On 28 Apr, 01:06, Uncle Al wrote:
George Hammond wrote:

[snip crap]

http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
*Dunning-Kruger effect (2000 Ig Nobel Prize): *ignorance more
frequently begets confidence than does knowledge

* *1) Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of
skill.
* *2) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in
others.
* *3) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their
inadequacy.

No doubt. But I must say (as a pretty uninterested bystander) that
this seems to fulfil George's definition of 'mindless heckling' to a
tee. At all events it doesn't tell me anything useful; only that you
don't like what George has to say.

Surely, if a rational response can be made, why not put one together
on a web page, perhaps as an FAQ, and just link to it each time it
seems necessary.

Not that I care either way; my interest is limited to patristics.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

On 2 May, 17:21, George Hammond wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2008 06:45:55 -0700 (PDT),Roger Pearse

wrote:

[Hammond]
* *And finally, Tatian's famous DIATESSARON (c 150 - 160) is
a historically famous Gospel harmony. *In it, Tatian,
combined Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John into a single
narrative. *The historic prominence of this work from 155ad.
alone, is testimony that the 4-Gospel Canon was well known
and widely accepted by mid second century ad.

[Roger Pearse]
Perhaps.

[Hammond]
* *No perhaps about it! *The DIATESSARON was the standard
Gospel text of the Syria Christian Church for 200 years.

(You mean the *Syriac* church, I think). It was removed from all the
churches by Rabbula, who substituted the separated gospels, and the
Syriac text is now lost. The text is known to us from an unreliable
Arabic translation, plus quotations in Ephraem Syrus' Commentary on
the Diatessaron, itself only rediscovered in Syriac (an Armenian
translation was previously known) in the last 50 years. The fact that
the most eminent of all Syriac writers wrote a commentary on it tells
us how important it was, and backs up the claim to pre-eminence in
that language group.

It's dating to 155ad is indisputable. *

Much is obscure about the Diatessaron, because of the problem above.
It isn't even certain whether Tatian composed it in Greek in Rome or
in Syriac after his return to the East after the death of Justin
Martyr. As such its date of composition, while certainly mid-to-
late-2nd century, remains uncertain.

See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatessaron

I'm afraid Wikipedia is an unreliable source of information on things
to do with Christian origins, tho (mainly because of the atheists).

All the best,

Roger Pearse

On Fri, 2 May 2008 14:41:59 -0700 (PDT), Roger Pearse
wrote:

On 28 Apr, 01:06, Uncle Al wrote:
George Hammond wrote:

[snip crap]

[Uncle Al (Alan Schwartz) heckler]
*Dunning-Kruger effect (2000 Ig Nobel Prize): *ignorance more
frequently begets confidence than does knowledge

* *1) Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of
skill.
* *2) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in
others.
* *3) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their
inadequacy.


[Roger Pearse]
No doubt. But I must say (as a pretty uninterested bystander) that
this seems to fulfil George's definition of 'mindless heckling' to a
tee. At all events it doesn't tell me anything useful; only that you
don't like what George has to say.

Surely, if a rational response can be made, why not put one together
on a web page, perhaps as an FAQ, and just link to it each time it
seems necessary.



[Hammond]
Forgeddabouit.... "Uncle Al", real name Allan Schwartz,
is a notorious anonymous and foul heckler from Los Angeles
who was outed years ago by some irate but responsible
citizen. You won't get anything positive, rational or
cooperative from him.
As for a seperate hecklement website, it's already been
done, some illiterate german truck driver and part time
musician named Bernhard Schornak (whose grandfather by the
way was a heroic resistance fighter executed by the Nazi's)
posted an elaborate "anti-SPOG" website in Germany (his
grandfather must have rolled over in his grave !) but I
recently searched for it and see that the site is down for
one reason or another.... unless someone else can find it?
Naturally, having no science education the entire site was
bogus. In view of his grandfather's heroic stand against
the Nazi's I could never fathom Bernhard's "anti scientific
proof of God" attitude which seemed utterly reactionary to
me..... maybe a different branch of the family or something?


[Roger Pearse]
Not that I care either way; my interest is limited to patristics.


[Hammond]
Now there is an interesting subject!
Certainly the Church Fathers were some of the most
brilliant, capable and heroic men ever to walk the face of
the Earth. Particularly people like St. Augustine.
Not only did they figure out that there was an
(axiomatic) 4-gospel canonl, but they also figured out that
there was a (dynamical) Trinity based on the cybernetic feed
back loop. These discoveries were centuries, even millenia
ahead of their time and have only recently been
scientifically proven as part of the discovery of the
world's first scientific proof of God (Hammond, 1994, 2003).

