GOD = RELATIVISTIC ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE

On Apr 20, 11:53 pm, George Hammond wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 16:03:06 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist

wrote:

[Hammond]
Fact is, the "Anthropic Principle" simply says:
"observables exist because observers exist". After all, it
doesn't take rocket science to figure out that if there was
no such thing as an observer, then there would be no such
thing as observables; since the testimony of observers is
the ONLY WAY we know that the observables exist.

[Immortalist]
If a system observable is a property of the system state that can be
determined by some sequence of physical operations and if there was no
such thing as an observer, then it is not determined that there would
or would not be such things as observables even if the testimony of
observers is the ONLY WAY we know that the observables exist since
whether there is or is not someone existing doesn't determine
determinability and the possibility of abstract thought processes
whether they exist or not.

[Hammond]
Immortalist, thanks for your refreshing post. Out of 11
posts to this target article so far, you are the ONLY ONE
who has attempted to say something on topic. However, you
have COIMPLETELY missed the point!
You have FAILED to distinguish between two fundamentally
DIFFERENT cases:

CASE 1:
If I turn my back and look the other way,
does the Moon still exist?
(correct answer, YES)

CASE 2:
If the human race never existed or became
totally EXTINCT, would the Moon "exist".
(correct answer, NO)

I am talking about CASE 2, not CASE 1 for christ's sake.
The Biblical Creation, and "God", are explained by
CASE 2 and not by CASE 1. And the Anthropic Principle
applies to CASE 2, not CASE 1, for Heaven's sake!
Please get up to speed... do a little thinking before you
try and argue with me.... the best minds in Science are
convinced of the truth of the Anthropic Principle, ya know,
including Stephen Hawking and the late great John Wheeler as
well as the entire scientific community.
=====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================

Here's your scientific proof of God, Hammond: God and the Universe
are identical.

George Hammond writes:

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 16:36:21 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

George Hammond writes:

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:14:08 -0700, Uncle Al
wrote:

Hindus have 36 crores of gods - 360 million deities. How is India
doing, Georgie boy?

Idiot.

[Hammond]
The SPOG explains and PROVES why there are 30 demigods in
Hindii; because there are 30 first order eigenvectors in
Psychometric correlation matricess, worldwide .

Can't you read? Uncle Al wrote that Hinduism has 360 million deities,
not just 30.


His statement is manifestly absurd, there aren't 360
million names in the Human Language.

Uncle Al never claimed that they all had names known to Hinduism.

On the other hand there ARE 30 eigenvectors in every
comprehensive Psychometric correlation matrix, so there
CERTAINLY ARE 30 "DEMIGODS" in Religion;

The Vedic pantheon alone puts Hinduism over 30 gods. And they have names
since that seems to be important to you. So what good is your proof that
2+2=12345?

scientifically speaking.

Wrong, of course.

The SPOG fully proves the (rational) part of his
statmment (30 demigods) is correct (and they all have names
and faces)....

well I guess "he" can't count very well.

The ancient Greek and Roman religions had well over 30 gods each as well.

On Apr 21, 8:08 am, Jerry Kraus wrote:
On Apr 20, 4:55 pm, "ShivverMeTimbers"
wrote:



You cant see the forest for the trees.
You are looking at humanity through an electron microscope.

The only goal of any religion is to control all humanity
on the Earth and if possible the Entire Universe.

Science is an evolutionary step above Religion
but has been dominated by religion for religious ends.

Maybe one day Raw Science will recognize the HUMAN as
being a sacred animal then we can eliminate religion
all together and together we can understand
the universe in a nice and comfortable way.

Religion is ancient forms of Government that originated
prior to the Scientific Methodology.
We alive today are doomed to suffer because it will not die easily.
It seeks control by overpopulation as well as force and deception.

It ( the religious ) used to use poison to murder non-religious persons
until the 1800s when forensic science came along
and could hold such people accountable.
The crime of poisioning was punished in Roman times
by feeding the offender to the wild beast.

