George Hammond wrote:

[Hammond]
Fact is, it does. Stephen Hawking says:

" The Anthropioc Principle can be paraphrased as:
We see the Universe the way it is because we exist"
(S. Hawking, Brief History of Time, p. 128)

Do you think that quote means the same as:

"The Universe is the way it is because we exist"?

or perhaps,

"The Universe exists because we see it"?

because you seem to think Hawking's statement means one, or both, of the
above.


[Hammond]

George Hammond wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 16:50:51 -0400, Mani Deli
nothing@inter.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 22:14:36 GMT, George Hammond
Nowhere1@notspam.org> wrote:

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 21:28:30 GMT, George Hammond
Nowhere1@notspam.org> wrote:
What Science DOESN'T KNOW is that the Anthropic Principle
was actually discovered thousands of years ago by Religion.
Religion never discovered anything.

[Hammond]
Horse's ass; who do you think discovered God?

Good point in that hundreds of religions have discovered their
gods although it looks like all of them existed before and
after that "discovery". You should be more specific when you
are specifying which god it is you believe in. Greek, Roman,
Zoroastrian, Norse etc. There are so many to choose from.


[Hammond]

Albert Einstein was famously incredulous that anyone
could possibly think that the Moon stops existing
when no one is looking at it.

I'm with him on this one.


[Hammond]

I'm with him on that one

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 16:03:06 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist



reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Hammond]
   Fact is, the "Anthropic Principle" simply says:
"observables exist because observers exist".  After all, it
doesn't take rocket science to figure out that if there was
no such thing as an observer, then there would be no such
thing as observables; since the testimony of observers is
the ONLY WAY we know that the observables exist.

[Immortalist]
If a system observable is a property of the system state that can be
determined by some sequence of physical operations and if there was no
such thing as an observer, then it is not determined that there would
or would not be such things as observables even if the testimony of
observers is the ONLY WAY we know that the observables exist since
whether there is or is not someone existing doesn't determine
determinability and the possibility of abstract thought processes
whether they exist or not.

[Hammond]
   Immortalist, thanks for your refreshing post.  Out of 11
posts to this target article so far, you are the ONLY ONE
who has attempted to say something on topic.  However, you
have COIMPLETELY missed the point!
   You have FAILED to distinguish between two fundamentally
DIFFERENT cases:

CASE 1:  
   If I turn my back and look the other way,
   does the Moon still exist?
          (correct answer, YES)

CASE 2:
   If the human race never existed or became
   totally EXTINCT, would the Moon "exist".
       (correct answer, NO)

   I am talking about CASE 2, not CASE 1 for christ's sake.
The Biblical Creation, and "God", are explained by
CASE 2 and not by CASE 1.  And the Anthropic Principle
applies to CASE 2, not CASE 1, for Heaven's sake!
   Please get up to speed... do a little thinking before you
try and argue with me.... the best minds in Science are
convinced of the truth of the  Anthropic Principle, ya know,
including Stephen Hawking and the late great John Wheeler as
well as the entire scientific community.
====================================>      SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
 http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
   mirror site:
 http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
      GOD=G_uv   (a folk song on mp3)
 http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Apr 21, 8:08 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Apr 20, 4:55 pm, "ShivverMeTimbers" <nom...@everever.invalid
wrote:


[Jerry Kraus]
In the West, they are often intimately related as well -- the modern
scientific method is derived from the activities of analytical
theologians such as Saint Thomas Aquinas and the medaeval scholastics,
who sought to find a higher unity in nature through the concept of
"theory" -- from "Theos", or "God".


[Darwinist]
"Theory" doesn't come from "Theos", it comes from "Theoria" meaning "A
viewing", or "contemplating", from "Theor" (view).


[Hammond]

Many scientists have been religious, true, and many others have been
denounced or persecuted by religious organisations/authories (e.g.
galileo, darwin).


[Hammond]

It annoys me when religion tries to take credit for science. Science
and religion are two separate means of gaining knowledge. Science is
better. Some people practice both.


[Hammond]

=====================================

Horse's ass; who do you think discovered God?

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 21:51:51 GMT, George Hammond wrote:

Horse's ass; who do you think discovered God?


God is the stupid answer to any question.

You sure got that one right!

On Apr 21, 5:54 pm, none <""doug\"@(none)"> wrote:
George Hammond wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 16:50:51 -0400, Mani Deli
noth...@inter.com> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 22:14:36 GMT, George Hammond
Nowhe...@notspam.org> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 21:28:30 GMT, George Hammond
Nowhe...@notspam.org> wrote:
What Science DOESN'T KNOW is that the Anthropic Principle
was actually discovered thousands of years ago by Religion.
Religion never discovered anything.
[Hammond]
Horse's ass; who do you think discovered God?
Good point in that hundreds of religions have discovered their
gods although it looks like all of them existed before and
after that "discovery". You should be more specific when you
are specifying which god it is you believe in. Greek, Roman,
Zoroastrian, Norse etc. There are so many to choose from.



