NOTE: New readers unfamiliar with the scientific proof of
God under discussion here
may read a short introduction
posted at:
http://oocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/spog-intro.html
or a more complete description at my website, URL listed at
bottom of post.
=============================================================
Posted to: alt.sci.proof-of-god and soc.religion.islam
Hamid Aziz wrote:
[Aziz 10-24]
Dear George Hammond,
Thanks for taking the time to answer.
Things are clear now and I see where the problem lies.
[Hammond 10-24]
With all due respect, such a statement indicates a
considerable underestimation of the problem at hand.
Here is my reply :-
"George Hammond" <ghammond@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3BD5A66C.D8F89BBB@mediaone.net...
Altway wrote: Re: George Hammond's Introduction to The
Scientific Proof of God
[Aziz 10-22]
Objections to THE SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD (SPOG)
This theory rests on the following premises:-
That there is correspondence between physical
and psychological space - both
are 3 dimensional. That the 3 dimensional human brain
is not fully grown, but functions at about 85%. There
is a Secular Trend which has caused the brain to grow
owing to better nutrition. This growth is due to Quantum
Gravity - it is the fourth factor which causes or is the
curvature of psychological space as Gravity is of physical
space. Reality is produced by the function of the brain.
Hammond states:- If the human brain is only 85% grown,
the observer only sees 85% of reality. However, the
other 15% is not totally inactive, it is subconsciously
active, and this power we call "God". In another place
he states:- "This fact then, tells us that if we identify
G4 as "God", that the direct cause of God is in fact
"brain growth".. or to put it more directly, "God is
caused by the missing portion of our brains" (e.g. the
"growth curve deficit").
[Hammond 10-23]
This synopsis is essentially correct, and I believe, the
author of it actually has a fair comprehension of what
the theory says and how it works.
What amazes me, is that I have presented this for 24
months on the Internet, and dozens of PhD's in various
fields including Physics have read it, and never bothered
to comprehend it's logical structure. Why a Koranic
scholar, admittedly not a scientific professional by
training, from another country, is the absolute first
person to bother to sit down and figure it out... is a
circumstance truly amazing to me.
It appears that he, and I apparently, are the only ones
who recognize the social and political significance of a
scientific proof of God vis a vis the current world
situation.
I find this an embarrassment with respect
to Christian scientists and scholars who have been
studiously ignoring, or ridiculing this thing, and are
apparently asleep at the wheel.
[Aziz 10-24]
Comment:-
It is kind of you to think and say so.
[Hammond 10-24]
I am making every attempt to keep this discussion
on a formally polite level.
[Aziz 10-24]
But the problem may lie with the way you express
yourself. Most people understand only a particular
system of concepts and cannot translate one into
another. Having studied fairly widely, I am used
to deciphering the statements of all kinds of
people, systems, cults, "isms" often very bizarre
ones.
[Hammond 10-24]
yes the uncanny and bizarre are no stranger to me
either.
My expositional style is entirely the style of
classical Science and Physics, from beginning to
end. I am a graduate Physicist, well aquatinted
with the world's literature in science, and my
manner of expression is entirely consistent with
that mode of discourse.
[Aziz 10-24]
(Note:- I am not untrained in the sciences and a
study of the Koran can and does, in many cases,
broaden the faculties for perception and insight.)
[Aziz 10-22]
Aziz:-
The following objections can be made to this theory:-
(1) The religious position is that God is the
ultimate self-existing cause and explanation of all
things. God is not caused by anything. Hammond has
invented his own concept of God.
[Hammond 10-23]
No, this is not correct. Physics does not, and never has
claimed that it can explain the a priori existence of reality.
For instance, Physics cannot define mass, length and time.
They can only point to a Brass Cylinder, Platinum Rod, and
Cesium Clock and as for a majority vote as to whether the
majority agrees that "these are specimens of what we call
mass, length and time". The whole of Physics rests on
that majority vote. Physics can only discover the existence
and LAWS of Reality, it cannot explain what causes the
a priori existence of reality.
Religion on the other hand DOES explain the cause of
a priori Reality; it says "God created it".
Now, physics has discovered the existence of mass, length
and time, and likewise, it CAN discover the existence of
God, and it has. In fact, according to Physics, Gravity
is the ultimate scientific cause of God. However, since
Physics makes absolutely no claim to explaining the
a priori existence of thing, we see immediately that this
does NOT conflict with the statement, "God created Gravity
and Physics".
Now, ultimately, the real reason for this is psychological.
