CAUTIONARY NOTE ON THE AFTERLIFE
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Speed of Time
Next: "The Einstein Hoax"
From: Geopelia on 28 Dec 2009 07:07 "George Hammond" <Nowhere1(a)notspam.com> wrote in message news:vqvgj5du2nk0l80np9sn36ca2ih5gjbkt9(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 15:49:44 +1300, "Geopelia" > <phildoran(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > > >>>> >>>> >>>>(Geopelia) >>>>How can you have 13 symmetry axes in a cube? Everything in a cube seems >>>>to >>>>go in even numbers, six sides etc. >>>>But the proof would be way above my head anyway. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> [Hammond] >>> You don't need any proof, you can draw it with paper and >>> pencil. There are 13 of them all right. You can see a >>> picture of them here taken right out of the Encyclopedia >>> Britannica: >>> >>> http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/35500/35520/axes_35520.htm >>> >>> If you count them, you'll find that there are exactly 13. >> >>I make it 6 of a, 8 of p, 12 of d >>Do you count the point in the middle with d to get the 13? >> >> > [Hammond] > Congratulations, you got the right answer, 6+8+12=26. > Only problem is you're counting both ends of each axis. > You need to divide by two, 26/2 = 13. > These are called the "rotational" symmetry axes of the > cube. If you rotate the cube, 90� or 120� are 180� around > these various axes the cube rotates back into itself again, > which is why they are called "symmetry axes". Thank you, that explains it. I should have counted the lines, not the ends. >> >> > >>> >>> Believe it or not, if you take 200 adjectives out of a >>> dictionary that are used to describe human personality, and >>> give them as a checklist to use to describe a given person's >>> personality; rating them on each word from 1 to 10, and then >>> compute a 200 x 200 correlation matrix of the words it turns >>> out that a computer will find that there are ore EXACTLY 13 >>> EIGENVECTORS in that 200 x 200 correlation matrix. >>> Amazingly, the reason for this is that the brain is >>> actually CUBIC which you can see in this diagram here, which >>> was drawn by me: >>> >>> http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond/5X7C01I.jpg >>> >>> >>> This is exactly where the 12 OLYMPIAN GODS (13 actually) >>> come from! >>> And anyone who does not believe that that is a stunning >>> scientific discovery must have a hole in his head! > ======================================== > GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE > Primary site > http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond > Mirror site > http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com > HAMMOND FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto > http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3 > =======================================
From: Geopelia on 28 Dec 2009 08:44 "George Hammond" <Nowhere1(a)notspam.com> wrote in message news:7asgj5do09o939v2jp54o9j7g5i9e3n4rg(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 18:48:38 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." > <paul(a)hovnanian.com> wrote: > >>George Hammond wrote: >>> >>> CAUTIONARY NOTE ON THE AFTERLIFE >>> >>> Copyright: George Hammond 2009 >>> >>> As I've said many times before my best estimate of the >>> probability of life after death is only about 30%. >> >>What sort of measurement or analysis do you base that 30% on? >> >>Why not 3%? Or 3ppm? >> >> > [Hammond] > Excellent question. Naturally I will immediately answer > any on topic serious and competent inquiry. > Unfortunately, I have to spend most of my time beating > back a horde of nonprofessional and anti-intellectual > hecklers, not to mention not a few atheistic and outraged > scientists. > The answer to your question is that the actual numerical > probability that I have assigned is based upon a balanced > weighing of the various lines of evidence involved. > Bear in mind that I have been studying the matter for > nearly 30 years, full time, and have in fact published a > major discovery in Psychology (the discovery of the > long-sought for Structural Model of Personality) and have > also discovered and published the world's first bona fide > scientific proof of God. > I only mention all that in order to establish my > credentials in the fields of Psychology and Theology. As > far as Physics goes my credentials are established by the > normal Curriculum Vitae which shows that I have a Masters > degree in Physics. > > Okay, having established my credentials in the various > fields which bear on the determining of this probability I > can sum up the situation briefly as this: > > 1. Historically, the theory of life after death is at > least as old as the Pyramids upon whose walls details > of it remain engraved in miles of carefully chiseled > hieroglyphics where they can be seen to this day. > Furthermore, a psychological and theological > investigation of this long history shows unequivocally > that the root origin of the idea is intimately connected > with the universal human experience of the ordinary > nocturnal dream. > In short, the only reason why the theory appears > plausible enough to have survivedfor 5000 years is that > people are strongly persuaded that the phenomenon of > nocturnal dreaming is significant