Fact is, the "Anthropic Principle" simply says:
"observables exist because observers exist". After all, it
doesn't take rocket science to figure out that if there was
no such thing as an observer, then there would be no such
thing as observables
Wrong, ie. if a new species is discovered it doesn't mean that it
didn't exist before that.
[Hammond]
Horse's ass; NOTHING EXISTED before Man arrived, because
"EXISTENCE" is a HUMAN PERCEPTION.... no people, no
existence.
You certainly feel important. The world does not care about
humans any more than it does about fleas.

YOU THINK the Universe would still exist if the human race
became extinct, such a belief is sheer STUPIDITY.
If there were NO PEOPLE; how would anyone know the
Universe existed? Stupid.
The fleas would still notice so the world would continue just
fine.


If God never existed, we humans would never have been around to invent
"him"!

--
YOP...

Not "him", it is "them" as you have lots to choose from. Hammond

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:54:57 -0700, none <""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:

George Hammond wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 16:50:51 -0400, Mani Deli
nothing@inter.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 22:14:36 GMT, George Hammond
Nowhere1@notspam.org> wrote:

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 21:28:30 GMT, George Hammond
Nowhere1@notspam.org> wrote:
What Science DOESN'T KNOW is that the Anthropic Principle
was actually discovered thousands of years ago by Religion.
Religion never discovered anything.

[Hammond]
Horse's ass; who do you think discovered God?
Good point in that hundreds of religions have discovered their
gods although it looks like all of them existed before and
after that "discovery". You should be more specific when you
are specifying which god it is you believe in. Greek, Roman,
Zoroastrian, Norse etc. There are so many to choose from.


[Hammond]
You haven't even read the website and don't know what
you're talking about. The SPOG proves that there are:

30-1st order factors = 30 demigods of the Hindu and
ancient religions
13-2nd order factors = 13 Olympian gods of the
Greco-Roman Pantheon
4-3rd order factors = 4 Gospel Saints of Christianity:
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John
1-4th order factor = The God of Monotheism: God,
Allah, Yahweh, Vishnu, etc.

The SPOG explains and proves ALL RELIGIONS.
=====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================



It is pretty clear that you are the one who does not know what he

13-2nd order factors = 13 Olympian gods of the
Greco-Roman Pantheon

George Hammond wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:54:57 -0700, none <""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:

George Hammond wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 16:50:51 -0400, Mani Deli
nothing@inter.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 22:14:36 GMT, George Hammond
Nowhere1@notspam.org> wrote:

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 21:28:30 GMT, George Hammond
Nowhere1@notspam.org> wrote:
What Science DOESN'T KNOW is that the Anthropic Principle
was actually discovered thousands of years ago by Religion.
Religion never discovered anything.

[Hammond]
Horse's ass; who do you think discovered God?
Good point in that hundreds of religions have discovered their
gods although it looks like all of them existed before and
after that "discovery". You should be more specific when you
are specifying which god it is you believe in. Greek, Roman,
Zoroastrian, Norse etc. There are so many to choose from.


[Hammond]
You haven't even read the website and don't know what
you're talking about. The SPOG proves that there are:

30-1st order factors = 30 demigods of the Hindu and
ancient religions
13-2nd order factors = 13 Olympian gods of the
Greco-Roman Pantheon
4-3rd order factors = 4 Gospel Saints of Christianity:
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John
1-4th order factor = The God of Monotheism: God,
Allah, Yahweh, Vishnu, etc.

The SPOG explains and proves ALL RELIGIONS.
=====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================



[Doug]
It is pretty clear that you are the one who does not know what he
is talking about. You are ignoring most of the world's religions
and picking a few that you think fit your misguided idea of what
a proof is. You have left out millions of Hindu gods, millions
of Mormon gods, all the Egyptian gods, the earth goddesses,
Mithras (this is where your christian god was stolen from), the
Norse gods and the American Indian gods.



[Hammond]

On Apr 20, 9:53 pm, George Hammond <Nowhe...@notspam.org> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 16:03:06 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist



reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Hammond]
   Fact is, the "Anthropic Principle" simply says:
"observables exist because observers exist".  After all, it
doesn't take rocket science to figure out that if there was
no such thing as an observer, then there would be no such
thing as observables; since the testimony of observers is
the ONLY WAY we know that the observables exist.

[Immortalist]
If a system observable is a property of the system state that can be
determined by some sequence of physical operations and if there was no
such thing as an observer, then it is not determined that there would
or would not be such things as observables even if the testimony of
observers is the ONLY WAY we know that the observables exist since
whether there is or is not someone existing doesn't determine
determinability and the possibility of abstract thought processes
whether they exist or not.