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[Hammond]
Heads up Roger, there is going to be a resurgence of
interest in "armchair patristics" in the not too distant
future... a real "CSI Miami" type of investigation into who
was who and who said what during the Apostolic Age.... after
the world finds out a scientific proof of God has been
discovered.
=====================================
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 Fri, 2 May 2008 14:53:04 -0700 (PDT), Roger Pearse
wrote:

On 2 May, 17:21, George Hammond wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2008 06:45:55 -0700 (PDT),Roger Pearse

wrote:

[Hammond]
* *And finally, Tatian's famous DIATESSARON (c 150 - 160) is
a historically famous Gospel harmony. *In it, Tatian,
combined Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John into a single
narrative. *The historic prominence of this work from 155ad.
alone, is testimony that the 4-Gospel Canon was well known
and widely accepted by mid second century ad.

[Roger Pearse]
Perhaps.

[Hammond]
* *No perhaps about it! *The DIATESSARON was the standard
Gospel text of the Syria Christian Church for 200 years.

[Roger Pearse]
(You mean the *Syriac* church, I think). It was removed from all the
churches by Rabbula, who substituted the separated gospels, and the
Syriac text is now lost. The text is known to us from an unreliable
Arabic translation, plus quotations in Ephraem Syrus' Commentary on
the Diatessaron, itself only rediscovered in Syriac (an Armenian
translation was previously known) in the last 50 years. The fact that
the most eminent of all Syriac writers wrote a commentary on it tells
us how important it was, and backs up the claim to pre-eminence in
that language group.

[Hammond]
It's dating to 155ad is indisputable. *

[Roger Pearse]
Much is obscure about the Diatessaron, because of the problem above.
It isn't even certain whether Tatian composed it in Greek in Rome or
in Syriac after his return to the East after the death of Justin
Martyr. As such its date of composition, while certainly mid-to-
late-2nd century, remains uncertain.

[Hammond]
See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatessaron

[[Roger Pearse]
I'm afraid Wikipedia is an unreliable source of information on things
to do with Christian origins, tho (mainly because of the atheists).

All the best,

Roger Pearse



[Hammond]
Since I have the delightful advantage of being in
(disputed) possession of the world's only scientific proof
of God (including the 4-Gospel Canon and the Trinity) it is
with some fascination that I look back on the events of the
Apostolic Age.
Having said that, I find that the history of the 4-Gospel
Canon seems rather mundane and far from mysterious, since it
post dates the classical age of Greece during which
Hippocrates announced that Man had 4-personalities... the
4-Humors. In scientific hindsight then it is not surprising
that the 4-Gospel Canon emerged during the halcyon days of
the relatively enlightened Roman empire.
What I find far more astounding is that the "Trinity"
appeared during the patristic age. The Trinity, the SPOG
shows, is scientifically based on the Cybernetic feedback
loop, is a sophisticated psychological concept, and
incidentally is manifest (embodied) in the Three Branches of
Government which is a universal structure in all 250
governments of the world today.
The ancient Greek and Roman governments had only a very
loosely defined "3 branches of government" although I think
it was generally recognized even then....Executive
(emperor), Legislative (senate), and Judiciary (courts of
law)).
What I have been unable to pin down is where and when did
the concept of the Trinity emerge in Christian theology.
True, Jesus says to baptize in the name of the "Father, Son
and Holy Ghost", so the structure must have been known
during his time, but I am still unclear as to where and when
the movement towards a "Trinity of God" in Christian
theology began in anteNicene Christianity.
Do you have any views on this; who started it, how did
the movement get started, and when was it finally canonized
as official doctrine?
This is of particular interest today in that the Moslems
deny the Trinity and the Koran accuses Christians of
"polytheism" and believing in "3 Gods", which of course is a
distortion of the Trinity.
At any rate, the discovery of the proof of the Trinity,
is going to be another blow for the Moslems and the Koran
and will doublessly be a Bible vs. Koran issue after the
discovery of the SPOG is recognized.
=====================================
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
=====================================

Roger Pearse wrote:
On 1 May, 16:35, none ""doug\"@(none)" wrote:
Roger Pearse wrote:
On 29 Apr, 08:19, none ""doug\"@(none)" wrote:
George Hammond wrote:
("4-demigods") Matt, Mark, Luke and John.
These last four are the books chosen by the council ofNicea
to be in the New Testament.
The Council of Nicaea did not determine the content of scripture. The
4 gospels are considered canonical by all the ante-Nicene fathers,
right back as far as it goes.
Luke and John were written in Turkey 100-200 years after Matthew and
Mark so that is not quite correct.

