an atomic clock God worshipper also.
You believe the atomic clock is God huh?
It is non falable in your world huh?
<LOL>
foolish physics time travel dupe.
<LOL>
I miss this place..
Glad I'm back to place some REAL physical stuff
back in physics.
So.
Hows the clock god doing,
stiull can't get him to keep the same rate
when he changes speed rate
or change gravitational force placement.
silly fool.
the clock is not a God.
the clock goofed.
Time has not.
The third clock states all other clocks
are the same age no matter what they say
on thier lying faces.
George Hammond
may be seen at:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/13reasons.html
__________________________________________________________
Marco Nelissen wrote:
>
> In sci.physics George Hammond <gham...@attbi.com> wrote:
> > Well lets get to the point. I've just given you the "necessary
> > and sufficient" evidence that G4 is God (which you have reposted
> > below)). WHAT, may I ask, is your comment about the 13 points
> > of evidence that are posted below... we're all waiting with baited
> > breath.
>
> You have no evidence. What you did was post a list of things along the
> lines of "A is X, God is X, therefore A must be God". Clearly, such a
> statement is false (it's the same as "Dog is animal, cat is animal,
> therefore dog must be cat").
[Hammond]
Wrong confused illogical nitwit. What I did was show that:
A=God, G4 explains A therefore G4=God
B=God, G4 explains B therefore G4=God
C=God, G4 explains C therefore G4=God
D=God, G4 explains D therefore G4=God
E=God, G4 explains E therefore G4=God
F=God, G4 explains F therefore G4=God
G=God, G4 explains G therefore G4=God
H=God, G4 explains H therefore G4=God
I=God, G4 explains I therefore G4=God
J=God, G4 explains J therefore G4=God
K=God, G4 explains K therefore G4=God
L=God, G4 explains L therefore G4=God
M=God, G4 explains M therefore G4=God
N=God, G4 explains N therefore G4=God
O=God, G4 explains O therefore G4=God
P=God, G4 explains P therefore G4=God
Q=God, G4 explains Q therefore G4=God
_____________________________________
GRAND TOTALS:
A+B+....+Q= the leading and central phenomenae of God
G4 explains A+B+...+Q
Ergo: G4 explains God.
Whaddaru stupid or something? This is a classic
method of canonical Science, nitwit.
You're so stupid and other directed
it's a wonder you can cross the street without getting
hit by a car.
Spaceman
>Ergo: G4 explains God.
NO!
G4 can sink a battleship.
and it can't do too much more than that.
George
God told me you are wrong.
and If you listen to physics
you will always be wrong.
physics is wrong George.
Time does not exist.
Clocks are not Gods.
They are stupid machines
that can screw up when
they change gravitational forces
or motion changes.
Physics has been fooled by a machine
and so have you.
The machine laughs.
<LOL>
and
G:A:4 can sink your time ship!
<LOL>
Warp Space is for warped minds.
Space is not warped.
physics is.
Times rate does not change,
clocks rates do.
Get with the REAL huh George.
then maybe you will find a REAL
god instead of a mathematical one.
Marco Nelissen
> Excuse Me Marco Polo,
ooh, nice one, spacegirl! Did you think of that yourself, or did
you get inspiration from your KIDS?
> I have never been wrong without admitting it.
Au contraire, mon cher dimwit, you are constantly wrong, you just
don't see it, seeing as how your IQ is even lower than Hammond's.
> <LOL>
SHEESH!
Now why don't you go back to your tirebusiness, or play with the
kids or something? It's summer after all, and they must be wondering
why daddy doesn't play with them, instead chosing to play with his
computer and let the family business go down the drain.
Spaceman
Spaceman
oops.
I forgot to type out that nothing was posted by
Marco that has actual facts
He loves to be an arrogant puke though.
so maybe that is what he bases his physics on.
We in the REAL world.
call that insultation physics.
poor guy.
He worships a clock.
don't mind him..
He will find out someday that he has followed
a religion known as physics.
In basic terms folks!
I sunk his time ship!
<LOL>
poor guy.
floating in time and can't move now..
no time force left to push on or with.
<LOL>
poor lost time traveler.
His Godly clock broke.
Marco Nelissen
> I forgot to type out that nothing was posted by
> Marco that has actual facts
Wrong. I stated the fact that you are always wrong, but are too dumb
to realize it. Sheesh...
Spaceman
<snipped nothing again>
poor marco.
his time ship still sinking and he won't jump..
Marco.
the twins are the same revs of Earth wrt the Sun old.
The atomic clock God has fallen..
jump off the wagon or sink in the mud with it.
Why do you worship the clock like you do?
Why won't you admit it has faults.
poor guy.
I feel sorry for ya man.
stuck in the magical time dimension.
<LOL>
Lane Lewis
god is nothing.
Your "proof" can only deny the existence of god.
Lane
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
Andre Gide, French author and critic (1869-1951).
Marco Nelissen
> I feel sorry for ya man.
I feel sorry for your family.
Oriel36
Welcome back James.
Arfur Dogfrey
[the 14 items snipped in interest of conserving bandwidth]
>
> Now, if you don't find the scientific explanation of the above
> 13 items sufficient evidence that a scientific proof of God has
> been discovered, all I can say is that you simply are not
> educated or experienced enough to be discussing this theory.
> Certainly any competent scientist would, according to the
> standards of contemporary Science find these 13 leading items
> to be "necessary and sufficient" to indicate beyond a reasonable
> doubt that a scientific proof of God has been discovered.
Is this a "definition" of "compentent scientist" (in which case
it is unverifiable) or is this an actual claim? In other words,
are you claiming that any respected physics professor at a major
university would agree that "these 13 leading items [are a]
'necessary and sufficient' to indicate beyond a reasonable doubt
that a scientific proof of God has been discovered?"
If you are claiming the latter, then could I suppose that if a large
number of 'competent scientists' disgreed that these 13 items were
"sufficient evidente that a scientific proof of God has been discovered"
then your claim will have been falsified?
Just asking for clarification as to what you are actually claiming.
Arf!
Arfur
Spaceman
>Welcome back James.
Thanks!
Glad to listen to the Physics phunnies again.
:)
but still sad..
dang cartoon worlders.
<G>
too bad,
maybe if they watched more cartoons
they would know how a clock works
and what it actually counts.
:)
(Ignorant warpies I guess I can call them <LOL>)
I've come to the conclusion now
that the atomic clock is thier "God"
and they refuse to admit it's faults.
They really worship the thing..
It's sad ..
yet funny at the same time..
strange we humans are..
laughing at others tripping and falling.
<g>
Physics is a religion now.
sad huh?
Hopefully it's slowly coming back the the
physical.
All they need to do is look for
REAL causes.
like they used to.
time can't be neither a cause nor an effect.
just as length can't and width can't.
reaction rate can change.
time remains the same
just as the mass and the lengths and widths
(unless other mass effects them... not time..)
too easy.
they make it all crazy to confuse people enough
that they won't argue.
I won't accept the magic talk anymore.
I'm also glad you are not.
and many smarter people are also seeing
the Cherade being put on without them even knowing
sometimes.
George Hammond
>
> It's impossible to prove god exists for proof denies faith and without faith
> god is nothing.
> Your "proof" can only deny the existence of god.
[Hammond]
Sorry purveyor of the porridge of faith, Religion has now
obtained the meat of a proven fact and is about to
become as strong as hardened steel... go pedal your
hopeless doctrine of "forlorn faith" to the gullible.
It's about to to become worthless as penny stock after a crash.
The smart money is already hedging their bets. You're
about to be put out of business.
>
> j
--
George Hammond
NOTE: The original post which this thread refers to
may be seen at:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/13reasons.html
Arfur Dogfrey wrote:
>
<snip.. dog poop>
Jason Mathews
> 2. God is invisible
>
> According to the above, a 100% grown man would be
> "God in the flesh". Since the Secular Trend tells us
> there is no such thing as a full grown man, God is
> "invisible".
> 4. God supposedly has a human form.
>
> If god is an invisible man, he certainly
> has the form of a man.
I find these two statements to be the most...convincing.
--
Desktop Mercenary |First Prophet, Paranoid Network Intruder Ministry
xi...@swbell.net | http://candleinthedark.org
| http://deskmerc.com
AKA Mind Control Officer #171, Rabid Jo-Boy, SKEP-TI-CULTIST
Usenet Hacker, AntiAstroClone, writer of text/plain ISO-8859-1
news viruses, SICK LYING FOOL of USENET and VILE CREEPY OBSESSED ILK.
George Hammond
may be seen at:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/13reasons.html
Jason Mathews wrote:
>
> George Hammond <gham...@attbi.com> bloviated as follows:
>
> > 2. God is invisible
> >
> > According to the above, a 100% grown man would be
> > "God in the flesh". Since the Secular Trend tells us
> > there is no such thing as a full grown man, God is
> > "invisible".
>
> > 4. God supposedly has a human form.
> >
> > If god is an invisible man, he certainly
> > has the form of a man.
>
> I find these two statements to be the most...convincing.
[Hammond]
You're smart dude. Of course so was the Pope who commissioned
Michaelangelo to paint a picture of the invisible God floating
on the clouds on the Sistine Chapel ceiling. Maybe some smart
dude like you was there holding the ladder for Michaelangelo.
Personally I find this one very convincing:
7. There is the Crucifixion (Cross)
According to the discovery, the Cross is simply
the Cartesian Coordinate System itself, which is
also BTW the human "body plan", and "metrical structural
plan", and that is why we have a body nailed to
a cross in the front of the Church.. to give everybody
a (crude) Anatomy=Psychology=Theology=Physics lesson.
of course I'm a scientist, so my viewpoint is more mechanical.
>
> --
> Desktop Mercenary |First Prophet, Paranoid Network Intruder Ministry
> xi...@swbell.net | http://candleinthedark.org
> | http://deskmerc.com
> AKA Mind Control Officer #171, Rabid Jo-Boy, SKEP-TI-CULTIST
> Usenet Hacker, AntiAstroClone, writer of text/plain ISO-8859-1
> news viruses, SICK LYING FOOL of USENET and VILE CREEPY OBSESSED ILK.
--
Gregory L. Hansen
Spaceman <agents...@aol.combination> wrote:
>Oh boy!
>
>
>G=T
>God = Time?
>
>Yup.
>that's physics all right..
><LOL>
>
>the atomic clock is a God
And time is money. So it stands to reason that G=$.
--
"For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong. "
-- Henry Louis Mencken
Jason Mathews
> Jason Mathews wrote:
>>
>> George Hammond <gham...@attbi.com> bloviated as follows:
>>
>>> 2. God is invisible
>>>
>>> According to the above, a 100% grown man would be
>>> "God in the flesh". Since the Secular Trend tells us
>>> there is no such thing as a full grown man, God is
>>> "invisible".
>>
>>> 4. God supposedly has a human form.
>>>
>>> If god is an invisible man, he certainly
>>> has the form of a man.
>>
>> I find these two statements to be the most...convincing.
>
> [Hammond]
> You're smart dude. Of course so was the Pope who commissioned
> Michaelangelo to paint a picture of the invisible God floating
> on the clouds on the Sistine Chapel ceiling. Maybe some smart
> dude like you was there holding the ladder for Michaelangelo.
Indeed. That's a very invisible God portrayed in the Sistine
Chapel. The level of detail has always astonished me, with the
clearly represented robes and flowing patriarch beard.
> Personally I find this one very convincing:
>
> 7. There is the Crucifixion (Cross)
>
> According to the discovery, the Cross is simply
> the Cartesian Coordinate System itself, which is
> also BTW the human "body plan", and "metrical structural
> plan", and that is why we have a body nailed to
> a cross in the front of the Church.. to give everybody
> a (crude) Anatomy=Psychology=Theology=Physics lesson.
Many parallels can be drawn with your thought out analogy
that could provide further...insight into your Proof of God.
For example, the four axes of the cross could also represent
forces, all emerging froma common center. It is fortuitous
that the longer axis on a cross points down, representing
gravity, the most primordial and basic of all the forces.
Perhaps you could use your Prrof of God theory to shed some
light on this dynamic, and perhaps illuminate a more complete
Grand Unified Theory, along with your earlier proof.
I do not have the scientific background that you have referred
to, so my resources are limited in this manner. In any case,
I would be curious as to your thoughts on this manner. Perhaps
you could "kill two birds with one stone", and bring together
two coveted concepts, God and Grand Unification.
> of course I'm a scientist, so my viewpoint is more mechanical.
Of course. It's important to be objective and literal.
George Hammond
may be seen at:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/13reasons.html
Jason Mathews wrote:
>
> George Hammond <gham...@attbi.com> bloviated as follows:
>
> > Jason Mathews wrote:
> >>
> >> George Hammond <gham...@attbi.com> bloviated as follows:
> >>
> >>> 2. God is invisible
> >>>
> >>> According to the above, a 100% grown man would be
> >>> "God in the flesh". Since the Secular Trend tells us
> >>> there is no such thing as a full grown man, God is
> >>> "invisible".
> >>
> >>> 4. God supposedly has a human form.
> >>>
> >>> If god is an invisible man, he certainly
> >>> has the form of a man.
