X-Ftn-To: George Hammond

George Hammond wrote:
>> "Thomas S. McDonald" wrote:
>> >Dear Danijel,
>> > Seems as though our Georgie is a bit peevish and
>> >frustrated today. Can't imagine why....;0}
>>
>> Oh, it must be the weather, so strange these days... :))
>
>GH: cut the kook one-liners, nobody's impressed

You are a moron, and nobody's impressed.

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

X-Ftn-To: George Hammond

George Hammond wrote:
>> So, you can't defend your theory, but you certainly can spam.
>
>GH: cut the kook one-liners, nobody's impressed.

Follow your own advice.

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

X-Ftn-To: Robert Premuz

Robert Premuz wrote:
>Oni od nas koji budu bastinici vjecnog zivota, u kojeg nas Isus
>poziva, bit ce tamo ne samo dusom nego i tijelom.

OK, samo Ti izvoli, sretan put. :)
Samo, procitaj Mt 22,30.

>Katolicka teologija kaze da se u
>uskrsnucu covjekovo tijelo preobrazava u duhovno tijelo. Ili kako je
>rekao Pavao u 1 Kor 15,42-44:
>
> Tako i uskrsnuce mrtvih: sije se u raspadljivosti, uskrsava u
> neraspadljivosti; sije se u sramoti, uskrsava u slavi; sije se u
> slabosti, uskrsava u snazi; sije se tijelo naravno (doslovno:
> psihicko), uskrsava tijelo duhovno (doslovno: pneumatsko).

OK, a sad mucni malo glavom i promisli sto bi to trebalo biti duhovno
tijelo.
Naime, u usporedbi s njim, prema Pavlu, fizicko tijelo je raspadljivo,
sramotno i slabo.
Osim toga, Pavao uopce ne govori o nikakvom preobrazaju fizickog
tijela.

Duhovno tijelo prema Pavlu je zapravo dusa u cistom stanju,
neogranicena tijelom. Naime, fizicko tijelo je opterecenje dusi, da se
vidi tko je vjeran u malome, da bi mu se povjerilo veliko. (Mt 25,
14-30)

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

X-Ftn-To: George Hammond

George Hammond wrote:
> CURVATURE FAQ
>
> Why does the Curvature of
> Psychometry space = God?
>
> Brain growth is suspected to be God by virtue
> of it's proven effect on perceptual reality,
> particularly in Mental Retardation, IQ and
> Personality. It is capable of explaining a
> "supernatural power" and "miracles".

Unproven, irrelevant assumptions.
Brain growth probably has an effect on perception of the reality and
IQ. This can probably be proved. Also, cerebral defects cause mental
retardation and psychological disorders. This proves that the brain
serves the purpose of knowing the reality, and the better the brain,
the better the knowledge of reality. Hardly a discovery, because we
already knew that people are more intelligent and capable than frogs
and fish, and that it is due to the more evolved and bigger brain.
However, it explains none of the supernatural powers and miracles. A
miracle is, by Catholic definition, any intervention in the
functioning of the natural laws. You have to prove that the physical
reality can be altered in any way by the brain; so far, you only
proved that the brain can alter the subjective reality, which is a
meaningless conclusion, because everybody knows it.

> Next, it is discovered in Psychometry that
> there is a 4x4 psychometry metric caused by
> the geometry of the brain

Basically, they discovered that the shape of the brain is relevant;
the probable reason for that is the greater relative importance of
some parts of the brain in the matters of intelligence as measured on
the tests.

> (wch in turn is
> caused by spacetime geometry).