There is a difference between "explaining" something, and
"experiencing" something. This is particularly true of
"Reality". this is because Reality must exist before you
can explain it. And, you can only explain it within Reality
itself. Now, if God, loosely speaking, is Reality, we
see that any "explanation" of Reality was obviously created
by God. Therefore, if we posit that the human brain is the
beholder of Reality, and works by Gravity, we have "explained"
the phenomenological cause of God, within Reality, but still,
obviously, God created the explanation because he created
Reality and everything in it.
So there is no conflict between the Religious and
the
Scientific view. Both of them are correct within their
domain of validity. Religion explains the a priori, and
Science explains the LAWS of the a priori. By proving
the LAWS of the a priori, Physics claims to prove the
"existence" of the a priori... therefore Physics CAN
proved the existence of God, even though God created
Physics.
[Aziz 10-24]
Comment:-
Shall we say that there is a verbal or semantic
misunderstanding here, as I suspected from the
beginning? Whereas the statement "God created
Gravity" is a statement of fact, "Gravity is the
cause of God" is a statement about how the scientific
discovery was made? Would it not be less ambiguous
and more accurate to say that "Quantum Gravity (or
Brain Development or the usually dormant portion of
the brain) is the cause of the experience
(or knowledge) of God"? I do not think that you
mean "purpose" by "cause" i.e. "That gravity is the
purpose of God." or that "God created Gravity to
be the cause."
[Hammond 10-24]
There is no need for semantic quibbling here. In fact
exactly what has been discovered is perfectly clear
from a scientific and rational viewpoint.
The phenomenological mechanism of God can in fact
be scientifically discovered and understood. this
in no way is contrary to the proposition that God
is all powerful and supreme.
An explanation of Reality can only be executed
within Reality after Reality has been made to exist.
Therefore, it is obvious that the Creator of Reality
is in fact the creator of his own scientific proof.
Indeed, God obviously created himself (otherwise something
else would be the Creator), therefore I can hardly see
why he should think it difficult or impossible to create
a measly scientific proof of his existence. I see no
logic in the argument.
[Aziz 10-22]
Aziz:-
(2) Some brilliant people have small brains and some
large brains produce nothing useful. It is how the
brain is used which matters. It is the interconnections
which are of greater importance.
[Hammond 10-23]
There is a misunderstanding here. We all know brain size
is caused by TWO things, Genetics, and Growth. We are
concerned here with only the Growth factor, not the genetic
factor. this can be studied using identical twins for
instance, which is done all the time in medicine and
Psychology.
As far as growth being related to intelligence, there is
absolutely no question of that because as we all know, a
person's absolute intelligence starts at zero when he is
conceived, and reaches terminal growth at approximately
age 18. Obviously this is due to brain growth since the
brain starts out weighing zero at conception and grows
to approximately 3-pounds at age 18, and this is obviously
what accounts for the increase in intelligence (mental age)
as a person grows up. In fact, so well known is this,
that a person's absolute intelligence is DIVIDED by his
chronological age (only up to age 18) to correct for
this enormous brain growth. After age 18 they no longer
divide by your age, but simply keep dividing by 18
since people stop growing at age 18.
So, without question, brain growth causes intelligence.
We see it all our lives as we watch children growing up.
[Aziz 10-24]
Comment:-
Is there another misunderstanding here, this time
of the word "growth". This word appears to mean
increase in size alone. I use the word "development"
to indicate all increases, not necessarily in size
alone, but in order and complexity, in the amount
of its capabilities. This development does not stop
at 18, though it slows down.
[Hammond 10-24]
Correct, braingrowth itself continues after age 18 in
the form you suggest (dendrite expansion etc.). it is
the fact of this incremental brain growth that explains
"Miracles" and "acts of God" in the world. this was noticed
millennia ago. Incremental braingrowth, especially if it
is repressed for any length of time, can suddenly burst
on a person and cause a "supernatural" change in Reality.
Every Miracle metaphorically described in the Bible is
in fact one of the se events, either experienced by an
individual, or by a whole group of people who had the
experience in common.
[Aziz 10-24]
In fact, as in most
things, there are phase changes at several stages
in the development of the human being from the
fertilized egg to birth, childhood, adolescence,
adulthood, seniority. This is not unlike water
changing from solid ice to liquid to vapor. Each
phase has its own possibilities.
[Hammond 10-24]
Phase changes are irrelevant. The growth curve deficit,
is largely INHERITED, even though it is not genetic.
Undernourished mothers give birth to low birthweight
babies and the situation can go on for generations.