> >>
> >> I find these two statements to be the most...convincing.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > You're smart dude. Of course so was the Pope who commissioned
> > Michaelangelo to paint a picture of the invisible God floating
> > on the clouds on the Sistine Chapel ceiling. Maybe some smart
> > dude like you was there holding the ladder for Michaelangelo.
>
> Indeed. That's a very invisible God portrayed in the Sistine
> Chapel. The level of detail has always astonished me, with the
> clearly represented robes and flowing patriarch beard.
[Hammond]
That ought to tell you something dude... those guys
sitting over in the Vatican are not stupid... they've
known what God is for 2,000 years... the fact that they
haven't been able to do more about it tells you how
dangerous the world and the subject of religion actually
is. It took the whole Christian Religion in the form of
the Allied Army just to stop Hitler you know.
>
> > Personally I find this one very convincing:
> >
> > 7. There is the Crucifixion (Cross)
> >
> > According to the discovery, the Cross is simply
> > the Cartesian Coordinate System itself, which is
> > also BTW the human "body plan", and "metrical structural
> > plan", and that is why we have a body nailed to
> > a cross in the front of the Church.. to give everybody
> > a (crude) Anatomy=Psychology=Theology=Physics lesson.
>
> Many parallels can be drawn with your thought out analogy
> that could provide further...insight into your Proof of God.
> For example, the four axes of the cross could also represent
> forces, all emerging froma common center.
[Hammond]
It does represent the Bicameral/2-party system which
is based on the Cartesian Cleavage of the Brain, and
DOES represent the 4-major "forces" of world political
society.
> It is fortuitous
> that the longer axis on a cross points down, representing
> gravity, the most primordial and basic of all the forces.
[Hammond]
yes, it represents the upward movement of mankind through
browth and development, whci as the theory shows, is
controlled by gravity.
> Perhaps you could use your Prrof of God theory to shed some
> light on this dynamic, and perhaps illuminate a more complete
> Grand Unified Theory, along with your earlier proof.
[Hammond]
Way ahead of you kid.
>
> I do not have the scientific background that you have referred
> to, so my resources are limited in this manner. In any case,
> I would be curious as to your thoughts on this manner. Perhaps
> you could "kill two birds with one stone", and bring together
> two coveted concepts, God and Grand Unification.
>
> > of course I'm a scientist, so my viewpoint is more mechanical.
>
> Of course. It's important to be objective and literal.
[Hammond]
Truth is stranger than fiction. I have so many newly discovered
facts to deal with I seldom need to resort to imagination.
As for people's suggestions, I'm way ahead of anything anyone
can dream up.
>
> --
> Desktop Mercenary |First Prophet, Paranoid Network Intruder Ministry
> xi...@swbell.net | http://candleinthedark.org
> | http://deskmerc.com
> AKA Mind Control Officer #171, Rabid Jo-Boy, SKEP-TI-CULTIST
> Usenet Hacker, AntiAstroClone, writer of text/plain ISO-8859-1
> news viruses, SICK LYING FOOL of USENET and VILE CREEPY OBSESSED ILK.
--
John Burton
Or some other church? Which one? If a wealthy benefactor embraced your
claims and wanted to grant you, say, $50 million, what would you do? Start a
church? Or maybe some sort of "foundation" or other organization? What would
be it's purpose?
This issue of money is an important one. It could reveal much about you.
John
Beacon
Original post title (sci.skeptic): 13 sufficient points of evidence proving
G_uv=God
Original post in full is posted at the bottom of this post after the stars
***********************
[snip]
> > > [Hammond]
> > > You're smart dude. Of course so was the Pope who commissioned
> > > Michaelangelo to paint a picture of the invisible God floating
> > > on the clouds on the Sistine Chapel ceiling. Maybe some smart
> > > dude like you was there holding the ladder for Michaelangelo.
> >
> > Indeed. That's a very invisible God portrayed in the Sistine
> > Chapel. The level of detail has always astonished me, with the
> > clearly represented robes and flowing patriarch beard.
>
> [Hammond]
> That ought to tell you something dude... those guys
> sitting over in the Vatican are not stupid... they've
> known what God is for 2,000 years... the fact that they
> haven't been able to do more about it tells you how
> dangerous the world and the subject of religion actually
> is. It took the whole Christian Religion in the form of
> the Allied Army just to stop Hitler you know.
Oddly there were no christians in rome 2000 years ago. christ didn't die
until about 30 CE and it took several years for christians to spread to
rome. It took centuries for Christanity to get established in Rome. Now the
Vatican is a different Matter. The present day Vatican dates to the 20th
century and was instituted by hitlers friend and ally Mussolinni.
By the way jews and muslims also fought against Hitlers forces in WWII.
As regards your 13 points:
1. God is an all powerful force
2. God is invisible
3. God is singular and unique (supreme Deity)
4. God supposedly has a human form.
5. God can transcend the (known) Laws of Physics
6. There is Polytheism vs. Monotheism
7. There is the Crucifixion (Cross)
8. There are Miracles and Revelation
9. There is Heaven
10. There is the Creation
11. There is Kingdom Come
12. There is Prayer
13. There is Eternal Life
14. And There is everything else ever written
about "God" and/or Religion.
Are 3 and 6 compatable?
Does 14 include the gnostic gospels?
****************************************************************************
*******
Original post begins
*************************************************************************
NOTE:
G=T
G4=T4
B wrote:
4. God supposedly has a human form.
5. God can transcend the (known) Laws of Physics
6. There is Polytheism vs. Monotheism
7. There is the Crucifixion (Cross)
8. There are Miracles and Revelation
9. There is Heaven
10. There is the Creation
11. There is Kingdom Come
12. There is Prayer
13. There is Eternal Life
14. And There is everything else ever written
about "God" and/or Religion.
OK, now we take the list item by item and show (briefly) how
Hammond's discovery "scientifically explains" every one of
these items:
1. God is an all powerful force
The discovery says that God is caused by the Secular
Trend brain growth deficit. Since the Brain forms our
"reality" supposedly in 1:1 ration with "absolute
reality", when we discover a "growth deficit" we
see that if the deficit is say 15%, that we will
only see .85:1 of reality, thus braingrowth has
supreme power over us by "dictating" our reality.
2. God is invisible
According to the above, a 100% grown man would be
"God in the flesh". Since the Secular Trend tells us
there is no such thing as a full grown man, God is
"invisible".
3. God is singular and unique (supreme Deity)
The scientific discovery proves that the 4-metrical
dimensions of spacetime (XYZt) cause the 4-metrical
dimensions of Psychometry space (ENPg). Since the
former fact is "axiomatic" (an axiomatic law of Physics),
therefore so is the latter. But a 4x4 matrix can only
have a single higher order Factor (Thurstone's Law),
therefore, "axiomatically" all of Psychology ends in
a single axiomatic Factor. The Factor (G4) is
axiomatically "singular and unique".
4. God supposedly has a human form.
If god is an invisible man, he certainly
has the form of a man.
5. God can transcend the (known) Laws of Physics
This WAS true before we discovered the scientific
explanation of God. Now we know that God obeys
the Laws of Relativity (as far as physics is
concerned). Of course in a sense (Theological
sense) it is still true, since Physics makes no
claim to be able to explain the "a priori"
existence of reality.
6. There is Polytheism vs. Monotheism
The full map of Psychometry contains:
1. About 35 1st order Factors
2. Exactly 13 2nd order Factors
3. Exactly 4 3rd order Factors
4. Exactly 1 4th order Factor
According to the theory:
1= The many gods (demigods) of Polytheism
2= The 13 Olympian gods of the Greco-Roman Pantheon
3= The 4 Gospel (demigods) Matt, Mark, Luke, John (Apostles)
4= The supreme Deity of world Religion= God=Allah=Yahwey=etc.
So the discovery handily explains the entire history of
world religion, including every religion, Monotheistic
and Polytheistic, past and present.
7. There is the Crucifixion (Cross)
According to the discovery, the Cross is simply
the Cartesian Coordinate System itself, which is
also BTW the human "body plan", and "metrical structural
plan", and that is why we have a body nailed to
a cross in the front of the Church.. to give everybody
a (crude) Anatomy=Psychology=Theology=Physics lesson.
9. There is Heaven
12. There is Prayer
=======================================================
GEORGE HAMMOND'S- SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/index.html
=======================================================================
George Hammond
NOTE: The original post which this thread refers to
may be seen at:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/13reasons.html
[Hammond]
A. Don't fuck with the headers.
B. Someone asked the same question a year ago.
C. someone asked me the same question 2 years ago.
D. someone asked me the same question 3 years ago.
E. If someone gave me a million dollars, the whole world would
know about the scientific proof of God within 6 months.
F. Once that happened, it's easy, buy stock because its
going to be a Bear market for 20 years.
--
George Hammond
NOTE: The original post which this thread refers to
may be seen at:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/13reasons.html
===========IGNORE INTERNET HECKLERS=================
[Hammond]
A. Don't fuck with the headers.
B. Someone asked the same question a year ago.
C. someone asked me the same question 2 years ago.
D. someone asked me the same question 3 years ago.
E. If someone gave me a million dollars, the whole world would
know about the scientific proof of God within 6 months.
F. Once that happened, it's easy, buy stock because its
going to be a Bull market for 20 years.
George Hammond
may be seen at:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/13reasons.html
[Hammond]
Why do you think you're telling us something we
don't already know?
> It took centuries for Christanity to get established in Rome.
[Hammond]
Why do you think you're telling us something we
don't already know?
> Now the
> Vatican is a different Matter. The present day Vatican dates to the 20th
> century and was instituted by hitlers friend and ally Mussolinni.
[Hammond]
Peter died in Rome and founded the Church there
before 100 AD.
> By the way jews and muslims also fought against Hitlers forces in WWII.
[Hammond]
You got that one right.
>
> As regards your 13 points:
>
> 1. God is an all powerful force
> 2. God is invisible
> 3. God is singular and unique (supreme Deity)
> 4. God supposedly has a human form.
> 5. God can transcend the (known) Laws of Physics
> 6. There is Polytheism vs. Monotheism
> 7. There is the Crucifixion (Cross)
> 8. There are Miracles and Revelation
> 9. There is Heaven
> 10. There is the Creation
> 11. There is Kingdom Come
> 12. There is Prayer
> 13. There is Eternal Life
> 14. And There is everything else ever written
> about "God" and/or Religion.
>
> Are 3 and 6 compatable?
[Hammond]
Yes... answered in FAQ-#4 at:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/ManygodsFAQ.html
> Does 14 include the gnostic gospels?
[Hammond]
14 includes everything, yes, I said everything.
Eric Gisse
glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>In article <20020706094504...@mb-fc.aol.com>,
>Spaceman <agents...@aol.combination> wrote:
>>Oh boy!
>>
>>
>>G=T
>>God = Time?
>>
>>Yup.
>>that's physics all right..
>><LOL>
>>
>>the atomic clock is a God
>
>And time is money. So it stands to reason that G=$.
So thats why tithing and collection plates are so popular? To get in
touch with god?
John Burton
> >
> > Assuming you're right, should I run out and join the local baptist
church?
> > Or some other church? Which one? If a wealthy benefactor embraced your
> > claims and wanted to grant you, say, $50 million, what would you do?
Start a
> > church? Or maybe some sort of "foundation" or other organization? What
would
> > be it's purpose?
> >
> > This issue of money is an important one. It could reveal much about you.
> >
> > John
>
> [Hammond]
>
> A. Don't fuck with the headers.
JOHN
Don't tell me what to do with the headers. If I leave the post in the
correct position in the thread, changing the headers helps to track how the
topic is developing, NITWIT (oh, that was fun!).
> B. Someone asked the same question a year ago.
> C. someone asked me the same question 2 years ago.
> D. someone asked me the same question 3 years ago.
JOHN
And you presumably gave similar non-answers then as well?
> E. If someone gave me a million dollars, the whole world would
> know about the scientific proof of God within 6 months.
JOHN
Ah, so the key is marketing?
> F. Once that happened, it's easy, buy stock because its
> going to be a Bull market for 20 years.
JOHN
What's the current stock price? Oh, there isn't one yet? Well then, what do
you intend to do with funds raised from the sale of stock? If you had not
evaded my questions, you would have answered this already. You therefore
deserve to deal with some more difficult questions: Do you presently accept
donations? Do you have non-profit status? What is your SPOG-related income?
Do you report it to the IRS? Do you solicit grants? Are you attempting to
defraud anyone of their hard-earned cash? (I'm not accusing you of this, I
just want to know what you would do with the money, assuming that it would
amount to something more than just buying a lot of advertising and PR.) What
is the desired outcome of SPOG? Do you even have a desired outcome, or do
you just want to spend the rest of your life squabbling on the internet?
(Yes, some people enjoy that so much that they would rather not see it end.
Are you such a person?) Let's have some accountability, George.
Reply by snipping everything I said, and you prove that you are not worth
bothering with.
George Hammond
DON'T FUCK WITH THE HEADERS (header harassment).
Your kook one liners are of no interest, and
certainly of no interest in the headers.
I've had years of experience with this type
of filthy criminal internet harassment, and it
will only bring on the use of KOOKI KUTTERS again.
--
Erica Sunderland
>
> has the form of a man.
Hey, isn't this just the stoopidest thing ever posted? What is this guy smoking?