This is an unproved assumption. Spacetime geometry is affected by the
presence of mass. Any mass, including the brain, distorts timespace.
However, a piece of lead, of the same volume, affects the timespace
curvature more than the brain. In order to create a significant
bending, one would need to have really significant mass; even tons of
matter wouldn't produce much effect; you need at least the asteroids
in order to measure any visible gravitational effect.
Causal relationship between timespace and brain geometry is
impossible, because the human body evolved in an isotropic
gravitational field, which did in fact favor the evolution of certain
bodily form, but the only thing that the brain has to do with gravity
is the sensor in the central ear (shit, all of my scientific
terminology is in Croatian and I have problems with translating my
thoughts).
Basically, your theory is crap.

> This causes there
> "axiomatically" to be a single final Eigenvector
> in all of Psychology, caused mathematically by the
> curvature of the 4x4 metric.

I would need an expert to interpret this; but, since the rest of the
theory doesn't hold water, even if this is 100% true, which I honestly
doubt, judging on the parts that I could understand, the theory as a
whole would still be utterly false.

> Biologically, it
> is easy to show that the cause of this eigenvector
> is brain growth discussed above, particularly the
> Secular Trend (historical) increase in brain growth
> in the population, therby explaining the theological
> notion of "human progress" and the goal of reaching
> the "Kingdom of God" on Earth... e.g. the plateau
> of the sigmoidal Secular Trend Curve.

This, however, basically says that we are evolving (which is obvious)
and that you assume that there is a limit to our growth (which isn't
proved in any way). However, it has nothing to do with any religious
concept.

> These two facts (paragraph 1 and 2) taken together
> combine to prove to beyond a reasonable doubt, that the
> single (4th order) higher order eigenvector is in fact a
> direct measure of "God",

Actually, it doesn't prove anything, as I have demonstrated. Your
stuff proves that the size and the shape of the brain are relevant to
our perception of the reality, which is obvious, and the rest is just
crap.

> and since the psychometric
> curvature that cause it is caused by real curvature
> in space-time, that God is caused by Gravity.

This is a totally idiotic assumption. You want to say that there is a
curvature in the brain, and that there is a curvature in the space,
and that this means anything? You obviously should have studied logic,
not being born an "average man" to whom logical skills are "like
walking". :)
If you told this to my highschool professor of logic, you would still
be in highschool, because you are basically saying that:

The roads are not straight.
There are people who are not straight.
--
Ergo some people are roads.

:)))

Or:

The timespace is bent by mass, which causes gravity.
The shape and size of the brain affect intelligence, on average.
--
Ergo there is God.

:)))))))))


> Hence we have a rigorous hard scientific explanation
> and proof of the existence of GOD.
> QED, HAMMOND, 2001

Yes, quid erat defecatum.

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

X-Ftn-To: George Hammond

George Hammond wrote:
> People who have to study "logic" are people born with congenital
>thought disorders or a long history of familial attitude adjustment
>problems... the average person is born knowing "logic" as a normal
>and ordinary mental process, like walking.

:)))))))
You should have studdied logic, apparently. :)

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

X-Ftn-To: Thomas S. McDonald

"Thomas S. McDonald" wrote:
>Dear Danijel,
> Seems as though our Georgie is a bit peevish and
>frustrated today. Can't imagine why....;0}

Oh, it must be the weather, so strange these days... :))

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

X-Ftn-To: George Hammond

George Hammond wrote:
>> George Hammond wrote:
>> > Pre scientific "definition" of God
>> >
>> > God is defined as an invisible old man living
>> > on a cloud in the sky who rules the World,
>> > rewards the good and punishes the wicked, and
>> > determines the fate and destiny of Man.
>>
>> Actually, this type of definition isn't used in theology for several
>> thousands of years.
>
>[Hammond]
>The above is the most common perception of "God" in the Western World,
>and I daresay in most of the world.

Actually, this is one of the most common misconceptions, and it deters
all the intelligent people from the sphere of religion, and makes them
declare themselves as deists, atheists, agnostics or similar. This
trivial, ignorant concept, invented by the theologically uneducated
rednecks, causes most hostility towards God, from people who would
otherwise fall in love with Him.