Royal succession was partly based on the fact that
the GCD (as well as genetics) is inherited. rich
families tend to have low GCD's and this is inherited,
same with poor families.
What this means, is that a caterpillar that transforms
into a butterfly, has virtually the same growth deficit
when he is a caterpillar as when he is a butterfly.
[Aziz 10-22]
(3) There are actually three factors controlling
human development, not two - nature, nurture and
effort. The efforts which human being make causes
new brain connections to be made as do new experiences.
[Hammond 10-23]
Effort would simply come under the heading of
"environmental".. i.e., Nurture. Basically,
everything that is not Genetic is considered
to be "environmental". IOW, there are environmental
circumstances which cause one person to expend a great
deal of effort, while others do not.
[Aziz 10-24]
Comment:-
This is a common mistake made by psychologists.
Human beings differ from animals in being able to
make volitional efforts by reason of which they
can even overcome reflex and instinctive impulses.
(The distinction between animal and man is not
absolute but one of degree.) Though the ability to
make volitional efforts is certainly due to inherent
(genetic) factors modified or channeled by
environmental experiences, the fact is that this
ability can modify both. It can reinterpret both
the data of experience and the inner urges or drives.
(The existence of a third factor not only in psychology
but in all other fields is of great importance and
awareness of this would transform the world view. In
general the interaction between A and C always has
a hidden factor B which is normally ignored in
deterministic systems because its value is normally 1.)
[Hammond 10-24]
No, our "intellectual volitional" abilities are no
more fundamental than an ants "instinctual" abilities
to escape getting stepped on. Relatively speaking,
we are no better off than he is. All "ability" is
irrelevant to the argument that all body determining
forces may be characterized as originating in
either A- Genetics or B- The Environment. What we
"do" about A and B is immaterial to the statement that
only A and B exist.
[Aziz 10-22]
(4) The development of the brain depends on the
interaction of the individual with the whole
environment and his striving to adjust. Not
only on nutrition but on how it is balanced
and utilized. The whole environmental, economic,
social, cultural, educational situation affects it.
The development also depends on the sequence and
structure of the learning experiences. Religions
create influences -ideas, institutions, conditions -
which tend to modify these in order to cause
intentional guided development rather than
accidental random changes, in the same way as
educational systems do.
[Hammond 10-23]
Experts are well aware of all that. There are a bazillion
factors that affect growth. It is simply that historically,
starvation has been the biggest factor, and apparently
still is.
Finally of course, it makes no difference what the
environmental factors are that is causing the Secular Trend,
the point is, they ARE environmental, and NOT Genetic.
[Aziz 10-24]
Comment:-
It is true that severe malnutrition is detrimental.
But so is over indulgence. One causes the stunting
of the required organs and faculties while the other
creates obstructions to their functioning. Experiments
show that the health, vigor and capabilities rise
when food intake is reduced to within certain limits.
Fasting and frugality get rid of poisons etc. Apart
from this there must be a balance between intake and
output - the amount of activity, work, exercise and state of
nervousness and irritability have their effects.
As indicated above I do not think that genetic and
environmental factors are sufficient explanations.
Values on which deliberate conscious actions are
based have their effects. It is perfectly possible
to arrange life in such a way that instead of pursuing
wealth etc. people devote their lives to meditation
and acquiring knowledge. It is possible to arrange a
society in such a way that wealth is taken away from
those who might waste it and given to those who utilize
it to create various enterprises. Indeed, this is how
the progress of civilizations took place.
[Hammond 10-24]
Of course you are entitled to you opinions, but without
empirical evidence and proof, they are merely opinions.
Fact is, Biological science has long ago concluded that
the living organism is controlled by NATURE and NURTURE,
that is: GENETICS and ENVIRONMENT.
Now, if you would like to advance a new speculative
theory claiming the existence of a THIRD principle, you
certainly can, but until you can produce a compelling
scientific proof of the theory, I'm afraid we simply
cannot consider it to be a valid argument.
[Hammond 10-23]
So, irregardless of the causes, the result is a limitation
of physical growth, and therefore the production of a
"growth curve deficit", and it is this growth curve deficit
which causes the existence of God. Now, by that, I mean
that it causes God to partially reside in "Heaven" and
partially to reside on Earth, rather than totally residing
on Earth. If there were no starvation or other adverse
environmental effects causing a limitation of body growth
(particularly brain growth), then we would all be God in
the flesh, and in fact people wouldn't even find a need to
be discussing God, or even give him a name. It is the
fact that 15% of "God" is ungrown, and therefore "invisible"
and therefore living in "Heaven", and constantly descending
to Earth, and overseeing the body, that we even have the
existence of the subject of Religion.