Marco Nelissen
> I've had years of experience with this type
> of filthy criminal internet harassment,
Yes, you've certainly been harassing people on the internet for years.
I wish you'd do it in real life, then we could have you locked up, again.
Marco Nelissen
> Hey, isn't this just the stoopidest thing ever posted? What is this guy smoking?
It's not that he's smoking something, it's that he keeps refusing to
take his medication.
Spaceman
>Hey, isn't this just the stoopidest thing ever posted? What is this guy
>smoking?
>
He is smoking spacetime curve magical clock Gods.
<LOL>
George Hammond
may be seen at:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/13reasons.html
[Hammond]
Camel Wides, 2 packs a day.
What's stooopid about that? I thought it was a historic
scientific discovery.
And you'll be glad to know, that the "gender free" version
is:
If God is an invisible person, God certainly
has the form of a person.
This means that the God of a man looks like a man, and the
God of a woman looks like a woman (actually I'm more anxious
to see Her than Him, (and you vice versa I suppose).
Also, BTW of course, since God is "invisible" because of this
universal Secular Trend growth deficit:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/growth5.JPG
and since this curve actualoy holds for EVERY LIVING THING (with
different lifespans of course), we see that:
The God of a Horse is a full grown Horse
The God of a Giraffe is a full grown Giraffe
The God of a Gecko is a full grown Gecko
The God of a Tree is a full grown Tree
The God of Grass is full grown Grass
None of which exist BTW, according to the (generalized)
Secular Trend (not to say common observation).
Which leads us to an obvious generalization of the
word "God"... meaning the full grown (i.e. perfect)
specimen of ANY AND ALL living things.
This is the same as saying a "a Ford car" or a
"a Chevy car", as opposed to the statement,
"Otto Daimler invented the car".
In this way, a Man and a Horse could actually
have a conversation about God (if a Horse could
speak in other than body language). In fact, when a Dog
sees you and lifts one front foot slightly off the
ground as if he was lame, he is actually asking you
how much you know about God. This is the way an adult
dog can separate idiotic youthful humans from a
an experienced man. Watch out for that Dog,
because he DOES know what God is.
BTW, did you ever locate that 1983 P.A.I.D. paper
by Stelmack and Plouffe?
George Hammond
may be seen at:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/13reasons.html
_____________________________________________________
[Hammond]
Hey Nellissen, you're boss down at the garage
is looking for you.
John Burton
than your SPOG theory ever could. Goodbye.
John
Marco Nelissen
> is looking for you.
Can't spell my name, can't spell "your", why do you think anyone
would care about what you have to say? Besides, I don't work at
a garage, you're confusing me with Driscoll.
Marco Nelissen
> The God of a Giraffe is a full grown Giraffe
> The God of a Gecko is a full grown Gecko
> The God of a Tree is a full grown Tree
> The God of Grass is full grown Grass
Trees and grass do not have a brain, therefore psychometry does not apply
to them, and therefore they do not have a god.
Hammond doesn't even know the consequences of his own theory...
Marco Nelissen
I love it: "God is an unmowed lawn"
Lorrill Buyens
on Sat, 06 Jul 2002 22:31:19 GMT, they issued this poignant cry for
help:
>It took the whole Christian Religion in the form of
>the Allied Army just to stop Hitler you know.
1. Not all Allies were Christian.
2. Not all Christians were Allies.
3. George Hammond is a horse's ass.
--
"There can be only one Silly Vampire Programme, and 'It
is I, Count Homogenized' has had that title sewn up since
about 1978..."
- Dave Joll, in rec.arts.drwho
TMG
wrote:
>In sci.physics George Hammond <gham...@attbi.com> wrote:
>> The God of a Horse is a full grown Horse
>> The God of a Giraffe is a full grown Giraffe
>> The God of a Gecko is a full grown Gecko
>> The God of a Tree is a full grown Tree
>> The God of Grass is full grown Grass
>
>Trees and grass do not have a brain,
or at least four legs - for god's sake don't forget about the legs!!
Peter Bowditch
>On 8 Jul 2002 00:32:06 GMT, Marco Nelissen <mar...@xs4.xs4all.nl>
>wrote:
>
>>In sci.physics George Hammond <gham...@attbi.com> wrote:
>>> The God of a Horse is a full grown Horse
>>> The God of a Giraffe is a full grown Giraffe
>>> The God of a Gecko is a full grown Gecko
>>> The God of a Tree is a full grown Tree
>>> The God of Grass is full grown Grass
>>
>>Trees and grass do not have a brain,
>
>or at least four legs - for god's sake don't forget about the legs!!
The kikuyu grass in my yard has runners. Does that count? It looks
pretty full-grown at the present even though it is winter here. I
don't think it can grow four feet high, however. Sometimes patches of
clover appear in my lawn. Are the four-leaf clovers the real ones and
the three-leaf ones just an illusion?
Questions, questions.
Additional note - I am about to eat my lunch, and I have noticed that
the slices of bread around my sandwich have four sides. Yet another
example of the significance of the number 4.
--
Peter Bowditch pet...@ratbags.com
Mad - Quintessence of the Loon http://www.ratbags.com/loon
Bad - The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Sad - Full Canvas Jacket http://www.ratbags.com/ranters
Arfur Dogfrey
> In sci.physics George Hammond <gham...@attbi.com> wrote:
> > The God of Grass is full grown Grass
>
> I love it: "God is an unmowed lawn"
"What?" I say to my wife, "you want me to mow the lawn? And you
even want me to commit this sacrilege on Sunday??"
Arf!
Arfur
JWBrittland
news:3d29031...@netnews.attbi.com...
> On 8 Jul 2002 00:32:06 GMT, Marco Nelissen <mar...@xs4.xs4all.nl>
> wrote:
>
> >In sci.physics George Hammond <gham...@attbi.com> wrote:
> >> The God of a Horse is a full grown Horse
> >> The God of a Giraffe is a full grown Giraffe
> >> The God of a Gecko is a full grown Gecko
> >> The God of a Tree is a full grown Tree
> >> The God of Grass is full grown Grass
> >
> >Trees and grass do not have a brain,
>
> or at least four legs - for god's sake don't forget about the legs!!
And we must not forget that Hammond's notion of God being the fully
"grown" man, is his idea of the natural conclusion of the "Secular Trend."
He sees growth in average size over the last century to be further proof of
God because what else could that space we haven't grown into be described
as? (It's OBVIOUS, isn't it?) So we need to know if horses, giraffes,
geckos, trees, and grass have been showing trends of growth toward some
final perfection synonymous with God.
Britt
George Hammond
may be seen at:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/13reasons.html
__________________________________________________________
[Hammond]
According to _Hammond's Law of Auxology_:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/Auxology.html
ALL LIVING THINGS are experiencing a Secular Trend
in growth, not just human beings,... meaning none
of them have reached their true genotypic size:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/growth5.JPG
If their true "genotypic" size is their "God", and
their phenotype has not reached their genotype, then
their "God" is still in "Heaven", meaning a portion
of the organism is latent and only partially grown
and partially functional (i.e. is still in 'Heaven').
There is no sharp division between organisms which
have "brains" and organisms which do not... there is
a continual gradation. Man is the first animal who
is capable of explicitly "knowing" there is a "God".
At a lower level, a Dog certainly knows there is
a God, but has no word (name) for it. At a still
lower level, a Clam certainly has a "God" and the
existence of this "God" determines the clam's
behavior.. even though the clam's behaviour is only
"instinctual"... a clam doesn't actually "know"
anything. You don't have to "know" there is a God
for there to "be" a God. It will physically affect
you, even if you are a clam without a brain.
The only living thing that I know of that may not
have a "God in Heaven", but may have actually reached
the stage of "God on Earth", may in fact be a Virus.
This due to the fact that you can actually count every
atom in a virus, and therefore determine if it is
"fully grown"... (i.e. there is no std. deviation in
the atom count) and they do appear to be. Virus's
may be the only living organism to have actually
crossed the threshold into "kingdom come".. the
perfect world. Just a guess however. Fact is,
we're not here to discuss virus's, we're here to discuss
whether or not the guy painted on the Sistine Chapel
Ceiling actually exists... and that main question has
been answered- Yes.
George Hammond
may be seen at:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/13reasons.html
_____________________________________________________
[Hammond]
There's ample evidence that such is the case. D'Arcy Thompson
in his bell canto masterpiece _On Growth and Form_ relates that
the Red Tailed Deer rounded up in England and released in
Australia gained 6" in height within a few generations.
Obviously their phenotype was way behind their genotype even
though they have been in existence for millions of years.
>
> Britt
--
George Hammond
may be seen at:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/13reasons.html
___________________________________________________
[Hammond]
Hey.. the next thing you'll be doing is deciphering
the metaphor "Leaves of Grass".
--
James Reiher
certain are you on a scale of 0% to 100%.
George Hammond
may be seen at:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/13reasons.html
________________________________________________
James Reiher wrote:
>
> George, what are the chances that you are wrong about all of this. How
> certain are you on a scale of 0% to 100%.
[Hammond]
Overall... the whole nine yards...
80-90% sure I'm correct.
I'm about as sure that this proof of God is "true",
as Einstein was sure that General relativity was
true when he published it in 1915. Put it that
way. It is substantially the same situation.
Cardinal Chunder
> [Hammond]
>
> DON'T FUCK WITH THE HEADERS (header harassment).
> Your kook one liners are of no interest, and
> certainly of no interest in the headers.
> I've had years of experience with this type
> of filthy criminal internet harassment, and it
> will only bring on the use of KOOKI KUTTERS again.
> John Burton wrote:
>
Why not?
George Hammond
>
> <Snip>
> > > > Personally I find this one very convincing:
> > > >
> > > > 7. There is the Crucifixion (Cross)
> > > >
> > > > the Cartesian Coordinate System itself, which is
> > > > also BTW the human "body plan", and "metrical structural
> > > > plan", and that is why we have a body nailed to
> > > > a cross in the front of the Church.. to give everybody
> > > > a (crude) Anatomy=Psychology=Theology=Physics lesson.
> > >
> > > Many parallels can be drawn with your thought out analogy
> > > that could provide further...insight into your Proof of God.
> > > For example, the four axes of the cross could also represent
> > > forces, all emerging froma common center.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > It does represent the Bicameral/2-party system which
> > is based on the Cartesian Cleavage of the Brain, and
> > DOES represent the 4-major "forces" of world political
> > society.
> >
> The cross is only the symbol of christian faith because Christ was crucified
> on a cross and the crucifiction and resurrection is the cornerstone of their
> faith. Why was a cross used? Because if people weren't crucified with
> their arms stretched out wide, it would have taken them a lot longer to die.
[Hammond]
You're level of understanding of God and Religion is,
I would say, truly representative of the elite talking
classes of the Western World... and it sure is abysmally
stupid. It's a wonder the Western Democracy hasn't collapsed
by now under the sheer weight of ignorance of you people.
The Cross was known to the Egyptians 2,500 years before
Christianity or the Romans. It was called the "Ankh" and
one was carried around by the Pharaoh and his officials at
all times, exactly the same way the "Cross" is worn by
people on chains around their neck today. It is the
Egyptian hieroglyph for "Life". It can be seen in almost
every piece of surviving Egyptian art:
EGYPTIAN ANKH
___
- -
/ \
/ __ \
/ / \ \
| | | |
| \ / |
\ --- /
\ /
--------------- -----------------
| |
| |
| |
| |
---------------- ------------------
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
-----------
EGYPTIAN ANKH
This is obviously the forerunner of the Christian Cross,
and has absolutely nothing to do with "crucifixion".
Apparently by Roman times, the ruling aristocracy
had figured out the "Cartesian=Cruciform" structure of
Personality conflict (BI/2P system) and intuited it's
relationship to the Cartesian (cruciform) human body
plan, and "crucifixion" became a popular means of execution
with the hoi paloy, much as "the chair" was popular a
generation ago.
Forms of execution are always "psychologically symbolic"
and go in and out of fashion every few generations or
centuries, along with clothing styles.
Richard Smol
says...
> And we must not forget that Hammond's notion of God being the fully
> "grown" man, is his idea of the natural conclusion of the "Secular Trend."
> He sees growth in average size over the last century to be further proof of
> God because what else could that space we haven't grown into be described
> as? (It's OBVIOUS, isn't it?) So we need to know if horses, giraffes,
> geckos, trees, and grass have been showing trends of growth toward some
> final perfection synonymous with God.
It has been proven beyound any doubt now they George Hammond is either
pulling our legs or is a total nutcase. Either way, couldn't we just
ignore him? Maybe he'll go away, eventually.
RS
Marco Nelissen
> Christianity or the Romans. It was called the "Ankh"
But note that the ankh was not an actual cross (it's more
like a "T" with a circle on top of it), so unless the
egyptians used some REALLY warped coordinate systems, you'd
be hard-pressed to show any relationship between this "cross"
and coordinate axis.
James Langthorn
cultures/civilisations/religions/etc. What I'm saying is that if christ
wasn't crucified on a cross, do you really think christians would wear a
cross around their necks? Of course not, they'd still be wearing the two
fish symbol that the early church used (in the days before the Romans
decided they could live with christianity). If you want to use the cross as
an extra element of proof, don't misuse it, place it in its proper context.