Um, if Matthew was written ca. 80 AD, then you are saying Luke and
John were written between 180 AD and 280 AD? This is absurd. There
are shed-loads of quotations from them both before those dates. There
are commentaries on them from 200 AD! There's even a bit of a
physical manuscript dated to ca. 125 AD.

But I don't quite see what this wild stuff has to do with my comment.

I heard this story about the bible and the council some years ago and
got suspicious. It sounded wrong, based on what I knew ofTertullian
and the ante-Nicene fathers. So I went out and hunted down all the
primary sources on the council. You can consult them he
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html
I also looked in Metzger on the Canon of the NT, just to check I
hadn't missed any.
The council also voted as to whether women were humans.
What a curious idea; impossible for any Christian council to do such a
thing. Someone is pulling your leg, my friend.
This is an interesting assumption. Why would you insult them to suggest
this? ...

Come, this won't do. You know very well why this claim about the
Council is made -- it's an appeal to contemporary societal values and
is intended as a smear. Either produce evidence for your claim or
retract it, hey?

You made a bald assertions that such a vote was impossible. You made
that without support. The treatment of women in the primitive societies
was generally not very good. There have been a number of stages in
the improvement of their state. You took it as a smear. I did not offer
it that way. I am not responsible for your interpretations.

The point of the council was to try to unify the various christian sects
No, I'm afraid it was not. Christianity was not split into sects at
that date. Rather it was to decide whether the Second person of the
Trinity was of the same substance (homoousios) as the First person, or
of like substance; and to reach an agreed date on which to celebrate
Easter.
No, there were some severe differences.

Evidence?

And the sects still do not agree on the date for easter for example.

Which 'sects' did not agree on this? Name them.
At the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Easter is celebrated at different
times by the different groups. Look in last weeks news and you will
see the discussion of this.


The reality is that Christians in the East and West, who were all in
communion with each other, did not celebrate it at the same time, for
historical reasons. That is one reason why they wanted to get together
and work out an agreement. There was no quarrel between the bishops
of Rome and Alexandria on this; they just didn't have an agreed way to
do it.

They also decided to not include other groups texts such as the
gosphel of thomas. Someone
had to go through and select among the texts from various groups
and then edit them to make them somewhat more consistent.

Well, I'm going to have to be blunt. Please now produce an ancient
text which supports this claim or retract it. :-)

The fact is that the gosphel of Thomas was not included. There are
also others in the Nag Hamadi scrolls that were ignored. These all
date from the time of the council of Nicea.


Seriously, all this is bunk. I have given you a link to all the
ancient texts that refer in any way to the council of Nicaea. None of
them contain the above story.

You have your own definition of bunk.


... and so it accepted the texts from various ones even though there
are terrible discrepancies between them.
This sounds like a confused memory of the fact that the last few books
(2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Hebrews, Revelation) were not geographically
spread over the same areas, and harmonisation gradually happened after
the church became legal when it was easier to hold councils.
Matthew for instance, is the jewish book ... (snip)

I notice the very dishonest snipping of support for the comments I made
about differences in the books. This is the operation of a coward who
does not want to lose a discussion. You cannot argue with what was
posted so you snip it.

You asked for discrepancies, I provided them. Your beliefs are blinding
you to the truth. The church worked hard to keep people under its
control and thus there was the death penalty in England for translating
the bible into English. In fact, the King James version is heavily
based on the translation of a person who was killed for translating it.



None of the assertions snipped appear relevant to my comment, tho.

All this probably has no direct relevance on your thread, but don't we
all want to have the right raw *data*? I know that I do. I hope that
helps.
You are correct that it has no relevance and that George has no clue
about the connection he is trying to draw with his word salad between
science and religion.

I have no opinion on George's theory (I can't take any interest in
such things), but it sounds a bit odd.

George's theory is total nonsense. He has strung together a series of
unconnected sentences that show up with what he wanted to prove. He
is a classic crank and the hits on his website are from people who
cannot believe that someone could produce so much nonsense in one
place. No one has ever believed him and never will. There is no
science in it. He started out with a religious point of view he
desperately wanted to push and failed badly.




