Re: GOD=G_uv HOW TO MAKE AN INVISIBLE GOD MOVIE

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 10:40:44 +0545, "Kadaitcha Man"
<nospam@****-off-and-die.com> wrote:

>George Hammond, <>, the mangy, pupal horse, and
>postal service worker, threw up:
>
>
>> [Hammond]
>> No. The reason is no one ever needed to
>> prove there was a God.
>
>False. Provably false.
>
>> Like dirty Harry said, make my day.
>
>Kurt Gödel did it. And he did it properly, without flaw, years before you
>dreamed up your bullshit, you insane tit. Here is Kurt Gödel's Ontological
>Proof, choke on it, netnutter:

[Hammond]
Sorry Crapshot, an "ontological" proof is NOT a "scientific" proof.
This is a scientific discussion, not a philawsephy discussion.

"Ontology" is a philosophica subject, not a scientific subject.
Sorry.

Thomas Aquinas published half a dozen ontological "proofs" of
God 700 years ago.... none of them are "sufficient" proofs of God,
scientifically speaking.

On the other hand, Hammond's scientific proo of God IS SUFFICIENT
proof of the EXISTENCE OF GOD.... to two decimal places.

It has been proven experimentally, and published in the peer revfiewed
scientific literature.

See my website for a full explanation.

And quit crossposting to alt.usenet.kooks

========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
=======================================
Join COSA church (Church of the Scientific Advent)
Send a blank email to
and your email address will be added to the
COSA discussion list (free, no obligation)
===========================
and please ask your news service to add:
alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
===========================

George Hammond

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 12:41:33 +0545, "Kadaitcha Man"
<nospam@****-off-and-die.com> wrote:


killfile: "Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@****-off-and-die.com>

George Hammond

"George Hammond" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
> [Hammond]
> Sorry Crapshot, an "ontological" proof is NOT a "scientific" proof.
> This is a scientific discussion, not a philawsephy discussion.
>

You wouldnt recognise science if it smashed you in the face.


> On the other hand, Hammond's scientific proo of God IS SUFFICIENT
> proof of the EXISTENCE OF GOD.... to two decimal places.
>

Only two decimal places. Very poor showing. Interesting terminology, it has
been a while since I saw some one claim a scientific proof to x decimal
places. Infact, you are the main person who has done it.

Often I have seen the term "two significant figures" used but not two
decimal places. Are you still in school George?

> It has been proven experimentally, and published in the peer revfiewed
> scientific literature.

Vanity press.

> See my website for a full explanation.

Ha.

> And quit crossposting to alt.usenet.kooks

Is that only something you are allowed to do? Crackpot.

T Wake