Marco Nelissen
> It has been proven beyound any doubt now they George Hammond is either
> pulling our legs or is a total nutcase. Either way, couldn't we just
> ignore him? Maybe he'll go away, eventually.
He is a total nutcase. He spent, by his own admission, about 10 years in
and out of mental institutions. Obviously, they didn't "cure" him. And
he won't go away either, I'm afraid. To paraphrase a Blues Brother:
"He's on a mission from God". He won't go away until he either dies or
gets locked up again.
Marco Nelissen
> According to _Hammond's Law of Auxology_:
>
> http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/Auxology.html
Wow, that's really funny: that page gives me "forbidden" error. Did
you make up that "law" just now, and then forgot to set the permission
on the html file?
Jeff Krimmel
> 4. God supposedly has a human form.
>
> If god is an invisible man, he certainly
> has the form of a man.
>
> 7. There is the Crucifixion (Cross)
>
> According to the discovery, the Cross is simply
> the Cartesian Coordinate System itself, which is
> also BTW the human "body plan", and "metrical structural
> plan", and that is why we have a body nailed to
> a cross in the front of the Church.. to give everybody
> a (crude) Anatomy=Psychology=Theology=Physics lesson.
Hmm...since Judaism does not subscribe to the belief that
God takes a human form nor does it preach that Jesus was
anything more that a messenger of God no different than
any other messenger of that day (hence with no belief in
a crucifixion), it seems like even if your proof was
correct, it doesn't prove the existence of the Jewish God.
How disappointing.
Regards,
Jeff Krimmel
P.S. I know you could just toss out the explanation of the
cross as a "lesson", but your proof necessarily implies that
God takes human form, which is in direct conflict with
Jewish religion.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Robert J. Kolker
Jeff Krimmel wrote:
>
> Hmm...since Judaism does not subscribe to the belief that
> God takes a human form
There is some ambiguity in the text of Hebraic scriptures. The person
who wrestled with Jacob the night before he was to meet his brother Esau
was ambiguously referred to as the Lord. Was it an angel (malach) or
was it God Himself. Of the 3 men to visit Abraham to fortell that Sarah
would bear a child, Abraham bargains with one of them for the lives of
any righteous folk found in Sodom (in particular Lot, Abraham's nephew).
The text ambiguously refers to Abraham bargaining with the Lord. Was it
an angel or was it God that Abraham was dickering with?
Bob Kolker
George Hammond
may be seen at:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/13reasons.html
Jeff Krimmel wrote:
>
> "George Hammond" <gham...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:3D26A6D9...@attbi.com
>
> > 4. God supposedly has a human form.
> >
> > If god is an invisible man, he certainly
> > has the form of a man.
> >
> > 7. There is the Crucifixion (Cross)
> >
> > According to the discovery, the Cross is simply
> > the Cartesian Coordinate System itself, which is
> > also BTW the human "body plan", and "metrical structural
> > plan", and that is why we have a body nailed to
> > a cross in the front of the Church.. to give everybody
> > a (crude) Anatomy=Psychology=Theology=Physics lesson.
>
> Hmm...since Judaism does not subscribe to the belief that
> God takes a human form
[Hammond]
LOL stupid moronic liar. Genesis 2:27 right out of the
Jewish Torah says:
"So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God created he him;
male and female created he them.
(Genesis 2:27, King James Version)
If Man is an image of God, God must look like
a man..... stupid idiot. That is what we are talking
about. God has the form of a human being, according
to this Old Testament (Jewish Torah) statement.
> nor does it preach that Jesus was
> anything more that a messenger of God no different than
> any other messenger of that day (hence with no belief in
> a crucifixion), it seems like even if your proof was
> correct, it doesn't prove the existence of the Jewish God.
> How disappointing.
[Hammond]
Actually, Hammond's discovery PROVES THE ENTIRE OLD TESTAMENT,
but proves only 3/4 of the NEW TESTAMENT, since the existence
of Life After Death remains unproved.
So far, only the JEWISH RELIGION has been proven 100%
CORRECT by this discovery.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jeff Krimmel
>
> P.S. I know you could just toss out the explanation of the
> cross as a "lesson", but your proof necessarily implies that
> God takes human form, which is in direct conflict with
> Jewish religion.
[Hammond]
LIAR. It's stated clearly in the Old Testament (Jewish Torah)
that God has the bodily image of a man. Fuckhead... where
do you think Michaelangelo got the idea for the Sistine
Chapel Ceiling... that is a picture of the "God of the
Old Testiment...cf. Genesis 2:27".
Don't try and start any anti semitic bullshit with
me. I'm here to FINISH WWII you know. I don't think the
deaths of 6 million Jewish civilians in the Holocaust has
ever been paid for, and the scientific proof of God is
here to settle the score. I'm not Jewish, but I think the
score should be settled up, and I think a lot of other
people think so too. Certainly a scientific proof that
the Jews were correct about God is a big step forward for
them. Frankly I'm just tickled pink to see it.
And another thing, I don't think that majority of Germany
supported the idea of the Holocaust or civilian murder...
I'll never believe that. I don't think even the Jews
believe that. And I wouldn't be surprised if some
scientific help from Germany comes to my assistance..
wouldn't be surprised at all. I've already received some
significant theoretical help from the Max Planck Institute,
from Dr. Markus Poisselle, physicist.
George Hammond
may be seen at:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/13reasons.html
[Hammond]
Not to worry Bob, the discovery is completly confirmed
by the Jewish Torah (1st 5 books of the old Testament,
including particularly Genesis).
Genesis 2:27 right out of the Old Testament says:
"So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God created he him;
male and female created he them.
(Genesis 2:27, King James Version)
If Man is an image of God, God must look like
a man. That is what this discovery says, and,
God has the form of a human being, according
to this Old Testament (Jewish Torah) statement.
George Hammond
but not equal, to God. IOW, Man is bodily isomorphic,
but spiritually unequal, to God. That is my interpretation
of genesis 2:27, hence my interpretation of the Jewish
Religion; Man has the same form, but less power, than God.
George Black
"Arfur Dogfrey" <dogs...@dog.com> wrote in message
news:b8a07d3f.0207...@posting.google.com...
and kill religion off.............
Oh yeah :-))
George Black
And it meant life.
As far as I'm aware the -cross- had a fairly good association with state
sanctioned death
Arfur Dogfrey
THe aNSwer is obVIoUs to anYoNE thAt hAS beEN AbDuCtEd by AliEnS
anD ANallY pRobED.
Arf!
Arfur
Jan Bielawski
> NOTE: The original post which this thread refers to
> may be seen at:
> http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/13reasons.html
> ______________________________________________________
>
> Jeff Krimmel wrote:
> > Hmm...since Judaism does not subscribe to the belief that
> > God takes a human form
>
> [Hammond]
> LOL stupid moronic liar. Genesis 2:27 right out of the
> Jewish Torah says:
>
> "So God created man in his own image,
> in the image of God created he him;
> male and female created he them.
> (Genesis 2:27, King James Version)
>
> If Man is an image of God, God must look like
> a man..... stupid idiot.
No. It just means what it says, that God created man in his own image.
> Actually, Hammond's discovery PROVES THE ENTIRE OLD TESTAMENT,
> but proves only 3/4 of the NEW TESTAMENT, since the existence
> of Life After Death remains unproved.
> So far, only the JEWISH RELIGION has been proven 100%
> CORRECT by this discovery.
Why do you waste your time on this chimera of yours? There must be a
better way to resolve your problems than giving in to fantasies.
Jan Bielawski
John Vogel
How long from conception did it take Einstein to convince the
sceintific communicty the viability of his theory?
John Vogel
"John Vogel" <jvoge...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c317e960.0207...@posting.google.com...
Nevermind, I found your answer elsewhere.
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
John Vogel
> [Hammond]
> Not to worry Bob, the discovery is completly confirmed
> by the Jewish Torah (1st 5 books of the old Testament,
> including particularly Genesis).
> Genesis 2:27 right out of the Old Testament says:
>
> "So God created man in his own image,
> in the image of God created he him;
> male and female created he them.
> (Genesis 2:27, King James Version)
>
> If Man is an image of God, God must look like
> a man. That is what this discovery says, and,
> God has the form of a human being, according
> to this Old Testament (Jewish Torah) statement.
Hammond,
I'm afraid you err in your theological understanding. This is evident,
fist in that you quoted the wrong chapter (The verse is found in Gen 1:27
not 2:27), and second in that you equate "in his own image" to "looks like
him". If you had consulted any theologian you would have understood that
this verse has nothing to do with the physical representation of God, seeing
as God is NOT physical to begin with. It is quite plain by reading the
scriptures that "God" is Spirit, and HAS NO BODY. It is the SOUL of man that
bears the image of God, not our physical manifestations. God does not have
(nor has he ever had) the form of a man, though in some Christian theologies
God is said to have taken this form in Jesus Christ, that point is also
highly debateable.
Steve Harris
>Hammond,
>
> I'm afraid you err in your theological understanding. This is evident,
>fist in that you quoted the wrong chapter (The verse is found in Gen 1:27
>not 2:27), and second in that you equate "in his own image" to "looks like
>him". If you had consulted any theologian you would have understood that
>this verse has nothing to do with the physical representation of God,
seeing
>as God is NOT physical to begin with. It is quite plain by reading the
>scriptures that "God" is Spirit, and HAS NO BODY.
Comment: what theologians think compared with what ancient Hebrews thought,
are quite different things. Moses for example is allowed to see the hind
parts of God in the Hebrew scripture, and it's seems to me a difficult idea
that a formless spirit has a backside but no frontside. If you think
otherwise, please explain.
--
I welcome email from any being clever enough to fix my address. It's open
book. A prize to the first spambot that passes my Turing test.
Steve Harris
Steve Harris
>Hammond,
>
> I'm afraid you err in your theological understanding. This is evident,
>fist in that you quoted the wrong chapter (The verse is found in Gen 1:27
>not 2:27), and second in that you equate "in his own image" to "looks like
>him". If you had consulted any theologian you would have understood that
>this verse has nothing to do with the physical representation of God,
seeing
>as God is NOT physical to begin with. It is quite plain by reading the
>scriptures that "God" is Spirit, and HAS NO BODY.
John Vogel
"Steve Harris" <sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote in message
news:agde0p$j3o$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> John Vogel wrote in message <3d2a3172$1...@news.newsgroups.com>...
>
> >Hammond,
> >
> > I'm afraid you err in your theological understanding. This is evident,
> >fist in that you quoted the wrong chapter (The verse is found in Gen 1:27
> >not 2:27), and second in that you equate "in his own image" to "looks
like
> >him". If you had consulted any theologian you would have understood that
> >this verse has nothing to do with the physical representation of God,
> seeing
> >as God is NOT physical to begin with. It is quite plain by reading the
> >scriptures that "God" is Spirit, and HAS NO BODY.
>
>
> Comment: what theologians think compared with what ancient Hebrews
thought,
> are quite different things. Moses for example is allowed to see the hind
> parts of God in the Hebrew scripture, and it's seems to me a difficult
idea
> that a formless spirit has a backside but no frontside. If you think
> otherwise, please explain.
And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon
a rock: And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will
put thee in a cleft of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I
pass by: And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts:
but my face shall not be seen. (Exo 33:21-23 KJV)
The Hebrew word translated as "back parts" is "achor", and is used in many
differant ways. What the verse basically comes to is telling Moses, while he
cannot see the fullness of God, God will allow him to see the effects or
"backside" of His glory. Not the the fullness of the God, but the
representation of Him.
I've been in several discussions pertaining to this verse, and usually the
best explanation is that God is speaking metaphorically, as He is Spirit and
Moses is physical, wishing to see a physical representation of God. God
cannot show him what he wants, but he can show him enough to keep his faith
up.
There's also the line of thought that this is also speaking of Yeshua
HaMashiach, being the rock, and His Word being the cleft. The Hand being
that which blinds us to the reality of God, and God removing it being
allegorious of our "seeing" the reality of God. Anyway, since this is not a
theological discussion group, perhaps it's not wise to continue on a thread
dealing with biblical issues. I just wanted to bring up this one point (to
Mr. Hammond) for the sake of clarification, as far as the "image of God" is
concerned.
Arfur Dogfrey
[content snipped to conserve bandwidth]
>
> [Hammond]
> Actually, Hammond's discovery PROVES THE ENTIRE OLD TESTAMENT,
> but proves only 3/4 of the NEW TESTAMENT, since the existence
> of Life After Death remains unproved.
> So far, only the JEWISH RELIGION has been proven 100%
> CORRECT by this discovery.
>
Finally! Scientific proof that the hare chews the cud!!
[content snipped to conserve bandwidth]
George Hammond
>
> George Hammond <gham...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<3D29472...@attbi.com>...
> > NOTE: The original post which this thread refers to
> > may be seen at:
> > http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/13reasons.html
> > ________________________________________________
> >
> > James Reiher wrote:
> > >
> > > George, what are the chances that you are wrong about all of this. How
> > > certain are you on a scale of 0% to 100%.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Overall... the whole nine yards...
> > 80-90% sure I'm correct.
> >
> > I'm about as sure that this proof of God is "true",
> > as Einstein was sure that General relativity was
> > true when he published it in 1915. Put it that
> > way. It is substantially the same situation.
