|
|
Posted by George Hammond on 10/11/05 06:46
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 10:40:44 +0545, "Kadaitcha Man"
<nospam@fuck-off-and-die.com> wrote:
>George Hammond, <ghammond1@earthlink.net>, 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 COSAchurch@hotmail.com
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
===========================
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|