The basic problem is, that the average person doesn't
even know THERE IS a God, and has no idea what it is, or
any idea of why people are acting the way they do, or why
we have wars and crime... and this becomes the major task
of Religion.. to try and educate people about the existence
of God. hopefully the discovery of a scientific proof will
make the job of Religion more powerful and effective than
it has been so far.
[Aziz 10-24]
Comment:-
I understand what you are getting at, but I object
to the terminology you use. We do not use the term
"Allah" is the way you use the word "God". You are
entering into Theology. As I have already indicated
your ideas are incompatible with Islamic Theology.
We do not define God as a man, but as the Self-existing
Creator and Lord of all Existence, the Fundamental
Reality.
[Hammond 10-24]
No, you are clearly wrong here in your Theological
viewpoint. The word "God" is used with numerous
and different connotations depending on which
phenomenon of God one is speaking about.
In the first place, "God" in Christianity is
taken to have the image of a Man ... the bible says
"god made man in his own image". On the other
hand it is obvious that the God of a Giraffe must
look like a Giraffe and the god of a Pig must look
like a Pig. Therefore, when all these species are
taken into account, "God" becomes the universal
physical phenomena common to all life forms. This
is the meaning of the word "Allah" from what you have
told me, although I don't think it takes a genius to
figure it out.
By analogy, a Chevrolet is a "car", and so is
a Ford, which means you can refer to a Chevrolet car,
a Ford car, a Lmabergini car. But also, the word Car,
is used to refer to ALL automobiles also. The same is
true of the world "God". "God" to a rat or a dog means
the perfect rat or the perfect dog. To Man it means a
perfect (but invisible) Man. And yet, used in the
broader context of all animals, and all Life, "God"
is like using the world "Car" to refer to all makes and
models of automobiles at once. Christianity I think
emphasizes the Human appearance of God, whereas islam,
from what you have said, apparently uses "Allah" to
refer to the universal aspect of God common to all living
things... which is the perfected being of his own species,
whether it be a man, and ant, or a blade of Grass.
[Aziz 10-22]
The perfected man is called Insan Kamil. He
is one aware of God and "at one" with Him. He has
Surrendered and is, therefore, an agent (or limb)
of God.
[Hammond 10-24]
Well, this appears to be doctrinal details which i
don't think seriously impact the scientific
proof of God or it's validity. I do not intend to
become a Koranic scholar... or even a Biblical
scholar for that matter. I only need to know what
is necessary to deliver the scientific proof of God
to the human race.
[Aziz 10-24]
The point to be made here is this that if your
ideas continue to be presented in the terminology
you have used then there is no hope of the
understanding you wish for.
[Hammond 10-24]
Unsupported assertion
[Aziz 10-22]
(5) The brain does not create Reality. What it
does is to record the data of experience, process
these and also invent by re-arrangement and
imagination and fantasy. We have to distinguish
between these.
[Hammond 10-23]
Yes, the brain does create Reality. As the Buddhists say,
if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, then
it makes no sound. this is because "sound" is a perception
of the human mind. Vibrating waves in the air are not
"sound", "sound" is what we call our perception of these
vibrations.
Put it this way; if all men died tomorrow, the Universe
as we know it would cease to exist. It would no longer
physically exist. And, in fact, it came into existence
only 40,000 years ago when the first Homo homo sapiens
were born. These first people were named Adam and Eve.
[Aziz 10-24]
Comment:-
I understand all this quite well.
We distinguish between the "Real World" as created by
God and the "Perceived Worlds" as seen by man
according to their degree of consciousness. These
worlds are a mixture of the data of experience,
interpretations and fantasies. They are also known
as Maya or Worlds of Illusion in some systems.
The Buddhists are speaking about the latter.
And as I suspected you have taken the Buddhist
position. This is not the Scientific position.
The Astronomer, Geologist, Biologist. Anthropologist
etc. think they are speaking about the Real World.
[Hammond 10-24]
The Laws of Physics describe the "real world", that is,
the world that "would be" seen by a perfect man.. they
describe the world as seen by God. Man can actually
discover these laws, despite the fact that no human
being can actually see it! In other words, we all agree
that the distance from Boston to new York is 400 miles.
and we all agree that at 40 miles per hour it would
take 10 hours to drive it. However, some people will
tell you "it's a really long drive" and others will
tell you "it's not a long drive". The laws of physics
tell us the relationship between the speedometer, the
clock and the mile markers... and everybody agrees on
that Law. However, some people think 55 mph is "too slow",
and others think it is "as fast as people should drive".
the point is, no one actually "sees" the same speed,
although they "measure" the same speed. Now, the point
is, that poorly developed people invariably think things
are "real fast".. they think the traffic is fast, they
think baseballs move fast, they think ping pong balls
move "fast"... whereas, people with higher development
can drive race cars, hit baseballs and play ping pong,
and things don't look like they are moving all that
fast. even though EVERYBODY agrees that the baseball is
moving exactly 70 miles per hour.
