X-Ftn-To: George Hammond

George Hammond wrote:
>snip.... philosophy tautological arguments about definitions
> which are irrelevant to a SPOG.

It is no wonder that you were banned from all scientific forums. Look
at what you just did: you repeated the disproved arguments, along with
the disproved explanation. I analyzed and disproved your statements
and you didn't even attempt to point out the possible mistakes. De
facto, you admitted defeat.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: DC

DC wrote:
>George,
>Please do me and many others a favor and do not advertise
>the fact that you appear to have attended the same school
>as I did. It truly cheapens the reputation of the school
>and its other worthwhile graduates.
>
>By the way, I did read your web site. You don't have
>a clue about eigenvectors. Your posting of the review
>of your "book" is great - even the reviewer is quite
>clear that your ideas are silly and without merit.
>
>I even read your article. I find it really amusing
>that science index shows that there are exactly
>ZERO papers citing your work. It is an accurate
>reflection on its worth.

:))) :)))

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Silvestar Šantak

Silvestar Šantak wrote:
>> ...ove Nedjelje (3.6.) kod velike pozornice u Maksimiru bit ?e
>> održan Gospel koncert od 10-13h.
>> Na programu popularne krš?anske pjesme.
>> Navratite .....ne?e vam biti žao.
>>
>
>Bilo je odli?no. Unato? tome što su svu najavljivali kišu - jutro je
>bilo sun?ano. Program je bio zanimljiv i raznolik.
>
>Sve to ?e se opet održati ove nedjelje (9.6.) na istom mjestu u isto
>vrijeme.
>Ako vam je žao što ste propustili - imate priliku da nadoknadite.

Nadam se da je poslije pala kisa i oprala astral. ;>

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: George Hammond

George Hammond wrote:
>> Philosophy can prove the very foundations of science illogical,
>> therefore casting doubt on anything proven scientifically.
>
>[Hammond]
>Hey, dude... what we're talking about here is 3 billion roaring
>unwashed starving people charging the university gates when they
>find out somebody has discovered a scientific proof of God.
>Frankly, you are not going to have time to convince them of
>the intricate logic that Philosophy has disproved Science.

:)))) Exactly, I agree 100%, I mean, you said that there is a
4-dimmensional eigenvector and here we are, having 3G people storming
the Usenet and demanding the truth, that God is a product of human
brain, to be widely known. :))
They're on the streets even here, yelling "GO SPOG GO!" "HAMMOND IS
OUR MAN!" "HAM-MOND HAM-MOND!"
Wow, I guess it's such an honor to speek to a worldwide celebrity, you
know, I mean, wow!
:))))))))))))

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: George Hammond

George Hammond wrote:
>Hey... fancy footwork is lost on someone like me, just as it
>was lost on Einstein. My motorcycle has no horns, bells or
>whistles on it.... it is raw power, exactly tuned and perfectly
>balanced, and built for one thing.... to get me there.

Well, if you can't convince others, you can at least keep convincing
yourself. :)
But, your motorcycle's power is kinda shy, you know, like that Yeti
thing or the Loch Ness monster... every time you look for them they
seem to be elsewhere. :)

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

George Hammond wrote:
> HERETICS (like you for instance and the rest of the rabble on the
>internet) invented the idea that God needs a "definition" so that
>they could establish that God is an "arbitrary construct"... this
>in fact is a LIE, AND A HERESY. Fact of the matter is that God
>is a REAL PHYSICAL PHENOMENON, and therefore COULD NOT HAVE A
>DEFINITION, but only a PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION.

ROTFL :))

A physical description is a possible part of the definition of the
physical objects. But, not even all physical objects have a physical
description, for instance the subatomic particles like quantums or
quarks. So, if the essence of a thing is material, then material
description will be used to define it. However, there are things that
are real and existent, but which do not have a physical existence;
consciousness, or love, or compassion, or intelligence, all exist, but
they cannot be physically described, because their essential nature is
non-physical. So, any attempt to define a being or a phenomenon must
be appropriate to its essential nature.
Let's take an example of attempting to define the sunset. It is
obvious that a physical description of a sunset would not be
satisfactory; we could describe a sunset, colors and all, we can even
describe it as "beautiful" or "orange-red" but such a definition would
not be universal and optimal. However, if we define it as a short
period between day and night, in which the Sun is closest to the
horizon in its descent, we will make a definition which is adequate
even if the sunset can't be seen, for the reasons such as clouds or
even an eclipse. The essential nature of the sunset is contained in
the definition, and the rest is accidental.