>The American Indians for
>instance (in all of the Cowboy movies I've seen) typically referred
>to God as "The Great Sky Chief".

If you were reading books instead of watching stupid movies, you would
understand that the native Americans had a concept of God as the
all-pervading Spirit, which gives life to all beings. They called Him
"The Great Spirit", and they noticed the spiritual aspects of the
world constantly, as signs from Him. See:
http://www.barefootsworld.net/seattle.html

The old man in the sky concept should be outgrown by anybody older
than 7; I personally use this concept to mock primitive theological
concepts, but I hardly expected to find someone who actually believes
in something like that, especially on the Net.

>We are not here talking about
>"learned" or "scholarly" or "academic" discussions of
>God, we are talking about the common picture of "God" that
>is held by billions of lay people and even by youngsters.

Why not eat shit, then? Billions of flies can't be wrong.
People have a wrong concept of God, and this ignorance is the cause of
their problems; they feel that there is "something", but it can't be
"God", because God is a primitive thing that the idiots believe in. I
am aware that there are thousands of protestant Christian churches in
America, but I'm also aware that most of them wouldn't encourage or
provide a study of theology, since they think that they already know
everything there is to know. This is why people have ignorant and
primitive concepts of God, and why I know several intelligent
Americans who wouldn't touch Christianity with a ten foot pole; they
rather declare themselves as pagans or whatever.

>> Ancient Greeks defined God as the Logos, the
>> sentient principle transcendental to causation - you can see the
>> reminiscences of this definition in the preface of John's gospel.
>> Hindus _never_ defined God as an "invisible old man"; different sects
>> have different definitions, for instance:
>>
>> God is the omnipotent, transcendental, omniscient person, whose
>> consciousness is the fullness of existence-consciousness-bliss.
>> (dvaita according to Madhva and more-less Ramanuja)
>
>[Hammond]
>No kidding? Well, so much for the Hindu's... they apparently
>believe the same thing as the Christians, i.e.. that
>God is a "..transcendental, omniscient person".

:))) Yes, but since you have no education in philosophy, you are
unable to grasp the meaning of that phrase.

To be transcendental, means not to have any part of his essence within
the world, it means that God is in no part given in the world.
To be omniscient, means to have simultaneous knowledge of everything.
To be a person, means to have a sentient and self-aware nature.

So, this means that God isn't a law of the universe, or a field like
gravity or whatever, that he's not a blind force, but a conscious,
aware being, and that his essence is independent from the essence of
the world, although he is perfectly aware of the world in all its
aspects.

Lacking knowledge, you are unable to properly read philosophical
definitions, because you use colloquial English, which is useless in
that respect. When I say "person", you create an antropomorphic image
within your mind, which is a sad mistake.

>This, put into
>lay Christian language translates into "an invisible old man
>living in the sky who rules the world"... that's plain enough
>to me.

This seems this way to you because you are an uneducated fool without
a philosophical mental apparatus.

> The real question I have is what the Buddhists think god is?

They aren't concerned with God at all; they say that if there is God,
we're not likely to know him the way we are now, deluded and attached
to the illusory. And when we manage to remedy that, the question will
again be meaningless, because we will realize what really is, and not
form intellectual concepts about it. Regarding the goal, Buddha says
that it is impossible for our mind to conceive; Nirvana cannot be
defined either positively or negatively, because it doesn't belong to
the sphere in which our minds function.

>snip
>
>> In all of those philosophies, human soul and God are of the same
>> quality: spiritual and transcendental.
>
>[Hammond]
>Yes.. that is confirmed by the SPOG. The ungrown (latent) fraction
>of the brain (called the UNCS-Mind BTW) is in fact the "Soul" of
>Man, and furthermore it is "God in Heaven" also.