So what is "reality"? Well, reality to one person
is
that 60 miles per hour is "fast", but to another person
60 miles per hour is "not really all that fast". Now,
we know that genetically, some people are faster than others,
just like we know a Maseratti is faster than a Volkswagen.
But if both of them have bad gas in them they will both
experience a 20% reduction in speed... this is what a
"growth deficit" does to people, regardless of genetic
differences. So, assuming genetics is parceled out of
the picture, say identical twins, the one with the LARGER
growth deficit is going to see the world moving FASTER
than the other twin.
To sum up, al people agree on measurements of "absolute
reality"... i.e. that it is 400 miles from Boston to new york.
what they disagree on is whether 400 miles is a large distance
or a small distance. What does this mean? it means
that no
two people are seeing absolute reality, and not only that,
they are seeing different SPEEDS and MAGNIFICATIONS of
reality, in exact CORRESPONDENCE the the speed and magnification
that has happened to their body as a result of their growth
deficit.
Hence, there is "absolute reality" which is defined as the
world that a 100% grown person would see, and God sees, and then
there is RELATIVE REALITY which is what any given individual sees.
and no two individuals see exactly the same reality. Because
of the growth curve deficit, we are all living in different worlds.
[Aziz 10-24]
Is it your assertion that all science is true only at
this subjective level? That truth is to be defined as
what a person believes?
[Hammond 10-24]
All people believe it is 400 miles from boston to
New York. That is called scientific reality. However,
whether 400 miles is considered to be a "great distance",
"a medium distance" or a "short distance" depends on the
person's individual perception of distance. IOW, he
can see a 1-foot ruler and see that the room is 12 times
that length.... everybody sees that. But, subjectively,
whether a ruler looks "long" or "short" to him, all other
things being equal, depends on his growth curve deficit.
[Aziz 10-24]
Or is it socially defined
as the consensus of a set of people? i.e. That there
was no Big Bang until discovered by Astronomers and there
was agreement between them? Certainly, the Big Bang
theory did not exist before. But does it not refer
to something that happened in the real world before man?
If not, then we must suppose that your Theory cannot
be true about the Real World either. It was invented
by you a few years ago. Nor will it be true for
anyone who does not accept it. Nor is there any
necessity that anyone should accept it. There is no
external criterion of Truth. Man is the arbiter of
Truth.
[Hammond 10-24]
God is the arbiter of truth. However, only a full
grown man without a growth deficit has all his
faculties and can see the world through the eyes
of God. therefore, in the meantime, since there is no
perfect Man, God on Earth, no one can speak the absolute
truth because no one can see true reality. Generally
we rely on the average opinion of the majority, and
this is influenced heavily by low growth deficit
people who we nominate as elected leaders because
they have a better vision of true reality.
[Aziz 10-24]
This is, of course, wholly unacceptable to Islam
because it requires the recognition of a reality
greater than man and requires man to submit to it.
[Hammond 10-24]
the theory shows clearly that god is greater than
man, because there is no full grown man on earth and
there never has been. Even when there is, he will
not be equal to god in the general sense, since
"god' in the general sense means the God of all living
things... i.e., god in that sense is a principle,
not a living being. there is absolutely not one
iota of conflict between Islam and this theory, or
between this theory and ANY OTHER major religion
of the world. You are in error.
[Hammond 10-23]
Obviously "the World as we know it" could not have
existed before them, because the H.s.s. brain did not
exist before them. this is called "Creation" in the
Bible, Torah, and Koran.
The "World", even time itself, past present and future,
all the million year old fossils, the Moon and the Sun,
were "instantly created" the instant the first Homo
Sapiens Sapiens (modern man) was born 40,000 years ago,
and DID NOT EXIST before that moment, because the brain
upon which there existence depends, did not exist.
to say that they were "really there" but we weren't
here, is nonsense... it speaks "as if" we were there.
