George Hammond wrote:
> "Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
> message news:avffj0h05mq2nj0gu7bc3dca6p3aher202@4ax.com...
>
>
>> >[Hammond]
>> >Just another screwball like Bob Ford who thinks he can
>> >make a name for himself by taking a shot at Jesse James.
>> >Every poster to this thread sounds like Bob Ford. Probably
>> >even look like him.
>>
>> And you are probably as good a physicist and psychologist as Jesse
>> James. (Actually probably not.)
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matt Silberstein
>
> [Hammond]
> Yeah... but I can't believe this passes for
> adult conversation.
>
> Here I've discovered and experimentally proven that:
>
> ----------------Proof of God----------------------
> 1. Physics detects actual physical reality.
> 2. But Man can only SEE sensory reality.
> 3. Hammond has discovered that sensory
> (visible) reality is a CURVED VERSION
> of physical reality. This Curvature (G_uv)
> produces a large "supernatural" difference
> between the two, and this phenomena is what
> we call "God". Hence we say: God=G_uv.
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> This single equation God=G_uv explains and proves:
>
> 1. Why God is an invisible man
> 2. How God rules the world
> 3. Why there is monotheism and polytheism
> 4. The explanation of miracles
> 5. Why Heaven exists and what it is
> 6. What Eternal Life is
> 7. What "kingdom come" is
> 8. Why the Genesis Creation is true
> 9. The scientific origin of the Cross
> 10. Who Adam and Eve were
> 11. Why the 4-Gospel Canon exists
> 12. How both the Big Bang and
> Biblical Creation are correct
> 13. Why both Evolution and Creationism
> are scientifically correct.
> 14. What the "end of the World" is.
George,
You are very good at spitting out your enumerated arguments and list of Web
sites where you dumped your arguments in a commercial-like way.
No doubt there are people out there who are not educated enough to justify
the existence of their God. I know some people that fall under this
category. They look for 'the brainiac' who is going to do the work for
them. They happily show people your page but they have insufficient
understanding to say 'I think this guy only makes a lot of noise and speaks
the mumbo-jumbo'.
The media, likewise, wants to deliver the title 'scientific proof of God' to
some people out there. They couldn't care less if there is good backing to
this 'proof'; they just want it to make a buck.
So... nice propaganda, Mr. Hammond. Well done. But only fools will buy it.
--
Roy Schestowitz
http://schestowitz.com
|