Religion is a sort of weapon of mass destruction
invented by ancient philosophers.
There have been einsteins all through history.
But no weapon guilty of taking so many lives prematurely as Religion.
This weapon was detonated maybe 2000 years ago and
its echos are still here today and quite some
time into the future.
Religion is little more than a Computer Like virus
infecting the human mind and transferred to the
humans with child like minds from one generation to the next.
At the time only some persons without religious contact during
the first stage of their lives are immune to being infected.

Whether you call it Christian, Moslum or Jew or Witch
or Hari Khrishna or Scientology or Mental Health.
it is all the same thing to me.

Dark Star 1970s [ Bomb # 21 ]

In China and India no clear distinction is made between literature,
science, philosophy and literature. They are all ways of
representing and understanding reality. The emphasis might differ a
bit -- more introspection in one, perhaps, more observation in another
-- but, essentially, they are using similar methods to achieve similar
goals.

In the West, they are often intimately related as well -- the modern
scientific method is derived from the activities of analytical
theologians such as Saint Thomas Aquinas and the medaeval scholastics,
who sought to find a higher unity in nature through the concept of
"theory" -- from "Theos", or "God".

"Theory" doesn't come from "Theos", it comes from "Theoria" meaning "A
viewing", or "contemplating", from "Theor" (view).

Many scientists have been religious, true, and many others have been
denounced or persecuted by religious organisations/authories (e.g.
galileo, darwin).

It annoys me when religion tries to take credit for science. Science
and religion are two separate means of gaining knowledge. Science is
better. Some people practice both.

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 19:37:14 -0700 (PDT), darwinist
wrote:

On Apr 21, 8:08 am, Jerry Kraus wrote:
On Apr 20, 4:55 pm, "ShivverMeTimbers"
wrote:


[Jerry Kraus]
In the West, they are often intimately related as well -- the modern
scientific method is derived from the activities of analytical
theologians such as Saint Thomas Aquinas and the medaeval scholastics,
who sought to find a higher unity in nature through the concept of
"theory" -- from "Theos", or "God".


[Darwinist]
"Theory" doesn't come from "Theos", it comes from "Theoria" meaning "A
viewing", or "contemplating", from "Theor" (view).


[Hammond]
Darwin is right about the Greek etymology of the word
"theory" as any dictionary will confirm.
However, I am rather persuaded by Kraus's suspicion that
there is in fact a (much more ancient) connection between
the definition "to look at" and the word "God". My bet is
the world "theos" is actually anciently derived from the
word "thoria" (to view, or look at). My hunch is based on
the fact that the phenomenon of "God" is essentially, and
mainly, a (seemingly supernatural" or transcendental)
"visual phenomenon". IOW the word "God" may have originally
referred to the seemingly supernatural and transcendental
nature of human perception, especially the perception of
other peoples' identities.



Many scientists have been religious, true, and many others have been
denounced or persecuted by religious organisations/authories (e.g.
galileo, darwin).


[Hammond]
According to my knowlege there has never been a scientist
of any note who had the slightest clue as to what God is,
perhaps with the exception of DesCartes. Both Newton, and
Einstein had very elementary understandings of what the
phenomenon of "God" actually is.
Newton for the most part merely quoted the religious
opinions of others. Einstein wasn't even aware that there
is an anthropomorphic God and believed in Spinoza's quite
ignorant Stoic pantheism.

It annoys me when religion tries to take credit for science. Science
and religion are two separate means of gaining knowledge. Science is
better. Some people practice both.


[Hammond]
Horse****... Science by definition is capable of
explaining any "physical phenomenon" including "God". What
most people don't realized is that the "phenomenon of God"
is a Relativistic perceptual phenomenon. Religion is
Relativistic Psychology you might call it.