:)))))))))
If it is in the brain, it is material, not transcendental. It is
physical, not spiritual. Please, take some philosophical dictionary
and read, writing constant explanations to you is a bit tiresome.
Understand this: your misconceptions will immediately disqualify you
in any discussion about religion; at least if you try to talk to
religious philosophers, and not with the rednecks in some swamp. You
are a desperate guy who was in deep depression because you understood
that your life was meaningless and trivial, that everything passed you
by and that you are just a loser who didn't achieve anything worthy in
his life. And, when you stumbled upon some interesting correlations,
your ignorance and lack of wider education made you come to a mistaken
conclusion that this proves God. Now, if you were an established
personality, sure of yourself and with nothing to prove, you would
take an encyclopaedia and make a query about God. You would go to the
web and make a couple of searches, go to the library and read some
books. You would then see that it apparently has nothing to do with
God, shrug, get back to the maths of it, explore the correlation and
publish an article about it somewhere, and somebody might actually
have found it useful.
However, being insecure and with low self-esteem, you liked to think
that you discovered the proof of God. After all, nobody else
apparently managed that. Not Einstein, not Thomas Aquinus, not
Aristoteles, but Hammond did it! You are no longer a meaningless
loser, your life is no longer a failure, you have a purpose, something
you always knew to be true, you always knew you have the potential and
that you can do something of importance. Nothing will stand in your
way now, and you will bring the world to its knees before you, and you
will finally feel that you're worth something. And now, that you
understand that there really isn't anyone who could even understand
your profound thoughts, you will probably leave us to our stupidity
and spend the remaining part of your life knowing that you, of all
people, are the only one who made a proof of God's existence, that is
understandable only to him, and accepted only by him. But, the true
genius is seldom understood. :)

>> There is not a single religious
>> or philosophical system in the world, omitting Marxism, solipsism and
>> Freudian psychoanalysis, that would define God as an aspect or a
>> product of a man's functioning or existence;
>
>[Hammond]
>This confusion on your part stems from the fact that you
>think that simply saying that the "brain creates reality"

Brain creates an image of the reality. Understand that. The brain
processes the sensory inputs and creates a virtual reality within the
mind. Your analogy with the gravity is correct: the presence of mass
bends the timespace and creates the phenomenon of gravity. Also, the
increase in brain size creates the result of greater awareness and
mental capacity, the ability to understand the world. The bigger the
mass, the bigger the gravity; the bigger the brain, the bigger the
understanding. I would also guess that the graphs of the functions
might look similar, which would suggest that intelligence is subject
to the same maths as the physical laws. But this is as far as this
goes. If you want more, you'll need to join the teams that study the
bio-morpho-genic fields; they explore the learning curves in rats and
apes and they came to the astounding revelations, that could give a
whole new light to the matters of evolution. For instance, they make a
standardized labyrinth and teach the rats to go through it. When a
critical mass of rats learns the labyrinth, suddenly rats in the whole
world learn to pass this standardized labyrinth faster, with fewer
mistakes. When enough beings learn something and it proves useful,
this ability suddenly becomes the standard feature of the species.
Apparently, this is how the evolution works, and _this_ is the
bleeding edge of science. If you want to be useful, join them.

>[Hammond]
>Subjectively yes, objectively no. Fact is, if all men died
>tomorrow, the Universe as we know it, by definition, would
>no longer exist.

This is true. The universe, as _we_ know it, would no longer exists,
because _we_ wouldn't know it. However, the universe "as we know it"
is a product of human mind. The universe, as it really is, wouldn't be
a bit troubled after our disappearance.

>i don't know why you can't figure that
>out..... that is the nexus of the argument between Science
>and Religion.

Yes, and it's called a logical fallacy.

>> A buddhist doesn't think that the world is an illusion that
>> exists only within a man's mind,
>
>[Hammond]
>I wouldn't be so hasty there.... I have a feeling that's
>EXACTLY what they believe...

Yes, you have a feeling, and I've read their scriptures and understand
their philosophy, so I _know_ what they believe. Visit
http://www.buddhanet.org/

>and in fact, that's the same
>thing Christian's believe, although not many of them
>realize it.