> How long from conception did it take Einstein to convince the
> sceintific communicty the viability of his theory?
[Hammond]
4-6 years. 1915-1919/21
--
George Hammond
may be seen at:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/13reasons.html
_________________________________________________________
John Vogel wrote:
>
> "George Hammond" <gham...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:3D29E340...@attbi.com...
> > [Hammond]
> > Not to worry Bob, the discovery is completly confirmed
> > by the Jewish Torah (1st 5 books of the old Testament,
> > including particularly Genesis).
> > Genesis 2:27 right out of the Old Testament says:
> >
> > "So God created man in his own image,
> > in the image of God created he him;
> > male and female created he them.
> > (Genesis 2:27, King James Version)
> >
> > If Man is an image of God, God must look like
> > a man. That is what this discovery says, and,
> > God has the form of a human being, according
> > to this Old Testament (Jewish Torah) statement.
>
> Hammond,
>
> I'm afraid you err in your theological understanding. This is evident,
> fist in that you quoted the wrong chapter (The verse is found in Gen 1:27
> not 2:27),
[Hammond]
oh,.. yuh... it's on pg.2, not ch.2., sorry.
and second in that you equate "in his own image" to "looks like
> him". If you had consulted any theologian
[Hammond]
Not so fast Vogel, I don't need to consult any theologians
to know what the word "image" means. If it says "God made
man in his own image", that means Men look like God, or,
God looks like a man. QED.
> you would have understood that
> this verse has nothing to do with the physical representation of God,
[Hammond]
Horseshit Vogel... that's exactly what it says.. God
looks like a man... that's what it says, and the Vatican
agrees, or they wouldn't have painted a picture of God
as a man on the Sistine Chapel Ceiling... what kind of
b.s. are you trying to sell us?
> seeing
> as God is NOT physical to begin with.
[Hammond]
Modern science has just proven that
God IS PHYSICAL, sorry.
> It is quite plain by reading the
> scriptures that "God" is Spirit, and HAS NO BODY. It is the SOUL of man that
> bears the image of God, not our physical manifestations.
[Hammond]
Hey, you're overshooting the mark Vogel... lighten up
a little.
Here's what's confusing you:
The God of a Horse is a Horse
The God of a Monkey is a Monkey
The God of a Gecko is a Gecko
The God of Man is a man
HOWEVER, it is obvious from this, that an ecumenical
meeting of the Species, could agree to use the word
"God" to apply to all species, much as the word "car"
is used to apply to a Ford, Chevy, Volkswagen, etc.
In that case, what the image of a "car" is, is not
exact... just as when you use the word "God" to refer
to the "God of all living species", what exactly that
meaning of the word "God" would look like is a bit
abstract.. since in that usage God is simply a "spirit",
just as the word "car" when used to describe all models
of cars, is an abstraction.
> God does not have
> (nor has he ever had) the form of a man,
[Hammond]
You're crazy.. WHO just exactly WHO, do you think is
painted on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel?
> though in some Christian theologies
> God is said to have taken this form in Jesus Christ,
[Hammond]
You mean in MAINLINE Christian theology, don't you?
> that point is also
> highly debateable.
[Hammond]
You mean, it USED TO BE debatable, it isn't any more since
Hammond scientifically proved it's true.
George Hammond
may be seen at:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/13reasons.html
_____________________________________________________
Steve Harris wrote:
>
> John Vogel wrote in message <3d2a3172$1...@news.newsgroups.com>...
>
> >Hammond,
> >
> > I'm afraid you err in your theological understanding. This is evident,
> >fist in that you quoted the wrong chapter (The verse is found in Gen 1:27
> >not 2:27), and second in that you equate "in his own image" to "looks like
> >him". If you had consulted any theologian you would have understood that
> >this verse has nothing to do with the physical representation of God,
> seeing
> >as God is NOT physical to begin with. It is quite plain by reading the
> >scriptures that "God" is Spirit, and HAS NO BODY.
>
> Comment: what theologians think compared with what ancient Hebrews thought,
> are quite different things. Moses for example is allowed to see the hind
> parts of God in the Hebrew scripture, and it's seems to me a difficult idea
> that a formless spirit has a backside but no frontside. If you think
> otherwise, please explain.
[Hammond]
Hey... lets not be stupid here... the answer to this is
simple:
The discovery proves that:
The God of a horse is a perfect horse.
The God of Man is a perfect man.
However, scientifically, the difference between a real
Horse and a perfect Horse is the Secular Trend growth
deficit, and the difference between a real man and
a perfect man is again, the Secular Trend growth deficit.
THEREFORE, a man and a horse having a conversation, CAN
use the word "God" without any misunderstanding if they
use the word to refer to the phenomena of the Secular
Trend growth deficit of ALL LIVING THINGS. This meaning of
the word "God" is symbolized by a "Cross" since the
Cartesian Body plan is the only thing that ALL LIVING THINGS
have in common.
However, OBVIOUSLY, as far as Man is concerned, God looks
like a Man. If horses ruled the world, a HORSE would be
painted on the Sistine Chapel Ceiling, not a Man.
George Hammond
may be seen at:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/13reasons.html
_________________________________________________________
[Hammond]
Look, Vogel... you're not in a position to be making suggestions
about this thread, BECAUSE you're understanding of God and
Theology is both juvenile and asinine.
Until you actually know what God is (which you don't), you
will NEVER correctly interpret the contents of the Bible.
Now, I HAVE PROVEN WHAT GOD IS, and until you come up with
a refutation of that proof, or an alternative proof (which is
impossible).. your "interpretations" of the meaning of the Bible
Scriptures is SHEER HAND WAVING OPINION, and of NO INTEREST to
scientists.
My explanation of the Bible on the other hand, is based on
an experimentally confirmed, axiomatic physics explanation of
what God actually is. Therefore Hammond's theory rules, and
your statements are worthless and prejudiced "opinion". We're
not here on the Physics newsgroups to talk about "opinions" for
chrissakes.
George Hammond
may be seen at:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/13reasons.html
________________________________________________
Jan Bielawski wrote:
>
> George Hammond <gham...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<3D29DBDC...@attbi.com>...
> > Jeff Krimmel wrote:
> > > Hmm...since Judaism does not subscribe to the belief that
> > > God takes a human form
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > LOL stupid moronic liar. Genesis 1:27 right out of the
> > Jewish Torah says:
> >
> > "So God created man in his own image,
> > in the image of God created he him;
> > male and female created he them.
> > (Genesis 1:27, King James Version)
> >
> > If Man is an image of God, God must look like
> > a man..... stupid idiot.
>
> No. It just means what it says, that God created man in his own image.
[Hammond]
No, it just means what it says... God looks like a man.
>
> > Actually, Hammond's discovery PROVES THE ENTIRE OLD TESTAMENT,
> > but proves only 3/4 of the NEW TESTAMENT, since the existence
> > of Life After Death remains unproved.
> > So far, only the JEWISH RELIGION has been proven 100%
> > CORRECT by this discovery.
>
> Why do you waste your time on this chimera of yours? There must be a
> better way to resolve your problems than giving in to fantasies.
[Hammond]
Why do you waste your time trying to tell me
I have problems, when obviously it is the
scientific proof of God creating a problem
for you, not vice versa.
JWBrittland
> EGYPTIAN ANKH
>
> This is obviously the forerunner of the Christian Cross,
> and has absolutely nothing to do with "crucifixion".
> Apparently by Roman times, the ruling aristocracy
> had figured out the "Cartesian=Cruciform" structure of
> Personality conflict (BI/2P system) and intuited it's
> relationship to the Cartesian (cruciform) human body
> plan, and "crucifixion" became a popular means of execution
> with the hoi paloy, much as "the chair" was popular a
> generation ago.
> Forms of execution are always "psychologically symbolic"
> and go in and out of fashion every few generations or
> centuries, along with clothing styles.
>
and a vertical post can be attached to it so the body will hang with the
least expenditure of material. Having it stick up also allows lots of
people to see its cruelty and submit to authority. I think this explanation
(given before) makes more sense than yours. Of course, you can always show
some documentation of the Romans understanding this cartesian/body
form/cruciform relationship, right?
George, do you supose most telephone poles take the same form for the
reasons you state? If so, I would like to respond again with my silly
layman's explanation for the cruciform shape of telephone poles. Just for
laffs.
And weren't a lot of these instruments of death made in different styles,
including multi-body scaffolds or single posts?
Britt
JWBrittland
"James Langthorn" <arse!> wrote in message news:3d299cdf$1...@pull.gecm.com...
<snip>
>
> I'm not questioning symbolism of the cross in other
> cultures/civilisations/religions/etc. What I'm saying is that if christ
> wasn't crucified on a cross, do you really think christians would wear a
> cross around their necks? Of course not, they'd still be wearing the two
> fish symbol that the early church used (in the days before the Romans
> decided they could live with christianity). If you want to use the cross
as
> an extra element of proof, don't misuse it, place it in its proper
context.
>
That would be inconsistent. NONE of his elements of proof are being used
in their proper contexts.
Britt
JWBrittland
news:agcs3m$b6m$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
to represent the crucifix without a body on it so that it would be more
symbolic of the resurrection. The Catholic depiction of a cross with Jesus
on it seemed a bit too morbid.
Britt
JWBrittland
"Jan Bielawski" <j...@nostalghia.com> wrote in message
news:db455fa2.0207...@posting.google.com...
<snip>
> Why do you waste your time on this chimera of yours? There must be a
> better way to resolve your problems than giving in to fantasies.
>
> Jan Bielawski
Nothing wrong with that. I'm doing it in the book I'm writing. Very fun
and sometimes downright rewarding. But then---*my* book is fiction.
Britt
Lane Lewis
Nice Scam.
Lane
"George Hammond" <gham...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3D274C09...@attbi.com...
> Lane Lewis wrote:
> >
> > It's impossible to prove god exists for proof denies faith and without
faith
> > god is nothing.
> > Your "proof" can only deny the existence of god.
>
> [Hammond]
> Sorry purveyor of the porridge of faith, Religion has now
> obtained the meat of a proven fact and is about to
> become as strong as hardened steel... go pedal your
> hopeless doctrine of "forlorn faith" to the gullible.
> It's about to to become worthless as penny stock after a crash.
> The smart money is already hedging their bets. You're
> about to be put out of business.
>
>
> >
> > j
>
> --
John Vogel
Sorry, Hammond, but when it comes to the scriptures, things are not as cut
and dry as you would have them be. Forr instance in Genesis 3:8 it speaks of
the "voice of Yahweh Elohym (or as KJV says, LORD God) walking in the
garden. Can you explain how a VOICE would walk? Using your own logic, God's
Voice must have legs and feet. I, personally, have never seen a voice
walking.
> > you would have understood that
> > this verse has nothing to do with the physical representation of God,
>
> [Hammond]
> Horseshit Vogel... that's exactly what it says.. God
> looks like a man... that's what it says, and the Vatican
> agrees, or they wouldn't have painted a picture of God
> as a man on the Sistine Chapel Ceiling... what kind of
> b.s. are you trying to sell us?
No, Hammond, that is not "exactly what it says". If it said "God looks like
man" we would have no problem understanding this. It SAYS "God created man
in His own image", it also says "In his image created he male and female"...
does this mean God is a person who is male and female? As far as the sistine
chapel painting, it is a painting, it has little to do with reality. It is
an interpretation of God, not a picture of God. Do you think God came and
sat for a portrait of himself?
> > seeing
> > as God is NOT physical to begin with.
>
> [Hammond]
> Modern science has just proven that
> God IS PHYSICAL, sorry.
That is a lie. Modern science has not proven God at all, physical, spiritual
or otherwise.
> > It is quite plain by reading the
> > scriptures that "God" is Spirit, and HAS NO BODY. It is the SOUL of man
that
> > bears the image of God, not our physical manifestations.
>
> [Hammond]
> Hey, you're overshooting the mark Vogel... lighten up
> a little.
> Here's what's confusing you:
>
> The God of a Horse is a Horse
> The God of a Monkey is a Monkey
> The God of a Gecko is a Gecko
> The God of Man is a man
> HOWEVER, it is obvious from this, that an ecumenical
> meeting of the Species, could agree to use the word
> "God" to apply to all species, much as the word "car"
> is used to apply to a Ford, Chevy, Volkswagen, etc.
> In that case, what the image of a "car" is, is not
> exact... just as when you use the word "God" to refer
> to the "God of all living species", what exactly that
> meaning of the word "God" would look like is a bit
> abstract.. since in that usage God is simply a "spirit",
> just as the word "car" when used to describe all models
> of cars, is an abstraction.
"Yahweh" is not a generalization, though I admit that "God" is. Yahweh, the
God of the Judaistic/Christian religion is a specific entity, defined and
described by the Scriptures. In YOUR definition of God, you could make the
argument above. However, this is only your definition and is not from
scripture. Yahweh is a single entity, having shown himself to men in the OT
(though not physically, it might be mentioned), as well as having given them
His name, and his purpose in creating man. The scriptures plainly say that
God is not a man (Num 23:19), yet you would have us believe that God is man,
and that your definition agrees with scripture.
> > God does not have
> > (nor has he ever had) the form of a man,
>
> [Hammond]
> You're crazy.. WHO just exactly WHO, do you think is
> painted on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel?