=====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================

On Apr 20, 9:53*pm, George Hammond wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 16:03:06 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist



wrote:

[Hammond]
* *Fact is, the "Anthropic Principle" simply says:
"observables exist because observers exist". *After all, it
doesn't take rocket science to figure out that if there was
no such thing as an observer, then there would be no such
thing as observables; since the testimony of observers is
the ONLY WAY we know that the observables exist.

[Immortalist]
If a system observable is a property of the system state that can be
determined by some sequence of physical operations and if there was no
such thing as an observer, then it is not determined that there would
or would not be such things as observables even if the testimony of
observers is the ONLY WAY we know that the observables exist since
whether there is or is not someone existing doesn't determine
determinability and the possibility of abstract thought processes
whether they exist or not.

[Hammond]
* *Immortalist, thanks for your refreshing post. *Out of 11
posts to this target article so far, you are the ONLY ONE
who has attempted to say something on topic. *However, you
have COIMPLETELY missed the point!
* *You have FAILED to distinguish between two fundamentally
DIFFERENT cases:

CASE 1: *
* *If I turn my back and look the other way,
* *does the Moon still exist?
* * * * * (correct answer, YES)

CASE 2:
* *If the human race never existed or became
* *totally EXTINCT, would the Moon "exist".
* * * *(correct answer, NO)


Case two depends upon how you are defining "exist" since if humans
never existed there may or may not have been sattelites orbiting stars
in various ways and electromagnetic radiation propogating through
space, but human abstraction about such objects probably wouldn't take
place but would still be possible if bodies and brains can emulate
human consciousness and reasoning abilities even if they didn't exist
or hadn't existed yet.

In logic though any hypothetical/conditional (if/then) statement is
open to questioning. Usually the actual evidence is not in the
conditional statement. If humans didn't exist then X would either be
or not be the case, why? Some evidence is usually presented that helps
determine it one way or the other. I mean what reason is there for
determining it one way or the other? Again this hinges upon how you
are using the phrase "existence of the moon".

Does the existence of humans who can determine, determine or create
the possibility of determinability in the first place? Of course
humans couldn't determine in the first place if determinability were
not possible prior to their existence, right?

* *I am talking about CASE 2, not CASE 1 for christ's sake.
The Biblical Creation, and "God", are explained by
CASE 2 and not by CASE 1. *And the Anthropic Principle
applies to CASE 2, not CASE 1, for Heaven's sake!
* *Please get up to speed... do a little thinking before you
try and argue with me.... the best minds in Science are
convinced of the truth of the *Anthropic Principle, ya know,
including Stephen Hawking and the late great John Wheeler as
well as the entire scientific community.
=====================================
* * *SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
*http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
* *mirror site:
*http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
* * * GOD=G_uv * (a folk song on mp3)
*http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 00:25:37 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
wrote:

On Apr 20, 9:53*pm, George Hammond wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 16:03:06 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist



wrote:

[Hammond]
* *Fact is, the "Anthropic Principle" simply says:
"observables exist because observers exist". *After all, it
doesn't take rocket science to figure out that if there was
no such thing as an observer, then there would be no such
thing as observables; since the testimony of observers is
the ONLY WAY we know that the observables exist.

[Immortalist]
If a system observable is a property of the system state that can be
determined by some sequence of physical operations and if there was no
such thing as an observer, then it is not determined that there would
or would not be such things as observables even if the testimony of
observers is the ONLY WAY we know that the observables exist since
whether there is or is not someone existing doesn't determine
determinability and the possibility of abstract thought processes
whether they exist or not.