But in fact we weren't, so therefore "it" wasn't there
either. This BTW is what the Fundamentalists and the
Creationists are talking about, and, as far as science
is concerned, they are absolutely correct. Naturally,
by this explanation, Evolution is ALSO correct, but
nevertheless "Creation" is absolutely scientifically
correct also. The Bible, the Koran and the Torah
are scientifically correct.
what it comes down to is an argument over the relative
IMPORTANCE of Creation in comparison to Evolution. And
that is where conventional scientific wisdom is making
a tragic blunder. As of right now, science does not recognize
the existence of God, not does it recognize the existence
of Creation. They are scientifically wrong on both counts,
and of course, the IMPORTANCE of God in society is of
the highest importance, as current events are now making
abundantly clear.
[Aziz 10-24]
Comment:-
Religious Scriptures are concerned with the Spirit (i.e.
consciousness, conscience and will). Without consciousness
there can be nothing for a person, not the world, nor
himself. These scriptures also tell us that man was made
spiritually perfect, but Fell. He "died" spiritually and
has to be "resurrected".
[Hammond 10-24]
there is no doubt that the animals are purer
than Man since Man is more sophisticated.
so, from this we may gather that in the early
days of Man we were probably less sinful.
Obviously, once the means of mass destruction,
and mass exploitation became available, great
sin became possible.... this was certainly a Fall
of Man from which we are still recovering. other
than that, generally speaking the "Fall of Man"
is more of an academic issue than a practical one
that concerns the general public... sort of like
arguing how many Angels can sit on the head of
a pin.... Clerics may find this interesting, but
you can hardly interest humanity outside of the
cloister with it.
[Aziz 10-24]
This is a process of evolution.
But when the Scripture speak about Creation it is not only
referring to (a) the rise of human consciousness in
historical time, but also (b) to the spiritual awakening
of the individual at any time, and (c) to about the
Objective Creation of the Universe. The Universe is the
arising into Universal or God's Consciousness. There is
a correspondence between these three, and the other two
depend on the first.
[Hammond 10-24]
These are merely interpretational and doctrinal matters
in which I see no real issue vis a vis the scientific
proof of God.
[Aziz 10-24]
The Universe itself from the big bang to the creation
of the earth may be regarded as a Fall or Descent,
involution. The whole process of evolution on
earth may be regarded as the Ascent. These two
processes may also depend on each other.
[Hammond 10-24]
The Big Bang marks the beginning of EVOLUTION, it
DOES NOT mark the beginning of CREATION. The
Big Bang happened 10 Billion years ago, Creation
(God's Biblical Creation) occurred 40,000 years ago.
That's a big difference.
[aziz 10-22]
(6)There is a distinction between (a) real things,
(b)what we experience and (c) the description
created by science. (c) < (b) <(a) (note: < means
less than).
[Aziz 10-24]
(7) The idea that there is a limit to the development
of the brain or its function with respect to which you
can measure deficits is absurd. It is assumed that
Evolution must end when the missing 15% is attained.
[Hammond 10-24]
No, no, no. evolution does NOT STOP when Man
reaches 100% growth. there is a "lead time"
between Evolution and Growth. The percentage
of growth is "catching up" to Evolution. this
DOES NOT MEAN that evolution will stop when
growth catches up to it. Evolution will continue
forever, as long as the world and the environment
keeps changing, so will evolution keep progressing
in order to keep up with it. Evolution will
continue on as usual even after Kingdom Come
arrives.
[Hammond 10-23]
As Botanists know, there are some crop plants, flowers,
and even isolated stands of trees that are genetically
identical. They are all descended from the same original
plant. In the wild, it is known that they will grow
to many different heights and weights simply because
some are in poor soil, some don't get enough water
or sunlight etc. etc. Now, if you took some of these
identical plants and put then in an absolutely totally
controlled ideal environment, and grew many hundreds of
generations in this perfect environment, eventually (since
they are all genetically identical to begin with) you
would get a complete crop of "full grown" plants, all
very very near the same identical size. This the biologists
refer to generally as the "genetic size" of the plant.
Now obviously, plants in the wild subjected to starvation,
drought, etc. etc., never reach this full "genetic size"
because of adverse detriment to their growth. This
DIFFERENCE, is called a "growth curve deficit".
People are the same way. of course while you might
be
able to engineer an "ideal environment" for something
as simple as a plant, it is impossible to engineer an
"ideal environment' for something as complex as a human
being... in fact, that is what we are trying to do by
building the world... and it's taking us thousands and
thousands of years. But the PRINCIPLE is the same.
There is in fact, a visible, "growth curve deficit" in
human beings. Obviously, when we get our "ideal
environment" completed, thousands of years in the future,
we will all grow up to be perfect human beings with no
"growth deficit"... just like hot house Roses.