Do you seriously believe that it is Yahweh who's picture appears on the
sistine chapel? More then likely it was just a man, who posed for the
picture. I don't argue that many see God as a man, there are quite a few who
still picture God as a bearded old man living up in the clouds, and have
painted him in this manner. Does this make it true? If I were to paint a
picture of a Dog pissing on the world, and life coming out of the ground,
would this prove that God is a dog?
> > though in some Christian theologies
> > God is said to have taken this form in Jesus Christ,
>
> [Hammond]
> You mean in MAINLINE Christian theology, don't you?
Possibly, though it has been shown through scripture that this is a false
assertion. Even by the words of Jesus, himself. It's a "blind faith" type of
reasoning.
> > that point is also
> > highly debateable.
>
> [Hammond]
> You mean, it USED TO BE debatable, it isn't any more since
> Hammond scientifically proved it's true.
If Hammond has scientifically proven it to be true, then why are we here
debating it? By the way, science does not deal with proving anything to be
true. Science presents the evidence and shows the correlations. Science then
postulates a theory based on available evidence. That theory is then tested
by other scientists for viability, and eithor accepted or discarded. If such
a theory is accepted, it is not "proven to be true" but accepted as an
explanation for observable phenomenon, until a better explanation arises.
Even Einsteins General Theory of Relativity, though generally accepted by
most scientists, has never been "proven to be true". Truth is a relative
term based on perception and available evidence. The greater the lack of
evidence the more likely the falehood. The more evidence, the more likely it
is true.
John Vogel
Yes, this is the scientific mind of the Great George Hammond! George Hammond
who equates God with a painting on the sistine chapel tells me my
understanding of God and Theology is juvenile and asinine.
> Until you actually know what God is (which you don't), you
> will NEVER correctly interpret the contents of the Bible.
You mean, until I accept your assinine assertations which have no basis in
scripture I will never correctly understand YOUR interpretation of God?
> Now, I HAVE PROVEN WHAT GOD IS, and until you come up with
> a refutation of that proof, or an alternative proof (which is
> impossible).. your "interpretations" of the meaning of the Bible
> Scriptures is SHEER HAND WAVING OPINION, and of NO INTEREST to
> scientists.
You have proven one thing to me. That you are incapable of discussing any
issue that is in opposition to your own view, without resorting to name
calling and childish temper trantrums.
> My explanation of the Bible on the other hand, is based on
> an experimentally confirmed, axiomatic physics explanation of
> what God actually is. Therefore Hammond's theory rules, and
> your statements are worthless and prejudiced "opinion". We're
> not here on the Physics newsgroups to talk about "opinions" for
> chrissakes.
Your explanation of the Bible amounts to a child playing with crayons,
drawing a picture and saying "look this is god!".
Jim R Feliciano
letters from the time of the painting of the chapel do not reveal much about
how he painted it. He doesn't talk about colors or technigues. He does
mention some back pain. Somewhere in his notes he mentions a man that he used
as a model was not perfect for god. He said that he would have to do some
enhancements to get the effect that he wanted. So George when you look at the
chapel you are looking at some old Italian guy that the painter knew.
Michelangelo never mentioned any kind of special insight into god's appearance.
He did not have any visions or mystical moments. He was pretty clear that he
was a guy doing his job.
In article <3D2A7CF2...@attbi.com>, gham...@attbi.com says...
--
Sincerely from,
Jim R Feliciano
jfe...@muse.sfusd.edu
Hey!!! Buy My Book
"The Guys" it's a fun Book.
http://www.publishamerica.com
you need IE 5 or Netscape 6 to make publishamerica work, or go to
http://amazon.com
enter my name Jim R Feliciano to get it quickly and at a cheaper price.
Buy My Book. Thank You!!!
Hey my site Take your sense of humor with you.
http://www.fortunecity.com/lavender/banzai/834/shake1.html
Oliver Deepwell
"George Hammond" <gham...@attbi.com> wrote in [Hammond]
> > > Not to worry Bob, the discovery is completly confirmed
> > > by the Jewish Torah (1st 5 books of the old Testament,
> > > including particularly Genesis).
> > > Genesis 2:27 right out of the Old Testament says:
> > >
> > > "So God created man in his own image,
> > > in the image of God created he him;
> > > male and female created he them.
> > > (Genesis 2:27, King James Version)
> > >
TORAH
I am Jewish by the way - and as I do not speak Hebrew, I own an English
translation of the Ta'nakh (The Hebrew scriptures - the Torah is the first
of three books in the Ta'nakh). My copy is a recent translation - sanctioned
by several major Jewish groups - I also have a copy of the King James Bible.
THEY ARE NOT IDENTICLE - many things are the same but many are different -
casting some Old Testament stories in a whole new light.
If you are going to quote Jewish scripture to support your bullshit - at
least give Jewish people some respect and don't try and pass off Christian
scripture as Jewish.
You can get a copy of the Ta'nakh quite easily and cheaply nowadays.
Oliver Deepwell
George Hammond
may be seen at:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/13reasons.html
________________________________________________________
John Vogel wrote:
>
> "George Hammond" <gham...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:3D2A81CA...@attbi.com...
> > John Vogel wrote:
[Hammond]
John, fer chrissakes, the Pope himself, with the approval of the
entire Vatican, and Michaelangelo put that painting of GOD on
the Sistine Chapel Ceiling. One of the most famous paintings
in world history. They knew more about God than you do.
And as for me, I AGREE with their decision 100% and pay tribute
and homage to their wisdom, faith and courage. I'm not fooling.
>
> > Until you actually know what God is (which you don't), you
> > will NEVER correctly interpret the contents of the Bible.
>
> You mean, until I accept your assinine assertations which have no basis in
> scripture I will never correctly understand YOUR interpretation of God?
[Hammond]
My discovery SCIENTIFICALLY CONFIRMS every passage of scripture
in the Bible, and vice versa.
>
> > Now, I HAVE PROVEN WHAT GOD IS, and until you come up with
> > a refutation of that proof, or an alternative proof (which is
> > impossible).. your "interpretations" of the meaning of the Bible
> > Scriptures is SHEER HAND WAVING OPINION, and of NO INTEREST to
> > scientists.
>
> You have proven one thing to me. That you are incapable of discussing any
> issue that is in opposition to your own view, without resorting to name
> calling and childish temper trantrums.
[Hammond]
Listen, until I run into someone who is at least smart enough to be
CAUTIOUS, I'm not going to give anyone a chance to get run over by a
speeding freight train composed of 5 billion people. They're
already blowing up the Pentagon and New York City in the name
of Religion you know.
Anyone who INSULTS someone with 2 Physics degrees, a preliminary
paper published in the peer reviewed literature, and a website that
obviously testifies to 20 years of study, in this political
climate, is JUST PLAIN IGNORANT.
>
> > My explanation of the Bible on the other hand, is based on
> > an experimentally confirmed, axiomatic physics explanation of
> > what God actually is. Therefore Hammond's theory rules, and
> > your statements are worthless and prejudiced "opinion". We're
> > not here on the Physics newsgroups to talk about "opinions" for
> > chrissakes.
>
> Your explanation of the Bible amounts to a child playing with crayons,
> drawing a picture and saying "look this is god!".
[Hammond]
Oh yeah... well until you can pass this test, I'm not
interested in your opinions:
Put it this way, unless you can score an 80% on
the "God Test" located at:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/GodTest.html
I do not consider you to be in a position to be telling me anything
"aurhoritative" about a scientific proof of God.
George Hammond
[Hammond]
Says who? Philosophy and Theology can prove nothing... they've
had thousands of years to do so, and have failed to produce
any proof yet. It is only hard Science which produces "proof"
of anything. I mean demonstrable proof, like proof of E=mc^2
by setting off an A-bomb. That's the kind of hard proof I'm
talking about in the scientific proof of God.. same thing.
"Scriptures" can't produce that kind of proof. Hey, we're not
fooling around here John, it's come down to hard ball. This
is a Physics newsgroup, no one is interested in Sunday School.
> Forr instance in Genesis 3:8 it speaks of
> the "voice of Yahweh Elohym (or as KJV says, LORD God) walking in the
> garden. Can you explain how a VOICE would walk? Using your own logic, God's
> Voice must have legs and feet. I, personally, have never seen a voice
> walking.
[Hammond]
Oh for God's sake. It's poetry John, written by people who
KNOW what God is. Look, it probably means that Adam and Eve
were walking in the garden when they began thinking about God
with a guilty conscience because they were goofing off living on
bananas and not planting anything or building a house. They
suddenly realized the mission of God which they were supposed
to be fulfilling, which could be imagined as if "God in the flesh"
were walking alongside them in the Garden, paying them a visit
to remind them that they shouldn't be goofing off all the time,
and there was work to do.
> > > you would have understood that
> > > this verse has nothing to do with the physical representation of God,
[Hammond]
Well, it tells us two things.
1. If you met God, he could talk.
2. If you met God he would be walking
as a man walks.
From this, I would conclude that Adam and Eve believed
that God had the form of a man.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Horseshit Vogel... that's exactly what it says.. God
> > looks like a man... that's what it says, and the Vatican
> > agrees, or they wouldn't have painted a picture of God
> > as a man on the Sistine Chapel Ceiling... what kind of
> > b.s. are you trying to sell us?
>
> No, Hammond, that is not "exactly what it says". If it said "God looks like
> man" we would have no problem understanding this. It SAYS "God created man
> in His own image", it also says "In his image created he male and female"...
> does this mean God is a person who is male and female? As far as the sistine
> chapel painting, it is a painting, it has little to do with reality. It is
> an interpretation of God, not a picture of God. Do you think God came and
> sat for a portrait of himself?
[Hammond]
Hey, you're getting a little bit irreverent there Vogel.
You're not an atheist are you? I don't have time for Atheists
you know.
I've already explained that a Ford is a car and a Chevy
is a car, but still, the world "car" can be used to describe
the nature of ALL CARS irregardless of make or model; such
as in the phrase "a car museum".
Same is true with the word "God". The God of a man is a
perfect man. The God of a woman is a perfect woman. Nevertheless,
Man and woman can use the word "God" to describe the "nature"
of God, just as you can use the world "car" to describe ALL CARS.
Cripes, what's so profound about that?
>
> > > seeing
> > > as God is NOT physical to begin with.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Modern science has just proven that
> > God IS PHYSICAL, sorry.
>
> That is a lie. Modern science has not proven God at all, physical, spiritual
> or otherwise.
[Hammond]
No, you're a LIAR. The proof is sitting right on my website.
And I discovered it (after Einstein discovered the mathematical
basis of it, that is).
[Hammond]
Look, I've read the Old Testament of the King James Bible.
The scientific proof i've discovered CONFIRMS the God of the
Old Testament. So happens that the old Testament is the
JEWISH TORAH, so therefore it proves "the God of Israel".
don't give me any shit about the Jewish religion.. I'm
not Jewish, but I'm more Jewish than you are.
> The scriptures plainly say that
> God is not a man (Num 23:19), yet you would have us believe that God is man,
> and that your definition agrees with scripture.
>
[Hammond]
Numbers 23:19 refers to the fact that no man is
"God in the flesh", or "God on Earth". the discovery
clearly proves that, because the Secular Trend has
not reached 100%.
"God is not a man" refers to the fact that "No man
is God".
> > > God does not have
> > > (nor has he ever had) the form of a man,
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > You're crazy.. WHO just exactly WHO, do you think is
> > painted on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel?
>
> Do you seriously believe that it is Yahweh who's picture appears on the
> sistine chapel?
[Hammond]
Yes, that's the God of Israel... moreover, due to the genius
of Michaelangelo, it's the God of all mankind due to the
special expression and features on his face, reflecting what
we know of human godliness.
> More then likely it was just a man, who posed for the
> picture. I don't argue that many see God as a man, there are quite a few who
> still picture God as a bearded old man living up in the clouds, and have
> painted him in this manner. Does this make it true?
[Hammond]
In a word... yes.
> If I were to paint a
> picture of a Dog pissing on the world, and life coming out of the ground,
> would this prove that God is a dog?
[Hammond]
You're not Michaelangelo, and you're not working for
the Catholic Church.
>
> > > though in some Christian theologies
> > > God is said to have taken this form in Jesus Christ,
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > You mean in MAINLINE Christian theology, don't you?
>
> Possibly, though it has been shown through scripture that this is a false
> assertion. Even by the words of Jesus, himself. It's a "blind faith" type of
> reasoning.
[Hammond]
That's argumentative.
>
> > > that point is also
> > > highly debateable.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > You mean, it USED TO BE debatable, it isn't any more since
> > Hammond scientifically proved it's true.
>
> If Hammond has scientifically proven it to be true, then why are we here
> debating it?
[Hammond]
Who's debating it. I'm publishing it, not debating it.
> By the way, science does not deal with proving anything to be
> true. Science presents the evidence and shows the correlations. Science then
> postulates a theory based on available evidence. That theory is then tested
> by other scientists for viability, and eithor accepted or discarded. If such
> a theory is accepted, it is not "proven to be true" but accepted as an
> explanation for observable phenomenon, until a better explanation arises.
> Even Einsteins General Theory of Relativity, though generally accepted by
> most scientists, has never been "proven to be true". Truth is a relative
> term based on perception and available evidence. The greater the lack of
> evidence the more likely the falehood. The more evidence, the more likely it
> is true.