[Hammond]
* *Immortalist, thanks for your refreshing post. *Out of 11
posts to this target article so far, you are the ONLY ONE
who has attempted to say something on topic. *However, you
have COIMPLETELY missed the point!
* *You have FAILED to distinguish between two fundamentally
DIFFERENT cases:

CASE 1: *
* *If I turn my back and look the other way,
* *does the Moon still exist?
* * * * * (correct answer, YES)

CASE 2:
* *If the human race never existed or became
* *totally EXTINCT, would the Moon "exist".
* * * *(correct answer, NO)


[Immortalist]
Case two depends upon how you are defining "exist"


[Hammond]
NO KIDDING, Sherlock! Can't you get it through your head
that "exist" is, and ONLY is, absolutely defined as: "A
human opinion based on sensory perception". There is no
OTHER definition of the word "exists". Ergo, if there are
no humans, then there is no "existence" of anything.
Physics cannot "define" mass, length and time. What is
done is that someone holds up a brass cylinder, a platinum
rod and a cesium clock and says to the assembled human race:
"Do you all agree that these 3 objects are specimens of what
we commonly called mass, length and time", and when the
majority yells back enthusiastically, "Yea", then it becomes
established official convention that those 3 objects are the
"official standards of mass, length and time" upon which the
entire edifice of Science, Physics, technology, economics
and indeed civilization itself is then erected.
Obviously then, the existence of reality itself
(spacetime) is nothing more than a "Human sense perception",
and equally obviously, if Man did not exist, then reality
itself would not exist. That's hardly rocket science!



[Immortalist]
since if humans
never existed there may or may not have been satellites orbiting stars
in various ways and electromagnetic radiation propagating through
space, but human abstraction about such objects probably wouldn't take
place but would still be possible if bodies and brains can emulate
human consciousness and reasoning abilities even if they didn't exist
or hadn't existed yet.


[Hammond]
The conjecture that it is possible to artificially
construct a human being, or human intelligence, is just
that, a conjecture. Furthermore, it would not impact the
present discussion, since, once again, you would have a
"human" observer, whether it was created in a test tube or
the womb, makes no difference.
By this time, I would think that you have realized that
Man is in fact "God", and that conclusion incidentally is
entirely in line with majority religious belief, where "God"
is generally believed to be "an invisible man".
The SPOG, in fact proves that this historic belief is
scientifically true, and dramatically explains why this
perfect man is "invisible".


[Immortalist]
In logic though any hypothetical/conditional (if/then) statement is
open to questioning. Usually the actual evidence is not in the
conditional statement.

[Hammond]
Ok.

[Immortalist]
If humans didn't exist then X would either be
or not be the case, why? Some evidence is usually presented that helps
determine it one way or the other. I mean what reason is there for
determining it one way or the other? Again this hinges upon how you
are using the phrase "existence of the moon".


[Hammond]
OF COURSE; the entire argument rests on the "operational
definition of existence".
The ENTIRE THEORY OF RELIGION RESTS ON THE operational
definition of "existence".
Science simply PRESUMES A PRIORI the existence of Man
(i.e. presumes the existence of the "observer").
Religion does not, and in fact pointedly exerts, that the
existence of Man is what "causes" the existence of physical
reality.


[Immortalist]
Does the existence of humans who can determine, determine or create
the possibility of determinability in the first place?

[Hammond]
YES, a thousand times, YES!

[Immortalist]
Of course
humans couldn't determine in the first place if determinability were
not possible prior to their existence, right?

[Hammond]
Apparently WRONG. Religion holds that human
"consciousness/perception/mind" just suddenly appeared i.e.
created itself out of nothing 200,000 years ago when our
species appeared. This is referred to as the Biblical
"Creation" since as explained above, reality itself came
into being concommitently with the appearance of Man.
The Bible figures this to be 6,000 years ago, but
anthropology didn't exist when the Bible was written, and we
now know that Man (our species) appeared approximately
200,000 years ago although actually not in large numbers
until 100,000 years ago. This is scientifically the
explanation of the Genesis "Creation", and is absolutely
scientifically CORRECT.


[Hammond]
* *I am talking about CASE 2, not CASE 1 for Christ's sake.
The Biblical Creation, and "God", are explained by
CASE 2 and not by CASE 1. *And the Anthropic Principle
applies to CASE 2, not CASE 1, for Heaven's sake!
* *Please get up to speed... do a little thinking before you
try and argue with me.... the best minds in Science are
convinced of the truth of the *Anthropic Principle, ya know,
including Stephen Hawking and the late great John Wheeler as
well as the entire scientific community.
=====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 16:36:21 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

George Hammond writes:

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:14:08 -0700, Uncle Al
wrote:

Hindus have 36 crores of gods - 360 million deities. How is India
doing, Georgie boy?