[Aziz 10-24]
Comment:-
Yes I understand what you mean.
We function at below our present physiological
possibilities.
[Hammond 10-24]
Yes... or as the Theologians put it, God remains
in Heaven, and is still on his way down here.
[Aziz 10-24]
The point I am trying to make is that
even if we reach the present potential there are
still further possible levels of evolution.
[Hammond 10-24]
Yes, I have just explained that above.
[Aziz 10-24]
I have
also indicated that there are phase changes in
functioning. Religion speaks about the perfection
of the soul. Human beings have been physiologically
the same, hardly different from apes, for hundreds
of thousands years.
[Hammond 10-24]
No, we have been constantly growing. the entire
human race is almost 6-inches taller than it was
500 years ago, and this is NOT genetic. It is
a pure reduction in an awful historical growth
curve deficit.
[Aziz 10-24]
But changes in thinking, culture
and technology have happened. There have been phase
changes in consciousness, in world views.
[Hammond 10-24]
God is not an "idea" any more than puberty, menopause
or adolescence are "ideas". God is a physical condition
of the human body, particularly the brain.
[Aziz 10-22]
(8) There is no agreement on what Intelligence tests
measure. Some people simply define intelligence as that
which Intelligence Tests measure! There are a great
number of abilities and people score differently on these
different tests. A person "A" may score well on Test 1
but miserably on Test 2, while Person "B" may do the
reverse. Speed is not the only criterion and itself
may depend on interest, predisposition, presence of
pre-requisites, or on patience. A person taking half
an hour of effort achieves more than a person who could
do it in 10 minutes but does not. Prejudices,
addictions, habits, expectations, phobias, obsessions
and so on interfere with performances.
[Hammond 10-23]
Experts in the subject are well well aware of all this.
In fact experts do not use "IQ", they use what they
call "psychometric g". You've probably heard the term since
a number of controversial books have been written about
it including _The Bell Curve_ for instance. Anyway, "g"
unlike "IQ" has a great deal of the educational and
cultural components of "IQ" parceled out of it.
Modern research in the past 40 years HAS determined
that the principle biological component of "g" is in fact
Mental Speed. Using computer graphics programs and
push buttons connected to millisecond timers, they can
measure how long it takes for a person to recognize a picture
and make a decision etc. This Decision Time (DT) is
directly related to the information processing speed of
your brain in bits/second, and this measure has been found
to correlate highly with actual test measure of a persons
IQ (or rather, g). there is very little question that
"Intelligence" is predominantly Mental Speed, which is of
course in line with the common observation that retarded
people are "slow".
But more importantly, the SPOG does not depend crucially
on the accuracy of IQ measurements... it doesn't depend
crucially on any one piece of scientific data... it is
enormous and comprehensive and only based on the most
ROBUST scientific findings. it is the overall comprehensiveness
and total internal logical consistency, and the overwhelming
completeness of the theory, and the enormous expanse of
data which supports it, that makes it a "proven" theory.
[Aziz 10-24]
Comment:-
I am aware of these psychological experiments.
I have no doubt that speed does come into it. But I
am not convinced that it is the whole story. Research
is continuing and I do not make assumptions about what
"will be discovered", but only that we have less
than all facts. In other words, the same "brain growth
deficit" is also responsible for this.
[Hammond 10-24]
of course we do not have all the facts. i'm just
saying, that as of right now, we have sufficient
evidence and axiomatic theory to prove the existence
of God beyond a reasonable scientific doubt.
[Aziz 10-22]
(9) God is not understood as the superman except by few.
[Hammond 10-23]
Christians, DO believe that god can appear in the
flesh, since that's who they believe jesus Christ
was.... "the incarnation of God". Jesus, in
Christianity is the MODEL of perfected Man, who
is in fact, god in the flesh. True, other religions
are more cautious on this point, but nevertheless,
Mohammed, Buddha, and even Moses are considered "divine"
in the other Religions. A belief in the "perfectibility"
of Man, is after all the driving force behind religious
faith itself. Turns out, that this faith has now
been proven to be wholly scientifically justified indeed.
[Hammond 10-24]
Comment:-
I did write that some believe it. But you are
entering into Theology where language is symbolic.
This is a question of how you define God. Hindus
have many gods, Pharaohs and Caesars were regarded
as gods. You have your definition. And so on. Jesus
himself never claimed to be God but defined the "sons
of God" as those to were led by the Spirit of God
and obeyed the word of God. However, I do not want
to get into this controversy here - I have dealt with
this adequately elsewhere.