[Hammond]
Hey, remember me, I've got two degrees in Physics... whaddaru
reciting all that freshman stuff to me for? BTW, are you
a Physicist?
George Hammond
may be seen at:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/13reasons.html
_________________________________________________________
Jim R Feliciano wrote:
>
> George wants to know who is on the Sistine Chapel. Michelangelo's notes and
> letters from the time of the painting of the chapel do not reveal much about
> how he painted it. He doesn't talk about colors or technigues. He does
> mention some back pain. Somewhere in his notes he mentions a man that he used
> as a model was not perfect for god. He said that he would have to do some
> enhancements to get the effect that he wanted. So George when you look at the
> chapel you are looking at some old Italian guy that the painter knew.
> Michelangelo never mentioned any kind of special insight into god's appearance.
> He did not have any visions or mystical moments. He was pretty clear that he
> was a guy doing his job.
[Hammed]
Yuh Jim.... probably on the right day, at the right time, standing
in the middle of St. Peter's Cathedral, near Bernini's columns, one
can probably catch a glimpse of what the unseen paradise around us
actually looks like. I hope I see it some day.... I mean St. Peter's.
>
> Sincerely from,
> Jim R Feliciano
> jfe...@muse.sfusd.edu
> Hey!!! Buy My Book
> "The Guys" it's a fun Book.
> http://www.publishamerica.com
> you need IE 5 or Netscape 6 to make publishamerica work, or go to
> http://amazon.com
> enter my name Jim R Feliciano to get it quickly and at a cheaper price.
> Buy My Book. Thank You!!!
> Hey my site Take your sense of humor with you.
> http://www.fortunecity.com/lavender/banzai/834/shake1.html
--
John Vogel
Regardless of what the "entire Vatican" approved of. The scriptures speak
differantly. In case you are interested, the RCC has many doctines outside
of the scripture which contradict the scripture. If you are trying to
impress me with the Vaticans approval, you have failed to do so. And I don't
think anyone in the vatican knows more about God then I do. They may know as
much as I do, but I seriously doubt that they know MORE then I do. I would
like to see their theological degrees to confirm your statement.
> >
> > > Until you actually know what God is (which you don't), you
> > > will NEVER correctly interpret the contents of the Bible.
> >
> > You mean, until I accept your assinine assertations which have no basis
in
> > scripture I will never correctly understand YOUR interpretation of God?
>
> [Hammond]
> My discovery SCIENTIFICALLY CONFIRMS every passage of scripture
> in the Bible, and vice versa.
So you keep claiming, and so I am showing to be erroneous.
> >
> > > Now, I HAVE PROVEN WHAT GOD IS, and until you come up with
> > > a refutation of that proof, or an alternative proof (which is
> > > impossible).. your "interpretations" of the meaning of the Bible
> > > Scriptures is SHEER HAND WAVING OPINION, and of NO INTEREST to
> > > scientists.
> >
> > You have proven one thing to me. That you are incapable of discussing
any
> > issue that is in opposition to your own view, without resorting to name
> > calling and childish temper trantrums.
>
> [Hammond]
> Listen, until I run into someone who is at least smart enough to be
> CAUTIOUS, I'm not going to give anyone a chance to get run over by a
> speeding freight train composed of 5 billion people. They're
> already blowing up the Pentagon and New York City in the name
> of Religion you know.
> Anyone who INSULTS someone with 2 Physics degrees, a preliminary
> paper published in the peer reviewed literature, and a website that
> obviously testifies to 20 years of study, in this political
> climate, is JUST PLAIN IGNORANT.
Do you think your "2 physics degrees" or your prelimary paper published in
some backwater puclication leads any credance to your knowledge of
theological matters? It does not. You are stating facts that contradict with
not 20 years but 2000 years of theology. You consider yourself beyond
reproach, even in areas that you have never studied. Do NOT get into a
theological debate with me, Hammond, because what you undersand of God and
the Scriptures does not even begin to come close to the studies I have done.
> >
> > > My explanation of the Bible on the other hand, is based on
> > > an experimentally confirmed, axiomatic physics explanation of
> > > what God actually is. Therefore Hammond's theory rules, and
> > > your statements are worthless and prejudiced "opinion". We're
> > > not here on the Physics newsgroups to talk about "opinions" for
> > > chrissakes.
> >
> > Your explanation of the Bible amounts to a child playing with crayons,
> > drawing a picture and saying "look this is god!".
>
> [Hammond]
> Oh yeah... well until you can pass this test, I'm not
> interested in your opinions:
> Put it this way, unless you can score an 80% on
> the "God Test" located at:
> http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/GodTest.html
>
> I do not consider you to be in a position to be telling me anything
> "aurhoritative" about a scientific proof of God.
>
You idiot. I allready passed your test. You also told me at one time that I
was one of a very few people who actually comprehended your theories. Of
course that was while I agreed with all of your points. As soon as I showed
a possible error, you were back to name calling. Oh, maybe you do not
remember me by this name. Perhaps you might remember my pseudonym
"Disciple"? Think real hard!
Marco Nelissen
> in the Bible, and vice versa.
How, exactly, does your theory "confirm", e.g. that there existed
a person named Jesus? How does it "confirm" that this person was
crucified? The answer, of course, is that it doesn't, you're just
making things up in a silly attempt to give some credibility to
your crackpot theory.
> Anyone who INSULTS someone with 2 Physics degrees, a preliminary
> paper published in the peer reviewed literature, and a website that
> obviously testifies to 20 years of study, in this political
> climate, is JUST PLAIN IGNORANT.
That "peer reviewed literature" employed reviewers that weren't
peers, i.e. they were unqualified to review the paper in question.
Your website only testifies to 20 years of insanity.
Marco Nelissen
> The scientific proof i've discovered CONFIRMS the God of the
> Old Testament.
Actually, since your theory says that god is curvature in psychometric
space, and the old testament says something else, your theory does
anything BUT confirm the god of the old testament.
> Hey, remember me, I've got two degrees in Physics... whaddaru
> reciting all that freshman stuff to me for? BTW, are you
> a Physicist?
Physics has NOTHING to do with your crackpot theory.
George Hammond
may be seen at:
http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/13reasons.html
________________________________________________________
Oliver Deepwell wrote:
>
> "George Hammond" <gham...@attbi.com> wrote in [Hammond]
> > > > Not to worry Bob, the discovery is completly confirmed
> > > > by the Jewish Torah (1st 5 books of the old Testament,
> > > > including particularly Genesis).
> > > > Genesis 2:27 right out of the Old Testament says:
> > > >
> > > > "So God created man in his own image,
> > > > in the image of God created he him;
> > > > male and female created he them.
> > > > (Genesis 2:27, King James Version)
> > > >
> Ok I'm only gonna say this once. THE OLD TESTAMENT IS NOT IDENTICAL TO THE
> TORAH
> I am Jewish by the way - and as I do not speak Hebrew, I own an English
> translation of the Ta'nakh (The Hebrew scriptures - the Torah is the first
> of three books in the Ta'nakh). My copy is a recent translation - sanctioned
> by several major Jewish groups - I also have a copy of the King James Bible.
> THEY ARE NOT IDENTICLE - many things are the same but many are different -
> casting some Old Testament stories in a whole new light.
[Hammond]
Yeah, well I'm gonna only say this once too asshole.
The Christian religion says the first 5 books of the Old Testament were
written by Moses. They may have been translated so honkys like
me can understand it, but I have complete faith that the Christian
translators faithfully translated Moses, the father of western religion.
And I don't believe there is any significant difference between the
Christian
view of the Old Testament and the Jewish view.
> If you are going to quote Jewish scripture to support your bullshit - at
> least give Jewish people some respect and don't try and pass off Christian
> scripture as Jewish.
[Hammond]
You sound like one of those phoney Orthodox Jews in pigtails
and a cowboy hat, the Hare Krishna movement of Judaism as it were.
Boy they must be a pain in the neck for mainstream Judaism.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the Old Testament
as presented in the KJV was written by Moses and has been
faithfully transcribed.
Finally wiseguy, Science (Hammond) has now proved that the
God of the Old Testament is an axiomatic law of Physics, which
means that He is not a "Jewish God" or a "Gentile God", or a "Moslem
God" any more than F=ma is an "English Law". Scientific Laws recognize
no national, racial or denominational propriety. God is now a
"Law of Physics" and therefore is now socially neutral, and identical
for all Religions and all human beings. In great measure thanks to
Moses, of course.
> You can get a copy of the Ta'nakh quite easily and cheaply nowadays.
[Hammond]
I'll read all that stuff in my dotage when this war over the
scientific proof of God is finally over.
>
> Oliver Deepwell
John Vogel
> John Vogel wrote:
> > Sorry, Hammond, but when it comes to the scriptures, things are not as
cut
> > and dry as you would have them be.
>
> [Hammond]
> Says who? Philosophy and Theology can prove nothing... they've
> had thousands of years to do so, and have failed to produce
> any proof yet. It is only hard Science which produces "proof"
> of anything. I mean demonstrable proof, like proof of E=mc^2
> by setting off an A-bomb. That's the kind of hard proof I'm
> talking about in the scientific proof of God.. same thing.
> "Scriptures" can't produce that kind of proof. Hey, we're not
> fooling around here John, it's come down to hard ball. This
> is a Physics newsgroup, no one is interested in Sunday School.
So, now that you are shown to be in error with theological knowledge, you
would simply say they can prove nothing, and that scriptures can't produce
that kind of proof (after you claim you obtained your proof from the
scriptures). I realize that this is a physics group, and I am not interested
in teaching "sunday school". However, since your SPOG relies on theology,
then you should accept the "opinions" of a theologist, which you do not. You
would like to claim to know this and that from the scripture, but when your
claims are challenged, you suddenly tell us that the scriptures and theology
prove nothing. I agree, that theology and philosophy prove nothing, and I am
also of the opinion that SPOG also proves nothing.
> > Forr instance in Genesis 3:8 it speaks of
> > the "voice of Yahweh Elohym (or as KJV says, LORD God) walking in the
> > garden. Can you explain how a VOICE would walk? Using your own logic,
God's
> > Voice must have legs and feet. I, personally, have never seen a voice
> > walking.
>
> [Hammond]
> Oh for God's sake. It's poetry John, written by people who
> KNOW what God is. Look, it probably means that Adam and Eve
> were walking in the garden when they began thinking about God
> with a guilty conscience because they were goofing off living on
> bananas and not planting anything or building a house. They
> suddenly realized the mission of God which they were supposed
> to be fulfilling, which could be imagined as if "God in the flesh"
> were walking alongside them in the Garden, paying them a visit
> to remind them that they shouldn't be goofing off all the time,
> and there was work to do.
Why would you claim THIS is "poetry" (Which it, btw is certainly NOT) and
yet claim literalism when the same book, two chapters previous, say "In his
image". It doesn't matter what it "probably means", Hammond. My point is
that you cannot just grab a scripture and say "this scripture proves God is
a man". You have to look at the scripture in context and do some research,
if you really want to make any such claims. And if you HAD done the
research, I assure you that you would NOT be making such assinine claims.
> > > > you would have understood that
> > > > this verse has nothing to do with the physical representation of
God,
>
> [Hammond]
> Well, it tells us two things.
>
> 1. If you met God, he could talk.
> 2. If you met God he would be walking
> as a man walks.
>
> From this, I would conclude that Adam and Eve believed
> that God had the form of a man.
And you conclusion is based on erroneous data. 1. If you met God, he would
not have to talk to you and 2. If you met God, you would be dead.
> > > [Hammond]
> > > Horseshit Vogel... that's exactly what it says.. God
> > > looks like a man... that's what it says, and the Vatican
> > > agrees, or they wouldn't have painted a picture of God
> > > as a man on the Sistine Chapel Ceiling... what kind of
> > > b.s. are you trying to sell us?
> >
> > No, Hammond, that is not "exactly what it says". If it said "God looks
like
> > man" we would have no problem understanding this. It SAYS "God created
man
> > in His own image", it also says "In his image created he male and
female"...
> > does this mean God is a person who is male and female? As far as the
sistine
> > chapel painting, it is a painting, it has little to do with reality. It
is
> > an interpretation of God, not a picture of God. Do you think God came
and
> > sat for a portrait of himself?
>
> [Hammond]
> Hey, you're getting a little bit irreverent there Vogel.
> You're not an atheist are you? I don't have time for Atheists
> you know.
An athiest? Hardly! I used to work for one of the largest christian
convention in the country as a research specialist. Not a position an
athiest would hold for any length of time.
> I've already explained that a Ford is a car and a Chevy
> is a car, but still, the world "car" can be used to describe
> the nature of ALL CARS irregardless of make or model; such
> as in the phrase "a car museum".
> Same is true with the word "God". The God of a man is a
> perfect man. The God of a woman is a perfect woman. Nevertheless,
> Man and woman can use the word "God" to describe the "nature"
> of God, just as you can use the world "car" to describe ALL CARS.
> Cripes, what's so profound about that?
I do not see your analogy as clearly as you do, evidently. You are talking
about category. I don't see God as a categorical being. Do you see the
problem here? Neithor do the Hebrew scriptures see God in this way. You are
the only who is claiming God to be this type of being, and you have nothing
to base your conclusions on, except that you say so. Well, I am not buying
it.