Apparently, nobody realizes it but you.

>> So, in buddhism, if a tree falls in the forest, and nobody hears it,
>> it does make a sound.
>
>[Hammond]
>Nope. the Buddhists you must recall were the ones who brought this
>question up in the first place...

Actually, this is a Western invention, and originates from the ancient
Greece.

>so that tells us they are
>intimating that there is some doubt about a tree making a noise when
>no one is there to hear it. In fact, I believe that Buddhism holds
>that a falling tree in the forest DOES NOT make any "sound" if
>there is no one there to hear it.

Actually, if you ask a Zen master, he'll tell you that even now, you
don't hear a thing because your mind is completely self-obsessed and
you see nothing of the reality. This, however, doesn't prevent the
others from being more objective, or the reality from existing.

>> However, bound by illusions, living in their
>> personal falsehood, people tend to think their personal illusion to be
>> the supreme reality
>
>[Hammond]
>No kiddin..... and it's not necessarily "falsehood". If your
>brain is not as grown as someone else's or vice versa, you
>ARE living in two different realities.

You mean, you are living in two different concepts of reality, or, two
different illusions, where one is thicker and the other is thinner?

>What do you think the number one human problem is?

Ignorance.

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

X-Ftn-To: George Hammond

George Hammond wrote:
>Re: Creation-Evolution Supreme Court Challenge
>==========================================================
>Note: The original target post to which this thread refers
> may be seen at:
>
>http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Creationcall.html
>==========================================================
>
>Just Curious wrote:
>
>snip

So, you can't defend your theory, but you certainly can spam.

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

X-Ftn-To: George Hammond

George Hammond wrote:
>[Hammond]
>FALSE. A "definition" only applies to something which is
>an "arbitrary human convention". There IS NO SUCH THING as a
>"definition" of a real material object whose identity
>is fixed by natural reality, not "arbitrary human convention".
>I happen to be sane buddy, look out.

You really don't know what it is. You're not just careless, or lacking
focus. You actually don't know what a definition of a term is. And it
is the foundation of both mathematics, logic, philosophy, semantics
and all scientific disciplines in general. You really don't know
anything about it, or understand its purpose. You don't understand
that a definition is the foundation of clear thinking, a necessary
prerequisite of any analysis or synthesis. You don't know that the
terms need to be defined prior to passing judgments regarding them,
and that the point of a definition is to make a connection between the
essence of something, and an intellectual category: a word. Without
such connection, words would be just arbitrary, meaningless sounds and
letters.

Really, you should be stripped of all your academic titles, what you
displayed in this exchange would fully warrant it.

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

George Hammond wrote:
> Pre scientific "definition" of God
>
> God is defined as an invisible old man living
> on a cloud in the sky who rules the World,
> rewards the good and punishes the wicked, and
> determines the fate and destiny of Man.

Actually, this type of definition isn't used in theology for several
thousands of years. Ancient Greeks defined God as the Logos, the
sentient principle transcendental to causation - you can see the
reminiscences of this definition in the preface of John's gospel.
Hindus _never_ defined God as an "invisible old man"; different sects
have different definitions, for instance:

God is the omnipotent, transcendental, omniscient person, whose
consciousness is the fullness of existence-consciousness-bliss.
(dvaita according to Madhva and more-less Ramanuja)

God is the Absolute, the one and only reality, and reality of
everything else is conditional and secondary. (advaita by
Shankaracarya)

God is both the transcendental Absolute and the embodiment and
fullness of being-consciousness-bliss; both transcendental and
universally present in the world; both closest and the most distant.
(according to Caitanya)

God is the spiritual principle (purusha) that animates the inert
matter of the world (prakrti). (simplified Sankhya)