[Hammond 10-24]
Again, you are simply oblivious as to the actual details of the
theory. of course the hindus have many Gods, and the Greco-Roman
pantheon had 13 Gods, and so did the Egyptians.... you simply
have not read my website. Fact is, this discovery presents
a
stunning scientific explanation of all this, which you may
read on my website as one of the FAQ's entitled:
Why some religions have many Gods?
at: http://oocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/ManygodsFAQ.html
there you will find a detailed scientific discovery of why
it is that the Hindu religion has 50-gods, the Greco-Roman
pantheon had 13 gods, why Christianity recognizes
Matt-Mark-Luke-John etc. etc... And all of this has been discovered
and measured by psychometry to 2-decimal places. All of the
Gods and Demigods of every religion have been experimentally
measured and theoretically explained. you are simply criticizing
ad hoc a theory which you haven't even read.
[Aziz 10-22]
We do recognize brilliant minds of people like
Einstein but do not consider them gods. They
may be quite incompetent in other directions.
Geniuses might be unbalanced. A highly intelligent
person might well be a psychopath or master
criminal.Those who have greater perception as
well as virtue and ability are known as saints
or Prophets or Messengers of God.
[Hammond 10-23]
It is not hard to see that the leaders of our
World, both Secular and Religious, are in fact
people with LOW Growth Curve Deficits. Genetics
aside, it is a low growth curve deficit which
qualifies a King, a President, a Sports Star,
a CEO, a Movie Star, a 5-Star General. It is
the biggest, the healthiest, the most magnificent
who are nominated to lead... because it is exactly
what they have that all men want them to lead
us to- God.
[Aziz 10-24]
Comment:-
>From what I can see most of the leaders and heroes
are Psychopaths.
[Hammond 10-24]
That opinion is rejected by the world majority population.
[Aziz 10-24]
(10) Brain development is not a cause of God,
[Hammond 10-23]
Unsupported assertion. The scientific evidence is
OVERWHELMING that it is. In fact, it can be, and
has been, proven beyond a significant scientific doubt.
[Aziz 10-24]
Comment:-
We have been through this before.
[Hammond 10-24]
GH: So have I.
We do not define or describe God as having been
caused by anything, but as the Self-existing cause
of everything.
[Hammond 10-24]
GH: So do I.
[Aziz 10-24]
is is supported by the Torah and
Quran which came by revelation (i.e. through the
function of the other 15% of the brain in your theory.)
[Hammond 10-24]
GH: Correct.
[Aziz 10-24]
If Access to Reality is proportional to the quality
of the brain, then it these Prophets or Religious
Teachers who are most aware of what is real.
[Hammond 10-24]
GH: Yes, the fact of their superior brain development
is artistically rendered by drawing a
Nimbus (Halo)
over their heads in religious art.
[Aziz 10-22]
Aziz:-
nor is Quantum Gravity. But they might be regarded
as actions of God, and, therefore, manifestations of
God just as change in motion is a manifestation of
a force.
[Hammond 10-23]
Hammond:-
> This point has been answered above.
[Aziz 10-24]
Comment:-
And refuted or amended above.
[Hammond 10-24]
No, scientific arguments supported by experimental
evidence can never be refuted by philosophical arguments.
[Aziz 10-24]
However, thanks for your explanation. There
seems to be an insurmountable difference here
between us, about the nature of reality and truth.
[Hammond 10-24]
I see nothing insurmountable about them.
Whether they can be surmounted by academic
discussion, or whether I will have to
appeal to world opinion by publishing a
book, is the only remaining mystery.
Finally, lest anyone reading this get the false impression
that this discussion pretty much covers the whole ground
of the discovery and theory, let me correct that erroneous
impression. The scientific proof of God does claim that the
Secular Trend is the basic phenomenon causing God, however,
the PROOF of that statement involves the results of 100 years
of published Psychometry eigenvector geometry and the theory
of General Relativity... NONE OF WHICH has even been mentioned
in this discussion, due to the inquirers unfamiliarity with
the subjects.
Despite this, I am deeply grateful to the effort and
responsibility which Professor Aziz has made on behalf of
those even less able to investigate the matter. He has already
rendered a valuable public service to humanity and the cause
of world justice and human progress... and the will of
God and Allah.
--
H. S. Aziz
More on http://www.altway.freeuk.com
--
Be sure to visit my website below
=======================================================
GEORGE HAMMOND'S-
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://oocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
=======================================================