Idiot.

[Hammond]
The SPOG explains and PROVES why there are 30 demigods in
Hindii; because there are 30 first order eigenvectors in
Psychometric correlation matricess, worldwide .

Can't you read? Uncle Al wrote that Hinduism has 360 million deities,
not just 30.


[Hammond]
His statement is manifestly absurd, there aren't 360
million names in the Human Language.
On the other hand there ARE 30 eigenvectors in every
comprehensive Psychometric correlation matrix, so there
CERTAINLY ARE 30 "DEMIGODS" in Religion; scientifically
speaking. Stop trying to pretend you're not an aggravated
halfwit heckler.

Stop trying to pretend that you are actually a valid, sane and rational
scientist!

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 19:37:14 -0700 (PDT), darwinist
wrote:

On Apr 21, 8:08 am, Jerry Kraus wrote:
On Apr 20, 4:55 pm, "ShivverMeTimbers"
wrote:


[Jerry Kraus]
In the West, they are often intimately related as well -- the modern
scientific method is derived from the activities of analytical
theologians such as Saint Thomas Aquinas and the medaeval scholastics,
who sought to find a higher unity in nature through the concept of
"theory" -- from "Theos", or "God".


[Darwinist]
"Theory" doesn't come from "Theos", it comes from "Theoria" meaning "A
viewing", or "contemplating", from "Theor" (view).


[Hammond]
Darwin is right about the Greek etymology of the word
"theory" as any dictionary will confirm.
However, I am rather persuaded by Kraus's suspicion that
there is in fact a (much more ancient) connection between
the definition "to look at" and the word "God". My bet is
the world "theos" is actually anciently derived from the
word "thoria" (to view, or look at). My hunch is based on
the fact that the phenomenon of "God" is essentially, and
mainly, a (seemingly supernatural" or transcendental)
"visual phenomenon". IOW the word "God" may have originally
referred to the seemingly supernatural and transcendental
nature of human perception, especially the perception of
other peoples' identities.



Many scientists have been religious, true, and many others have been
denounced or persecuted by religious organisations/authories (e.g.
galileo, darwin).


[Hammond]
According to my knowlege there has never been a scientist
of any note who had the slightest clue as to what God is,
perhaps with the exception of DesCartes. Both Newton, and
Einstein had very elementary understandings of what the
phenomenon of "God" actually is.
Newton for the most part merely quoted the religious
opinions of others. Einstein wasn't even aware that there
is an anthropomorphic God and believed in Spinoza's quite
ignorant Stoic pantheism.

It annoys me when religion tries to take credit for science. Science
and religion are two separate means of gaining knowledge. Science is
better. Some people practice both.


[Hammond]
Horse****... Science by definition is capable of
explaining any "physical phenomenon" including "God". What
most people don't realized is that the "phenomenon of God"
is a Relativistic perceptual phenomenon. Religion is
Relativistic Psychology you might call it.

What you don't realize, or recognize when it is shown to you, is that the
vast majority of people, including scientists and theologists, completely
trash YOUR crap!

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 00:25:37 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
wrote:

On Apr 20, 9:53 pm, George Hammond wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 16:03:06 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist



wrote:

[Hammond]
Fact is, the "Anthropic Principle" simply says:
"observables exist because observers exist". After all, it
doesn't take rocket science to figure out that if there was
no such thing as an observer, then there would be no such
thing as observables; since the testimony of observers is
the ONLY WAY we know that the observables exist.