So, even in the matter of physical phenomena, we can see that the
physical description will often be only a part of a valid definition;
the physical aspect of a thing might be accidental, and thus it should
be omitted from the definition. This will be the case if we attempt to
define something that is essentially non-physical, for instance
"thought", "love", "soul", or "God".
Also, we must note that it is possible to define something that has no
existence; we can define a unicorn, or an elf, or a hobbit. The fact
that we can define it doesn't mean that it exists. But, if we ever
meet an animal that looks like a horse, but has a horn on its
forehead, we will call it a unicorn, because it meets the definition.
Likewise, the atheists might object that they don't believe that God
exists, but the fact is, they have a certain definition of God, and
they don't believe that there is a being that fits it. Hearing some
very stupid concepts of God in my life, I agree with most of those
atheists; I, too, don't believe in such nonsense.
However, if we define God as the supreme, sentient, omniscient being,
we made a good beginning. We must also say that if anything can be
exceeded in greatness, that it definitely isn't God. God doesn't have
a peer nor a superior. However, can there be any other thing beside
God, or would that limit him? The conclusion is that we must define
God as the foundation of reality; his existence is the primary
reality, and the reality of everything else is secondary; an illusion,
or a dream within God, whichever we prefer.
Oh yes, one more thing: there is one thing that is usually attributed
to God, and which causes more confusion than good: it's omnipotence. I
think that this attribute was invented by the people who want to mock
the concept of God, because this term is easily brought into
contradictions, for instance with questions "can God make a stone so
big, that even he himself cannot lift it?" or "can God create another
God?". Also, if we prove that this world isn't the best possible world
- which is in fact easy, because suffering exists - we can rightly ask
whether God could have created a better world, and if he could, why
didn't he?
The answer to this is complex, and it lies partially in the existence
of free will and the existence of alternatives to this world. If you
give a being free will, you cannot guarantee that it'll choose the
thing that's best for it. So, some souls will choose the wrong things
and that will result in suffering. However, this is not as simple as
it sounds; I had serious trouble arguing with a part atheist, part
satanist maths professor, who is an expert in logic (he published a
book and several scientific articles about it), and uses it to make
intentional, extremely complex and difficult to find logical
fallacies. He used the existence of suffering to prove the
imperfection of the world, and from this he deduced the imperfection
of God. Unlike Hammond, who is an idiot, that guy really forced me to
think, because his errors were intentionally inconspicuous, very
difficult to find, always in the exceeded range and false premises.
So, eventually my answer was that the world is not made to be perfect,
because only God is perfect. This world, and many other worlds, is
made as an alternative to God, so that the beings can choose the
lesser perfection if they want to; this is a land for a prodigal son
to go to, so that he can abandon his father and eat with the
strangers' pigs, if he chooses to, or return, if he chooses to. If
people want to hide from God, they must have a hiding place, and this
seems to be it. So, this isn't God's ideal world, this is our ideal
world, because we chose it. In fact, God's idea would be for us to
choose Him, as the best possible form of existence, but very few of us
dare to do that, and so we end up suffering and blaming God for it.
This is more-less how I defeated him, but since almost nobody ever
admits defeat in a debate, he just ended up repeating his defeated
arguments, like Georgie boy here. Wow, this is a lengthy post, I
better finish.

(This article is quite a mess, because I tried to compress too many
things into it, so I beg the readers forgiveness)

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: George Hammond

George Hammond wrote:
>> George Hammond wrote:
>> >WRONG, SHEAR TAUTOLOGICAL NONSENSE ON YOUR PART, probably because
>> >you have no scientific credentials.
>>
>> True, I have no official scientific credentials. But, since you used
>> this several times as your main argument, this probably means that you
>> have exhausted all your arguments and that you admit to be wrong.
>
>[Hammond]
>Wrong. No one has proven ANYTHING I've said to be wrong, least of
>all you.

Actually, I proved you wrong on all counts except those vectors of
yours; this was the only place where I had no knowledge of the
subject. On all other points, well, people who are laughing at you
right now could tell you more.

>> But, you can't use it to replace the arguments, i.e. "you don't have
>> any scientific credentials, which means that your objections are
>> invalid". This is a known logical fallacy.
>
>[Hammond]
>In your opinion, since you're the one without the credentials.

And who told you that credentials guarantee competence, and that their
absence means incompetence? You supposedly have some credentials, and
you are a total moron. So much for the diploma.

>> >the SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD, is just that, SCIENTIFIC and
>> >has NOTHING to do with "philosophy"... pleqse do not bore us with
>> >any more of you "philosophy tripe".
>>
>> So, go ahead and explain why a degree in scientific disciplines is
>> called PhD, or, "philosophiae doctor".
>
>[hammond]
>i don't have a Ph.D. therefore I'm not a "philosophy doctor".

Of course you don't have, but there are people who do. The academic
title of a doctor of physics is "doctor philosophiae naturalis". So,
physics is regarded as a philosophical discipline oriented towards the
study of the physical nature.

> And, you could also explain why
>> physics is academically known as "philosophia naturalis". You must
>> have found something about this in the LoC that you read. :) I,
>> however, am supposed to be academically ignorant, so teach me. :)
>
>[Hammond]
>You can talk the talk but you can't walk the walk.