> >
> > > > seeing
> > > > as God is NOT physical to begin with.
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > Modern science has just proven that
> > > God IS PHYSICAL, sorry.
> >
> > That is a lie. Modern science has not proven God at all, physical,
spiritual
> > or otherwise.
>
> [Hammond]
> No, you're a LIAR. The proof is sitting right on my website.
> And I discovered it (after Einstein discovered the mathematical
> basis of it, that is).
There is no proof there. There is evidence which claims something to be
something else, but no proof to correlate those things. Perhaps you need
another 20 years of research to perfect your SPOG?
It just so happens that the Old Testament is NOT the Jewish Torah, and it
just so happens that everytime you open your mouth where religion is
involved you show yourself to be completely ignorant of the subject.
> > The scriptures plainly say that
> > God is not a man (Num 23:19), yet you would have us believe that God is
man,
> > and that your definition agrees with scripture.
> >
>
> [Hammond]
> Numbers 23:19 refers to the fact that no man is
> "God in the flesh", or "God on Earth". the discovery
> clearly proves that, because the Secular Trend has
> not reached 100%.
> "God is not a man" refers to the fact that "No man
> is God".
God is not a man refers to the fact that "No man is God", therefore God must
be a man? Are you off your medication?
> > > > God does not have
> > > > (nor has he ever had) the form of a man,
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > You're crazy.. WHO just exactly WHO, do you think is
> > > painted on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel?
> >
> > Do you seriously believe that it is Yahweh who's picture appears on the
> > sistine chapel?
>
> [Hammond]
> Yes, that's the God of Israel... moreover, due to the genius
> of Michaelangelo, it's the God of all mankind due to the
> special expression and features on his face, reflecting what
> we know of human godliness.
You are definitly reaching the apex of ignorance. Give it up Hammond. Admit
defeat in this, and move on before you get your ass really burned. It is
Michaelangelos impression of God. Nothing more. Don't do this to yourself.
Why do you persist in making everyone think you are a complete imbecile?
> > More then likely it was just a man, who posed for the
> > picture. I don't argue that many see God as a man, there are quite a few
who
> > still picture God as a bearded old man living up in the clouds, and have
> > painted him in this manner. Does this make it true?
>
> [Hammond]
> In a word... yes.
In a word... Dumbass!
> > If I were to paint a
> > picture of a Dog pissing on the world, and life coming out of the
ground,
> > would this prove that God is a dog?
>
> [Hammond]
> You're not Michaelangelo, and you're not working for
> the Catholic Church.
This is not the issue. So only Michaelangelo working for the Catholic church
could have shown us "What God really looks like"? Explain to me how you
reached this conclusion?
> > > > though in some Christian theologies
> > > > God is said to have taken this form in Jesus Christ,
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > You mean in MAINLINE Christian theology, don't you?
> >
> > Possibly, though it has been shown through scripture that this is a
false
> > assertion. Even by the words of Jesus, himself. It's a "blind faith"
type of
> > reasoning.
>
> [Hammond]
> That's argumentative.
It's debateable. I am argumentive. Get it straight.
> > > > that point is also
> > > > highly debateable.
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > You mean, it USED TO BE debatable, it isn't any more since
> > > Hammond scientifically proved it's true.
> >
> > If Hammond has scientifically proven it to be true, then why are we here
> > debating it?
>
> [Hammond]
> Who's debating it. I'm publishing it, not debating it.
I am debating it. Right now, right here. If it is proven I shouldn't have a
leg to stand on, yet it's still debateable. I have many who could back up my
points of contention, I wonder how many you have who can back up your
points? Or have you completely lost all credibility with everybody, because
of you disorder?
> > By the way, science does not deal with proving anything to be
> > true. Science presents the evidence and shows the correlations. Science
then
> > postulates a theory based on available evidence. That theory is then
tested
> > by other scientists for viability, and eithor accepted or discarded. If
such
> > a theory is accepted, it is not "proven to be true" but accepted as an
> > explanation for observable phenomenon, until a better explanation
arises.
> > Even Einsteins General Theory of Relativity, though generally accepted
by
> > most scientists, has never been "proven to be true". Truth is a relative
> > term based on perception and available evidence. The greater the lack of
> > evidence the more likely the falehood. The more evidence, the more
likely it
> > is true.
>
> [Hammond]
> Hey, remember me, I've got two degrees in Physics... whaddaru
> reciting all that freshman stuff to me for? BTW, are you
> a Physicist?
No, I am not a physicist, but I do have MORE degrees then you do. Doesn't
that make me smarter? LOL
George Hammond
>
> > [Hammond]
> > John, fer chrissakes, the Pope himself, with the approval of the
> > entire Vatican, and Michaelangelo put that painting of GOD on
> > the Sistine Chapel Ceiling. One of the most famous paintings
> > in world history. They knew more about God than you do.
> > And as for me, I AGREE with their decision 100% and pay tribute
> > and homage to their wisdom, faith and courage. I'm not fooling.
>
> Regardless of what the "entire Vatican" approved of. The scriptures speak
> differantly. In case you are interested, the RCC has many doctines outside
> of the scripture which contradict the scripture. If you are trying to
> impress me with the Vaticans approval,
[Hammond]
Are you trying to tell me you know more about the RCC than
the Vatican does... whaddaru nuts?
> you have failed to do so. And I don't
> think anyone in the vatican knows more about God then I do.
[Hammond]
That does it... you're an impudent fool. Let me give you
a little theology test involving common knowlege:
Jesus said "red sky at night sailors delight, red sky
in morning sailors take warning".
Now, if you're so godamned brilliant, tell me what Jesus
was talking about and what that means. And I'll give you
a hint, he wasn't talking about the weather. Now every
cleric in the Vatican knows what that means, and I'll sure
bet you don't.
> They may know as
> much as I do, but I seriously doubt that they know MORE then I do. I would
> like to see their theological degrees to confirm your statement.
[Hammond]
As Saint Paul said... "thou fool".
Jan Bielawski
> "Jan Bielawski" <j...@nostalghia.com> wrote in message
> news:db455fa2.0207...@posting.google.com...
>
> <snip>
>
> > Why do you waste your time on this chimera of yours? There must be a
> > better way to resolve your problems than giving in to fantasies.
>
Sure, as long as you don't lose your grasp on reality.
Jan Bielawski
George Hammond
>
> "George Hammond" <gham...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:3D2B55A1...@attbi.com...
> > John Vogel wrote:
> > > Sorry, Hammond, but when it comes to the scriptures, things are not as
> cut
> > > and dry as you would have them be.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Says who? Philosophy and Theology can prove nothing... they've
> > had thousands of years to do so, and have failed to produce
> > any proof yet. It is only hard Science which produces "proof"
> > of anything. I mean demonstrable proof, like proof of E=mc^2
> > by setting off an A-bomb. That's the kind of hard proof I'm
> > talking about in the scientific proof of God.. same thing.
> > "Scriptures" can't produce that kind of proof. Hey, we're not
> > fooling around here John, it's come down to hard ball. This
> > is a Physics newsgroup, no one is interested in Sunday School.
>
> So, now that you are shown to be in error with theological knowledge,
[Hammond]
LIAR, you haven't shown anything of the sort, neither has anyone
else... you're nothing but vacant claims from beginning to end.
> you
> would simply say they can prove nothing, and that scriptures can't produce
> that kind of proof (after you claim you obtained your proof from the
> scriptures).
[Hammond]
Never claimed any proof from the scriptures, merely pointed
out that my scientific proof confirms the scriptures.
> I realize that this is a physics group, and I am not interested
> in teaching "sunday school". However, since your SPOG relies on theology,
> then you should accept the "opinions" of a theologist,
[Hammond]
I don't have to accept the "opinions" of anyone. My
proof stands on "proven fact", not opinions.
> which you do not. You
> would like to claim to know this and that from the scripture,
[Hammond]
Common knowledge of the scriptures is all that is
required. No detailed knowlege of the scriptures
is needed. Detailed knowlege is only of interest
to experts, this proof can be comprehended and evaluated
by one person who has his head screwed on straight.
Such people are rare it turns out, however.
> but when your
> claims are challenged, you suddenly tell us that the scriptures and theology
> prove nothing. I agree, that theology and philosophy prove nothing, and I am
> also of the opinion that SPOG also proves nothing.
[Hammond]
The majority of public opinion believes in Scientific
proof and put their lives in the hands of it every time they
go to a hospital or slam the brakes on in their car.
Such cannot be said for Philosophy or Theology.
>
> > > Forr instance in Genesis 3:8 it speaks of
> > > the "voice of Yahweh Elohym (or as KJV says, LORD God) walking in the
> > > garden. Can you explain how a VOICE would walk? Using your own logic,
> God's
> > > Voice must have legs and feet. I, personally, have never seen a voice
> > > walking.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Oh for God's sake. It's poetry John, written by people who
> > KNOW what God is. Look, it probably means that Adam and Eve
> > were walking in the garden when they began thinking about God
> > with a guilty conscience because they were goofing off living on
> > bananas and not planting anything or building a house. They
> > suddenly realized the mission of God which they were supposed
> > to be fulfilling, which could be imagined as if "God in the flesh"
> > were walking alongside them in the Garden, paying them a visit
> > to remind them that they shouldn't be goofing off all the time,
> > and there was work to do.
>
> Why would you claim THIS is "poetry" (Which it, btw is certainly NOT) and
> yet claim literalism when the same book, two chapters previous, say "In his
> image". It doesn't matter what it "probably means", Hammond. My point is
> that you cannot just grab a scripture and say "this scripture proves God is
> a man". You have to look at the scripture in context and do some research,
> if you really want to make any such claims. And if you HAD done the
> research, I assure you that you would NOT be making such assinine claims.
[Hammond]
Get outta here... the average man will agree that the
statement "God made man in his own image", means that
God looks like a man. I don't need to be a scriptural expert,
I'm already writing the Third Testament of the Bible by
discovering a scientific proof of God. Jesus probably couldn't
even write.
<snip>
> > I've already explained that a Ford is a car and a Chevy
> > is a car, but still, the world "car" can be used to describe
> > the nature of ALL CARS irregardless of make or model; such
> > as in the phrase "a car museum".
> > Same is true with the word "God". The God of a man is a
> > perfect man. The God of a woman is a perfect woman. Nevertheless,
> > Man and woman can use the word "God" to describe the "nature"
> > of God, just as you can use the world "car" to describe ALL CARS.
> > Cripes, what's so profound about that?
>
> I do not see your analogy as clearly as you do, evidently. You are talking
> about category. I don't see God as a categorical being. Do you see the
> problem here? Neithor do the Hebrew scriptures see God in this way. You are
> the only who is claiming God to be this type of being, and you have nothing
> to base your conclusions on, except that you say so. Well, I am not buying
> it.
[Hammond]
It is not a "philosophical or theological" argument. It
is a RESULT of scientifically discovering what God is.
<snip>
> > [Hammond]
> > No, you're a LIAR. The proof is sitting right on my website.
> > And I discovered it (after Einstein discovered the mathematical
> > basis of it, that is).
>
> There is no proof there. There is evidence which claims something to be
> something else, but no proof to correlate those things. Perhaps you need
> another 20 years of research to perfect your SPOG?
[Hammond]
Oops... time to remind John he's not qualified to judge a
scientific theory because he has no degrees in Science.
<snip>
> > [Hammond]
> > Look, I've read the Old Testament of the King James Bible.
> > The scientific proof i've discovered CONFIRMS the God of the
> > Old Testament. So happens that the old Testament is the
> > JEWISH TORAH, so therefore it proves "the God of Israel".
> > don't give me any shit about the Jewish religion.. I'm
> > not Jewish, but I'm more Jewish than you are.
>
> It just so happens that the Old Testament is NOT the Jewish Torah, and it
> just so happens that everytime you open your mouth where religion is
> involved you show yourself to be completely ignorant of the subject.
[Hammond]
OH YES IT IS. Sure the "broadest" meaning of the world
Torah means the entire Hebrew Theology, but it is an accepted
FACT that the first 5 books of the Bible are referred to
a "The Torah" in the entire western world, and will continue
to be called the Torah. The Pentateuch IS the Torah, the Law
that was received by Moses on Mt. Sinai. The "oral torah",
the Talmud, was written by someone else.
>
> > > The scriptures plainly say that
> > > God is not a man (Num 23:19), yet you would have us believe that God is
> man,
> > > and that your definition agrees with scripture.
> > >
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Numbers 23:19 refers to the fact that no man is
> > "God in the flesh", or "God on Earth". the discovery
> > clearly proves that, because the Secular Trend has
> > not reached 100%.
> > "God is not a man" refers to the fact that "No man
> > is God".
>
> God is not a man refers to the fact that "No man is God", therefore God must
> be a man? Are you off your medication?
[Hammond]
hey fuckhead. let me repaeat it real slow so you can understand
it psycho:
A. God is an invisible perfect man
B. No real man is either invisible or perfect.
C. Therfore no man is God.
I think I've had enough of your crap, you not only don't
know any Physics, you don't even understand Theology which is
apparently your forte. Beyond that, I think you're an irreverent
sonofabitch, ignorant, and probably a stupid atheist.