All the best,

Roger Pearse

George Hammond wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2008 12:06:11 -0700 (PDT), Roger Pearse
wrote:

On 1 May, 16:35, none ""doug\"@(none)" wrote:
Roger Pearse wrote:
On 29 Apr, 08:19, none ""doug\"@(none)" wrote:
George Hammond wrote:
("4-demigods") Matt, Mark, Luke and John.
These last four are the books chosen by the council ofNicea
to be in the New Testament.
The Council of Nicaea did not determine the content of scripture. The
4 gospels are considered canonical by all the ante-Nicene fathers,
right back as far as it goes.
Luke and John were written in Turkey 100-200 years after Matthew and
Mark so that is not quite correct.
Um, if Matthew was written ca. 80 AD, then you are saying Luke and
John were written between 180 AD and 280 AD? This is absurd. There
are shed-loads of quotations from them both before those dates. There
are commentaries on them from 200 AD! There's even a bit of a
physical manuscript dated to ca. 125 AD.

But I don't quite see what this wild stuff has to do with my comment.

I heard this story about the bible and the council some years ago and
got suspicious. It sounded wrong, based on what I knew ofTertullian
and the ante-Nicene fathers. So I went out and hunted down all the
primary sources on the council. You can consult them he
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html
I also looked in Metzger on the Canon of the NT, just to check I
hadn't missed any.
The council also voted as to whether women were humans.
What a curious idea; impossible for any Christian council to do such a
thing. Someone is pulling your leg, my friend.
This is an interesting assumption. Why would you insult them to suggest
this? ...
Come, this won't do. You know very well why this claim about the
Council is made -- it's an appeal to contemporary societal values and
is intended as a smear. Either produce evidence for your claim or
retract it, hey?

The point of the council was to try to unify the various christian sects
No, I'm afraid it was not. Christianity was not split into sects at
that date. Rather it was to decide whether the Second person of the
Trinity was of the same substance (homoousios) as the First person, or
of like substance; and to reach an agreed date on which to celebrate
Easter.
No, there were some severe differences.
Evidence?

And the sects still do not agree on the date for easter for example.
Which 'sects' did not agree on this? Name them.

The reality is that Christians in the East and West, who were all in
communion with each other, did not celebrate it at the same time, for
historical reasons. That is one reason why they wanted to get together
and work out an agreement. There was no quarrel between the bishops
of Rome and Alexandria on this; they just didn't have an agreed way to
do it.

They also decided to not include other groups texts such as the
gosphel of thomas. Someone
had to go through and select among the texts from various groups
and then edit them to make them somewhat more consistent.
Well, I'm going to have to be blunt. Please now produce an ancient
text which supports this claim or retract it. :-)

Seriously, all this is bunk. I have given you a link to all the
ancient texts that refer in any way to the council of Nicaea. None of
them contain the above story.

... and so it accepted the texts from various ones even though there
are terrible discrepancies between them.
This sounds like a confused memory of the fact that the last few books
(2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Hebrews, Revelation) were not geographically
spread over the same areas, and harmonisation gradually happened after
the church became legal when it was easier to hold councils.
Matthew for instance, is the jewish book ... (snip)
None of the assertions snipped appear relevant to my comment, tho.

All this probably has no direct relevance on your thread, but don't we
all want to have the right raw *data*? I know that I do. I hope that
helps.
You are correct that it has no relevance and that George has no clue
about the connection he is trying to draw with his word salad between
science and religion.
I have no opinion on George's theory (I can't take any interest in
such things), but it sounds a bit odd.

All the best,

Roger Pearse


[Hammond]
Caution Roger, Doug claims he's a "Physics PhD",
however, the low intellectual, and decidedly non-scientific
content of his posts indicates that he is an applied physics
technician at best, and OBVIOUSLY is an aggravated and
snooty anti-religious heckler.

In other words, we point out your silly mistakes and you do
not like that.

Again, my long experience with this type of personality
shows them to be utterly INCORRIGIBLE and resistant to any
logical or factual argument.

We point out your mistakes because we understand logic and
factual arguments. You do not. You have no understanding of
the scientific methods and, when asked, just post your cv
which proves nothing. As indeed your "proof" does not.

The fact that he is unable to read and comprehebnd the
S.P.O.G. which has been peer published and copy posted at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proo...ammond5s1.html
demonstrates theat he is NOT competent in graduate level
physics.... in fact, lacking any verification of his
credentials or even his real name, odds are that he is in
fact a CRACKPOT and a COMPLETELY FAKE and an IMPOSTER.

I have read it, laughed and marveled that you could actually
put this kind of nonsense out where people might see it.
It is hilarious but has no relation to a god, to science
or to a proof.



