Note: This URL cites my name 8 times and claims to be a satire based on my work:
http://www.internetactivist.org/FSM/essay3.htmlGeorge Hammond wrote:The above URL is an example of the more softcore variety (or perhaps mentally challenged variety), of pseudo critical / pseudo intellectual attack.
Armitage: The above was pure satire. It wasn't pseudo anything.
[Hammond]
It is certainly pseudo intellectual being manifestly written by a dull and boring person. In order to write satire one must have the wit of a Voltaire not the wit of a Burger King employee. As for Voltaire, even 40 years later it makes me shudder with laughter merely recalling Candide's female companion complaining in one scene of having one of her buttocks cut off to feed some hungry men. In a fiendish world like ours, such acerbic wit serves as a genuine reassurance that not all is ignorance in high places.
Armitage: This discussion seems to have gotten out of hand a little bit as far as aggression and such goes, so here are some questions that I think will make things a bit clearer for everyone and hopefully bring us to a more meaningful place as far as communication is concerned.
[Hammond]
I applaud your efforts to raise the level of this discussion to something more fitting a moderated Philosophy forum. I am so appreciative of your efforts that I hereby take the pledge not to utter one further sentence which would not be acceptable in the highest court of Philosophical debate... say an academically moderated and publicly televised discussion symposium. Once more I deeply appreciate and second your motion and further appreciate the professionalism of your questions below, to which I will now reply:
Armitage: These are addressed to Mr. Hammond.
1.Can the universe be explained in merely physical terms?
[Hammond]
Yes. In fact the only thing in the Universe which heretofore could not be explained in physical terms was God and now it turns out that even God can be explained in physical terms. So therefore, the answer to your question is an unequivocal YES.
2.Does God give us any basis for morality?
[Hammond]
Without question the answer is yes. In fact the SPoG that I have published proves that evil is punished and good is rewarded pure and simple.
The mechanism for this is straightforward. Behind the scenes in all human activity is the constant impetus to unleash the power of our unconscious mind and bring it on line. As my theory shows this is tantamount to converting some of the “ungrown” brain into grown brain. While this is an exceedingly slow process, unleashing “pent up” brain growth (called Repression by the psychologists) is an ever at hand possibility which the mind is constantly working on. Either of these two mechanisms constitutes a miraculous physical change in reality when it happens.
It turns out that among other things it is your conscience, as well as the judgment of others, that is the arbiter of this transformation. If you are a bad person, these psychological forces will block the transformation process and vice versa, if you are good, it enhances the process. This is the physical explanation, and indeed the physical mechanism, by which God rules the world and rewards the good and punishes the evil. Thus the commandment to righteous moral behavior is a real physical one and obviously this power is absolute and from which there is no appeal.
3.How is your theory different from one that proposes to have discovered what the metaphor of "God" really represents? (i.e. how is your version of God a phenomenon in itself rather than something that earlier people used to illustrate or explain away ideas that were beyond them?)
[Hammond]
I'm not sure I entirely understand this question. But in the first place, it is positively proven that the phenomenon of "God" is caused by a Curvature (e.g. a speeding and magnifying) of subjective spacetime (reality) caused by the human Secular Trend in brain growth. Therefore, the phenomenon of God as reported in world religion has now been proven to be a
real physical phenomenon. That certainly answers the first part of your question.
The second part of your question has me a bit mystified. In the first place, people noticed the phenomenon of God many thousands of years ago (cf. the Old Testament). They observed that the phenomena of God existed, but they could never scientifically
prove it. All I'm contributing to this age old dilemma is that I have discovered the missing scientific proof. My discovery proves that
"God" is in fact a stand alone real physical phenomenon in and of itself.
4.Why is your monotheistic God the Christian God rather than say, Brahma or Allah or Aton or something that we haven't invented a concept for yet?
[Hammond]
This is an easy question. My discovery proves that all of the 5 major monotheistic faiths namely: Christianity , Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism, are all worshipping
one and the same God. Why; because there is only ONE physical phenomenon causing the observed phenomenon of a supreme deity. Therefore the God of all monotheistic religions must be the
same God. It's as simple as that! Interestingly, this also goes for the ancient and now extinct Egyptian religion, where Ra or Aton, the Sun God, was the symbol of the "supreme deity" and which was what we simply call "God" today.
Needless to say the discovery of this scientific fact provides a stunning new basis for the ecumenical unification of the world's religions. The impact of such a global unification on world peace and the reduction of international conflict, to say nothing of the advancement of world Democracy and the reduction of tyranny can be nothing less than historic.
5. Here is the big one that I don't feel has been sufficiently answered(probably partially due to the awkwardness of my attempt to state it):
If I understand you correctly, we experience God because of the structure of our physical makeup. We experience optical illusions for the same reason. When science tackles the question of optical illusions, take for example the grid that makes you think you see dots that aren't really there, science explains why we experience the dots, but does not say that the existence of the dots is proven. How is your theory different?
[Hammond]
To say that God is an "optical illusion" or a "hallucination" is a very weak analogy although it is certainly related... hence the perennial fascination we have with such phenomena. The same explains out fascination with
slow-motion photography, a fun-house
curved mirror, or a simple
magnifying glass. All of these "optical illusions" register on our unconscious mind as being somehow related to the phenomenon of "God", and
they are.
In fact when I first discovered that God was caused by a Curvature of subjective spacetime, I immediately leapt to the conclusion that it would actually be possible to "see Heaven" by programming virtual reality devices such that you could "uncurve" our vision of the world and actually see Heaven in all it's glory.
Turns out it's not that simple because there is a practically
non-computational piece of the puzzle that has no immediately simple solution. It turns out that the human persona, including particularly facial expression, reacts in a complicated fashion, and differently in almost each individual case, to the amount of Curvature (i.e. speeding and magnifying) that the individual person sees. This means that when your braingrowth deficit decreases (say due to the unleashing of psychological repression); that not only does the world slow down and get smaller, but everybody's
facial expression and persona, their visible identity actually changes. So far, the only possible way to capture this visually is by the hand of an accomplished artist ! This of course is why the Mona Lisa is worth 500 million dollars, or why even a landscape like Velasquez's View of Toledo is worth a fortune. They are visual renderings of God and Heaven, which until now, no technological process could even begin to emulate. The appearance of any person, or even anything manmade completely changes in character with a change in brain growth and even the smallest transformation of the unconscious mind into conscious mind. (this is called "revelation" or even "a miracle" by the Church btw)
Now I predict, that once this theory becomes known and the applied scientists have a look at it, that YES they will rapidly make headway towards solving this technical hurdle, and YES, someday we will have virtual reality computers and devices which will allow us to
see Heaven. Not only that, such devices will entirely transform the profession of Psychiatry. No longer will you have to listen for hours to an analyst trying to explain to you what a personality transformation is. No, in the future they will simply put a helmet on your head with virtual reality eyeglasses and headset and they will SHOW YOU what your new reality is going to look like and what your new persona is going to look like. And believe me, that is going to be a more thrilling , meaningful, and fascinating experience than movies, t.v. and optical illusions combined ever were! To say nothing of creating a billion dollar industry and practically eradicating the burden of mental health losses.
My best regards, George Hammond
===================================
HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com Casey Bennetto mp3 God=G_uv folk song:
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3==================================