[Hammond]
   Immortalist, thanks for your refreshing post.  Out of 11
posts to this target article so far, you are the ONLY ONE
who has attempted to say something on topic.  However, you
have COIMPLETELY missed the point!
   You have FAILED to distinguish between two fundamentally
DIFFERENT cases:

CASE 1:  
   If I turn my back and look the other way,
   does the Moon still exist?
          (correct answer, YES)

CASE 2:
   If the human race never existed or became
   totally EXTINCT, would the Moon "exist".
       (correct answer, NO)


[Immortalist]
Case two depends upon how you are defining "exist"


[Hammond]

[Immortalist]
since if humans
never existed there may or may not have been satellites orbiting stars
in various ways and electromagnetic radiation propagating through
space, but human abstraction about such objects probably wouldn't take
place but would still be possible if bodies and brains can emulate
human consciousness and reasoning abilities even if they didn't exist
or hadn't existed yet.


[Hammond]

[Immortalist]
In logic though any hypothetical/conditional (if/then) statement is
open to questioning. Usually the actual evidence is not in the
conditional statement.

[Hammond]

[Immortalist]
If humans didn't exist then X would either be
or not be the case, why? Some evidence is usually presented that helps
determine it one way or the other. I mean what reason is there for
determining it one way or the other? Again this hinges upon how you
are using the phrase "existence of the moon".


[Hammond]

[Immortalist]
Does the existence of humans who can determine, determine or create
the possibility of determinability in the first place?

[Hammond]

[Immortalist]
Of course
humans couldn't determine in the first place if determinability were
not possible prior to their existence, right?

[Hammond]

[Hammond]
   I am talking about CASE 2, not CASE 1 for Christ's sake.
The Biblical Creation, and "God", are explained by
CASE 2 and not by CASE 1.  And the Anthropic Principle
applies to CASE 2, not CASE 1, for Heaven's sake!
   Please get up to speed... do a little thinking before you
try and argue with me.... the best minds in Science are
convinced of the truth of the  Anthropic Principle, ya know,
including Stephen Hawking and the late great John Wheeler as
well as the entire scientific community.
=====================================

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 16:36:21 +0000 (UTC),
moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:

George Hammond <Nowhere1@notspam.org> writes:

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:14:08 -0700, Uncle Al
UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote:

Hindus have 36 crores of gods - 360 million deities. How is India
doing, Georgie boy?

Idiot.

[Hammond]
The SPOG explains and PROVES why there are 30 demigods in
Hindii; because there are 30 first order eigenvectors in
Psychometric correlation matricess, worldwide .

Can't you read? Uncle Al wrote that Hinduism has 360 million deities,
not just 30.


[Hammond]
His statement is manifestly absurd, there aren't 360
million names in the Human Language.
On the other hand there ARE 30 eigenvectors in every
comprehensive Psychometric correlation matrix, so there
CERTAINLY ARE 30 "DEMIGODS" in Religion; scientifically
speaking. Stop trying to pretend you're not an aggravated
halfwit heckler.

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 19:37:14 -0700 (PDT), darwinist
darwinist@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 21, 8:08 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Apr 20, 4:55 pm, "ShivverMeTimbers" <nom...@everever.invalid
wrote:


[Jerry Kraus]
In the West, they are often intimately related as well -- the modern
scientific method is derived from the activities of analytical
theologians such as Saint Thomas Aquinas and the medaeval scholastics,
who sought to find a higher unity in nature through the concept of
"theory" -- from "Theos", or "God".


[Darwinist]
"Theory" doesn't come from "Theos", it comes from "Theoria" meaning "A
viewing", or "contemplating", from "Theor" (view).


[Hammond]
Darwin is right about the Greek etymology of the word
"theory" as any dictionary will confirm.
However, I am rather persuaded by Kraus's suspicion that
there is in fact a (much more ancient) connection between
the definition "to look at" and the word "God". My bet is
the world "theos" is actually anciently derived from the
word "thoria" (to view, or look at). My hunch is based on
the fact that the phenomenon of "God" is essentially, and
mainly, a (seemingly supernatural" or transcendental)
"visual phenomenon". IOW the word "God" may have originally
referred to the seemingly supernatural and transcendental
nature of human perception, especially the perception of
other peoples' identities.



Many scientists have been religious, true, and many others have been
denounced or persecuted by religious organisations/authories (e.g.
galileo, darwin).


[Hammond]
According to my knowlege there has never been a scientist
of any note who had the slightest clue as to what God is,
perhaps with the exception of DesCartes. Both Newton, and
Einstein had very elementary understandings of what the
phenomenon of "God" actually is.
Newton for the most part merely quoted the religious
opinions of others. Einstein wasn't even aware that there
is an anthropomorphic God and believed in Spinoza's quite
ignorant Stoic pantheism.

It annoys me when religion tries to take credit for science. Science
and religion are two separate means of gaining knowledge. Science is
better. Some people practice both.


[Hammond]
Horseshit... Science by definition is capable of
explaining any "physical phenomenon" including "God". What
most people don't realized is that the "phenomenon of God"
is a Relativistic perceptual phenomenon. Religion is
Relativistic Psychology you might call it.

Which god crashed the Dodekatheon?