=====================================
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:
On Fri, 2 May 2008 10:30:34 -0700 (PDT),
" wrote:

On 2 mei, 18:21, George Hammond wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2008 06:45:55 -0700 (PDT), Roger Pearse





wrote:

[Hammond]
And finally, Tatian's famous DIATESSARON (c 150 - 160) is
a historically famous Gospel harmony. In it, Tatian,
combined Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John into a single
narrative. The historic prominence of this work from 155ad.
alone, is testimony that the 4-Gospel Canon was well known
and widely accepted by mid second century ad.
[Roger Pearse]
Perhaps.
[Hammond]
No perhaps about it! The DIATESSARON was the standard
Gospel text of the Syria Christian Church for 200 years.
It's dating to 155ad is indisputable. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatessaron
where you will find:
=========BLOCK QUOTE==============
The Diatesseron is notable evidence for the authority
already enjoyed by the four gospels by the mid-second
century.
Twenty years after Tatian's harmony, Irenaeus expressly
proclaimed the authoritative character of the four gospels.
The Diatesseron became the standard text of the gospels
in the Syriac-speaking churches down to the fifth century,
when it gave way to the four separate Gospels."
======END BLOCK QUOTE==============

[Peter van Velzen, innocent bystander]
Thanks for mentioning it. I did not know such a work existed!


[Hammond]
I ran across it 20 years ago, I thought Origen wrote it
around 220, but it turns out Tatian a Syrian speaking
Christian monk wrote it in 160. It's quite famous. Tatian
was a pupil of Justin Martyr in Rome. The guy must have been
amazingly bright to figure out that the 4-Gospel form was
"canonical". Diatesseron means "through four" in Greek by
the way.

[Peter van Velzen, innocent bystander]
By the way: this is not a war-zone.
Just give peace a chance :-)


[Hammond]
There is a war going on in the Middle East between Moslem
Jihadists and the U.S. military. The Jihadists claim the
U.S. is the "great Satan". If so, it certainly is a
propaganda blow to Islam that a Christian U.S. Physicst has
discovered and published the world's first and only
scientific proof of God (and allah), and is heroically
defending it against all comers on Usenet.

Why do you not go over there and show them your "proof"?
That should scare them off.


Peter van Velzen
(born 1950)
April 2008
Amstelveen
The Netherlands


=====================================
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
=====================================

Roger Pearse wrote:
On 28 Apr, 01:06, Uncle Al wrote:
George Hammond wrote:

[snip crap]

http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
Dunning-Kruger effect (2000 Ig Nobel Prize): ignorance more
frequently begets confidence than does knowledge

1) Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of
skill.
2) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in
others.
3) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their
inadequacy.

No doubt. But I must say (as a pretty uninterested bystander) that
this seems to fulfil George's definition of 'mindless heckling' to a
tee. At all events it doesn't tell me anything useful; only that you
don't like what George has to say.

Surely, if a rational response can be made, why not put one together
on a web page, perhaps as an FAQ, and just link to it each time it
seems necessary.

Not that I care either way; my interest is limited to patristics.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

George has had his mistakes pointed out for years. He does not
want to learn from them. He wants to have discovered something and,
if he acknowledges his mistakes, he admits he has done nothing.
So he blusters, swears and uses lots of capital letters. His
work is not even close enough to be wrong.

none wrote:

George Hammond wrote:
[Hammond]
There is a war going on in the Middle East between Moslem
Jihadists and the U.S. military. The Jihadists claim the
U.S. is the "great Satan". If so, it certainly is a
propaganda blow to Islam that a Christian U.S. Physicst has
discovered and published the world's first and only
scientific proof of God (and allah), and is heroically
defending it against all comers on Usenet.

Why do you not go over there and show them your "proof"?
That should scare them off.


People normally don't taunt others
they presume to be mentally ill.
What's going on here?


--
monkfish * alt.atheism is removed from the header because trying to prove
the existence of God is prohibited by their undebatable policy.
** Atheists have blind faith in their ability to know of all actual or
possible modes of existence. Such hubris cannot be good for science.

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 02 May 2008 09:11:22 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:




[Hammond]
There is little mystery to the history of the 4-Gospel
Canon,............................. Tatian's famous
DIATESSARON (c 150 - 160) is a historically
famous Gospel harmony. In it, Tatian,
combined Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John into a single
narrative. The historic prominence of this work from 155ad.
alone, is testimony that the 4-Gospel Canon was well known
and widely accepted by mid second century ad.



[Hammond]
Incidentally, it is a pleasure to be in polite company
for a change.... but surely you must realize that this
discussion thread is taking place in a war zone.

[John Smith, S.P.O.G. critic]
When you post about the history of the bible - it is one thing.
When you post utter bull **** - like your last paragraph/pile - you get
another, more appropriate, response.

[Hammond]
I'm not here to post gratuitous troll, I'm here to take
names and kick ass.

Bwahahahaaaaaa.................. then why have you cried and run away at
any challenge all of your life?