On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 01:45:31 -0600, Kamerynn <idon'tdoemail@sorry.com> wrote:
[Approved by G. Hammond, moderator r-spog]
<snip>
>Kam:
> For one who supposedly dislikes ad hominems, you sure like
>to attack people. I've pointed out that you've redefined "god"
>in your work, to suit your purposes. Your responses were both
>inflamatory and inadequate. Your responses, above, are certainly
>vituperous. So, how about discarding the hypocrisy for a while?
[Hammond]
That was a defense, not an attack. I posted a content filled
serious on topic appropriate post to this newsgroup, and
he responded with an off topic, no content, as hominem
wiseguy personal attack.
I don't attack anybody, I'm on the defensive. I don't
post off topic or no content, and I'm not here to trade insults.
I'm looking for serious people to discuss serious business.
If you don't think it's serious I think you should state WHY,
not simple post some kook one liner insult.
> I've pointed out that you've redefined "god"
> in your work, to suit your purposes.
[Hammond]
That's a one liner tautology of yours. It's obviously
semantically incorrect, because as everyone knows there
is no such thing as a "definition of God" because God is
a real physical phenomena, not an "arbitrary convention".
The word "definition" only applies to arbitrary conventions
such as "how many holes in a golf course". There is no
such thing as a definitoon of a real object... there is no
such thing as a "definition of the Moon" for instance. There
is only a physical description of the Moon. Same is true
of God... there is no such thing as a "defintion of God"
there is only a "physical description" of God.
Historically this physical description was obtained by
observations of human behavor. Today (Hammond 2003,
peer rev. literature) there is an experimentally measured
and axiomatically explained physcal description of God
(which confirms the historical description by the way).
Claiming there must needs be a "definiton of God" is
one of the oldest anti-religious strategems in the book...
because it is meant to imply that God is an "arbitrary construct"
and not a "real physical phenomena".... it's simply an
anti-religous diatribe.
As some famous theologian exclaimed in exasperation,
"a God defined is a God destroyed". Certainly "the Moon
defined is a Moon destroyed" likewise.
> Your responses were both
> inflamatory and inadequate. Your responses, above, are certainly
> vituperous. So, how about discarding the hypocrisy for a while?
[Hammond]
With all due respect, trying to pull an amateur stunt on me like
claiming I have invented a "definition of God" is the epitome of
a hypocrasy.
====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
====================================
please ask you news server to add:
alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
===================================
|
|