Those definitions are mostly thousands of years old. I have simplified
them almost to absurdity, but the point can be understood. As for the
relationships of action and reaction, it is commonly accepted that God
is the measure of rightness, i.e. that God is the absolute good, and
that the proximity to God is the criterion of goodness. When we leave
out the images and symbolism, it turns out that the punishment is the
distance from God, the reward is the proximity of God, and that the
human consciousness determines the actions and that the actions have
the quality of consciousness, which means that the choice of evil
distances the man's consciousness from God and creates sinful deeds,
which distance a man from God even further, and that the choice of
good makes a man closer to God, which fills his consciousness with
fulfilment and harmony, and the result are the righteous deeds.

In all of those philosophies, human soul and God are of the same
quality: spiritual and transcendental. There is not a single religious
or philosophical system in the world, omitting Marxism, solipsism and
Freudian psychoanalysis, that would define God as an aspect or a
product of a man's functioning or existence; the opposite, however is
rather common, and a man is often defined as a by-product of God's
existence or functioning.

As for the human relationship with God, it can be summed up to this:
there are several levels of reality, where God is on the highest
ladder, which is void of ignorance and suffering, and this world is
much below. The ignorance and suffering are prominent in this world,
and the cause of this is the distance of this world from God. If we
make an analogy with the solar system, God is the Sun, Heaven is the
hot side of the Mercury, and we're somewhere beyond Pluto's orbit, in
the Oorth's cloud. So, the cause of our suffering is not God, but the
distance from God. Actually, all the best things in our lives are the
result of our touch with God, however limited. Because of the distance
from God, this world is cold, inert and chaotic, it is hostile to
knowledge and therefore God's presence isn't obvious to reason.
Actually, this is a den of villains, thieves and criminals who hide
from God, and this is as far as we could get without freezing into
non-existence. So, this explains the thing about sinful and righteous
actions; also, it eliminates the concept of divine punishment; there
is no such thing. God doesn't punish, because God is the essence of
the reward. We punish ourselves by putting distance between ourselves
and God.

So, to conclude:
God is universally present, so he dwells both within and without us.
God is real and exists independently of our minds and bodies.
God is neither caused nor affected by human existence and actions.
The universe exists independently of human consciousness and physical
existence; however, the universe isn't independent from God's will.
Therefore, human beings are subordinate to the laws of the universe,
but the laws of the universe are subordinate to God's will. But, since
the laws of the universe are in accordance with God's will, there is
no need for God to make any changes and interventions.
It is God's will that there be an alternative to Him, so that the
beings could choose the form of their existence; the absence of the
field of choice would negate the free will. However, some choices
imply suffering. It is not God's will that we suffer, because God
regards us as his children and friends, but we are free to reject God
and distance ourselves from Him, and to try to forget Him completely.
He made such choice possible for us, although he wishes us not to take
it. This is, by the way, the meaning of the prodigal son parable told
by Jesus. We can eat with the pigs of strangers, or to share the joy
of our father; as we choose, so shall we have. This is not just a
Christian attitude, because it is prominent in the Hindu systems, as
well.

Regarding solipsism, it is not prominent in any religion; not even
buddhism. A buddhist doesn't think that the world is an illusion that
exists only within a man's mind, but that a man's mind is filled with
illusions about the world, that his existence is seriously limited by
the pairs of desires and fears, that this spiritual bondage creates
suffering and that this can be solved by emptying our minds from the
preconceptions and ideas about the world and our place in it, and by
realizing the actual reality as it is. This, in fact, says that our
personal world is illusory, not real, and that there is a real world,
that we should understand by ceasing to project our illusions upon it.

So, in buddhism, if a tree falls in the forest, and nobody hears it,
it does make a sound. However, bound by illusions, living in their
personal falsehood, people tend to think their personal illusion to be
the supreme reality - so, solipsism is seen as the utmost form of
delusion, and its opposite, the enlightenment, means to have no
personal world - the actual reality becomes our personal world.

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