Wow, this is such a powerful argument that it struck me down as a
thunderbolt from heaven. ;>

>there is
>no way you can "judge' a scientific theory because you are NOT
>a scientist,

Well, you are wrong. Yoga is a science, a very serious science. The
ease with which I pulverized you here shows how serious. I just don't
use any titles; mine would probably be in Sanskrit or Tibetan, not in
Latin, but it would be very long and pompous, so I don't want it; the
titles are useful only for hiding personal incompetence behind them,
and that's why they're mostly used by the likes of you.

>even though this obviously enrages your ego...

:)) Oh yes, I had an idiot for breakfast, that really pissed me off.
:)

>that's
>your problem. Furthermore you're an aggravated nut who isn't
>really interested in anything but "philosophy dept. arguments"

Actually, I'm interested only in personal experience, but I'm very
good at philosophical debates, because my experience enables me to
grasp the philosophical and theological concepts with ease, and play
with them as if they were lego cubes. I'm also very good at
pinpointing the weak spots in stupid theories.

>You certainly have NO INTEREST in trying to understand the SPOG...

Exactly. It is a piece of shit and of no interest to me. But, exposing
you was a good exercise.

>it simply ENRAGES you that someone has found one.

Oh, I'm so enraged that I have to pee in the tub because my hands
shake too much to hold my dick straight, I'd miss the toilet.

>Same goes for all the other half baked phonys on the Internet.
>Tough shit.

Yeah, constipation is a bitch. :)

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: George Hammond

George Hammond wrote:
>[Hammond]
>A definition is a "formulation by fiat, of something arbitrary
>and that does not naturally exist". Such as:

I have no idea where you could have gotten such a stupid idea.

DEFINITION n [ME diffinicioun, fr. MF definition, fr. L definition-,
definitio, fr. definire] (14c) 1: an act of determining;
specif: the formal proclamation of a Roman Catholic dogma 2 a: a
statement expressing the essential nature of something b: a
statement of the meaning of a word or word group or a sign or symbol
c: a product of defining 3: the action or
process of defining 4 a: the action or the power of describing,
explaining, or making definite and clear
b (1): clarity of visual presentation:
distinctness of outline or detail
(2): clarity esp. of musical sound in reproduction c: sharp
demarcation of outlines or limits --
def.i.ni.tion.al adj

(Merriam-Webster dictionary)

2a is relevant.
So, definition is every statement, that attempts to describe the
essential nature of something, or, in other terms, a statement which
describes the qualities of the thing that are inherent to its nature.
A definition is a necessary prerequisite of discriminative thinking,
and therefore of logical evidence (science is merely a logical method,
BTW, defined as a mutual positive feedback between induction and
deduction).

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Gromit

Gromit wrote:
>> [Hammond]
>> You're upside down and inside out. HISTORY has described
>> something they call "God"... it's DESCRIBED in the 1,024
>> pages of the Bible where the word "God" is used at least
>> 5,000 times. This HISTORICAL DESCRIPTION is based entirely
>> on EYEWITNESS OBSERVATION and has DEFIED PROOF by any means for
>> over 3,500 years.
>
>So far so good.

No, it's not good. You see, "historical description" doesn't mean
anything. "God as described in the Bible" also doesn't mean anything,
because we have thousands of sects that disagree on what the Bible
actually says. The Bible is a big book, some things in it are
contradictory, and one thing needs to be interpreted in the light of
another. Also, one would need to know the hystorical context in order
to understand the meaning of what is said there. This is not a simple
task, and it is aggravated even further by the fact that the Jews,
unlike the Greeks, weren't thinking in definitions, but images. The
Bible therefore doesn't contain a clear definition of God, although
God is mentioned all the time in different contexts.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: George Hammond

George Hammond wrote:
>WRONG, SHEAR TAUTOLOGICAL NONSENSE ON YOUR PART, probably because
>you have no scientific credentials.

True, I have no official scientific credentials. But, since you used
this several times as your main argument, this probably means that you
have exhausted all your arguments and that you admit to be wrong.
After all, I don't mind using ad hominem as a conclusion - if
something behaves like an idiot, then call it an idiot, by all means.
But, you can't use it to replace the arguments, i.e. "you don't have
any scientific credentials, which means that your objections are
invalid". This is a known logical fallacy.

>the SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD, is just that, SCIENTIFIC and
>has NOTHING to do with "philosophy"... pleqse do not bore us with
>any more of you "philosophy tripe".

So, go ahead and explain why a degree in scientific disciplines is
called PhD, or, "philosophiae doctor". And, you could also explain why
physics is academically known as "philosophia naturalis". You must
have found something about this in the LoC that you read. :) I,
however, am supposed to be academically ignorant, so teach me. :)

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org