[Immortalist]
If a system observable is a property of the system state that can be
determined by some sequence of physical operations and if there was no
such thing as an observer, then it is not determined that there would
or would not be such things as observables even if the testimony of
observers is the ONLY WAY we know that the observables exist since
whether there is or is not someone existing doesn't determine
determinability and the possibility of abstract thought processes
whether they exist or not.

[Hammond]
Immortalist, thanks for your refreshing post. Out of 11
posts to this target article so far, you are the ONLY ONE
who has attempted to say something on topic. However, you
have COIMPLETELY missed the point!
You have FAILED to distinguish between two fundamentally
DIFFERENT cases:

CASE 1:
If I turn my back and look the other way,
does the Moon still exist?
(correct answer, YES)

CASE 2:
If the human race never existed or became
totally EXTINCT, would the Moon "exist".
(correct answer, NO)


[Immortalist]
Case two depends upon how you are defining "exist"


[Hammond]
NO KIDDING, Sherlock! Can't you get it through your head
that "exist" is, and ONLY is, absolutely defined as: "A
human opinion based on sensory perception". There is no
OTHER definition of the word "exists".


Wrong again, **** for brains!

"Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
ex·ist Audio Help /?g'z?st/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
Pronunciation[ig-zist] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-verb (used without object) 1. to have actual being; be: The world exists,
whether you like it or not.
2. to have life or animation; live.
3. to continue to be or live: Belief in magic still exists.
4. to have being in a specified place or under certain conditions; be
found; occur: Hunger exists in many parts of the world.
5. to achieve the basic needs of existence, as food and shelter: He's
not living, he's merely existing.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1595-1605; L ex(s)istere to exist, appear, emerge, equiv. to ex-
ex-1 + sistere to stand] "

YOUR mentally corrupt definition isn't even close!

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 12:32:50 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:


"George Hammond" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 00:25:37 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
wrote:

On Apr 20, 9:53 pm, George Hammond wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 16:03:06 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist



wrote:

[Hammond]
Fact is, the "Anthropic Principle" simply says:
"observables exist because observers exist". After all, it
doesn't take rocket science to figure out that if there was
no such thing as an observer, then there would be no such
thing as observables; since the testimony of observers is
the ONLY WAY we know that the observables exist.

[Immortalist]
If a system observable is a property of the system state that can be
determined by some sequence of physical operations and if there was no
such thing as an observer, then it is not determined that there would
or would not be such things as observables even if the testimony of
observers is the ONLY WAY we know that the observables exist since
whether there is or is not someone existing doesn't determine
determinability and the possibility of abstract thought processes
whether they exist or not.

[Hammond]
Immortalist, thanks for your refreshing post. Out of 11
posts to this target article so far, you are the ONLY ONE
who has attempted to say something on topic. However, you
have COIMPLETELY missed the point!
You have FAILED to distinguish between two fundamentally
DIFFERENT cases:

CASE 1:
If I turn my back and look the other way,
does the Moon still exist?
(correct answer, YES)

CASE 2:
If the human race never existed or became
totally EXTINCT, would the Moon "exist".
(correct answer, NO)


[Immortalist]
Case two depends upon how you are defining "exist"


[Hammond]
NO KIDDING, Sherlock! Can't you get it through your head
that "exist" is, and ONLY is, absolutely defined as: "A
human opinion based on sensory perception". There is no
OTHER definition of the word "exists".


Wrong again, **** for brains!


[****head Heckler]
"Dictionary.com Unabridged: exist

-verb (used without object) 1. to have actual being

[GH]: Only a human can confirm the existence of anything.

2. to have life or animation; live.

[GH]: Only a human can confirm that life exists

3. to continue to be or live

[GH]: Only a human can confirm that life exists

4. to have being in a specified place or under certain conditions; be
found; occur: Hunger exists in many parts of the world.

[GH]: Only a human can confirm that hunger or anything else
in the world, including the world, exists

5. to achieve the basic needs of existence, as food and shelter: He's
not living, he's merely existing.

[GH]: Only a human observer can confirm that anything is
" existing".


You're a numb ****head.
=====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================