evidence of something > as yet not fully explained. > This latter fact then tells me as an experienced > physicist and now accomplished psychologist and > theologian that the odds-on probability of their > actually being such a thing MUST lie somewhere in the > low double digits percentagewise. And I would finally > note, that this low double digits opinion appears to be > well inline with average public opinion worldwide. > > 2. From that assessment of 5000 years of recorded > history on the subject we then move forward into the > scientific argument. And here I am referring > specifically to the cytoskeleton-microtubule-computer > hypothesis. Let's call it the cytoskeleton-brain > hypothesis (CB). > 2000 years ago the New Testament writers (St. Paul) > using the scientific language of his day advanced a > rather specific description of how life after death > actually works in I Corinthians chapter 15 vs > 35-55. And in what can only be classified now as a > colossal coincidence, it turns out that according to > my investigations (and confirmed by Stuart Hameroff > himself), the CB could very "possibly" resurrect the > body to a "living-virtual-reality" inside the CB, just > exactly as St. Paul described it. St. Paul referred > to it as a "Spiritual body" in the New Testament. > > 3. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the historical > probability, which I assume to be no more than say > 15% judging from historical, public and professional > opinion, is now raised by virtue of this > cytoskeleton-computer possibility to something more > like a 30% probability. Simply because the > historical belief which obtained at least a 15% > credibility with world opinion, now has a plausible and > indeed even remarkable scientific explanation. In > short, The probability has just been DOUBLED by virtue > of the discovery of a plausible scientific explanation. > As you can see, it's really a scientific guessing > game at this point, a sort of "you bet your life" kind > of guessing game. And my guess is that the probability > of a real life after death is somewhere around 30%. > Now 30% is a long long ways from 51% and even 51% > is a long ways from a sure thing. On the other hand > given the import of the matter, a quite credible > probability of 30% is something that simply cannot be > ignored! > > Hope that goes some ways towards answering your question. (Geopelia) Isn't it just wishful thinking? When humans realised that we all die in the end, wouldn't the idea have arisen that there must be something afterwards? How can all the learning and experience of a lifetime just be snuffed out? How can those who love never meet again? Just about every culture has some theory about life after death. In the old days, people prayed and sacrificed to the gods. Today we try to find some scientific proof. We can only die in hopes of something surviving. My guess is the probability is nil.
From: BruceS on 28 Dec 2009 09:58 On Dec 28, 6:44 am, "Geopelia" <phildo...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > "George Hammond" <Nowhe...(a)notspam.com> wrote in message > > news:7asgj5do09o939v2jp54o9j7g5i9e3n4rg(a)4ax.com... > > > > > On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 18:48:38 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." > > <p...(a)hovnanian.com> wrote: > > >>George Hammond wrote: > > >>> CAUTIONARY NOTE ON THE AFTERLIFE > > >>> Copyright: George Hammond 2009 > > >>> As I've said many times before my best estimate of the > >>> probability of life after death is only about 30%. > > >>What sort of measurement or analysis do you base that 30% on? > > >>Why not 3%? Or 3ppm? > > > [Hammond] > > Excellent question. Naturally I will immediately answer > > any on topic serious and competent inquiry. > > Unfortunately, I have to spend most of my time beating > > back a horde of nonprofessional and anti-intellectual > > hecklers, not to mention not a few atheistic and outraged > > scientists. > > The answer to your question is that the actual numerical > > probability that I have assigned is based upon a balanced > > weighing of the various lines of evidence involved. > > Bear in mind that I have been studying the matter for > > nearly 30 years, full time, and have in fact published a > > major discovery in Psychology (the discovery of the > > long-sought for Structural Model of Personality) and have > > also discovered and published the world's first bona fide > > scientific proof of God. > > I only mention all that in order to establish my > > credentials in the fields of Psychology and Theology. As > > far as Physics goes my credentials are established by the > > normal Curriculum Vitae which shows that I have a Masters > > degree in Physics. > > > Okay, having established my credentials in the various > > fields which bear on the determining of this probability I > > can sum up the situation briefly as this: > > > 1. Historically, the theory of life after death is at > > least as old as the Pyramids upon whose walls details > > of it remain engraved in miles of carefully chiseled > > hieroglyphics where they can be seen to this day. > > Furthermore, a psychological and theological > > investigation of this long history shows unequivocally > > that the root origin of the idea is intimately connected > > with the universal human experience of the ordinary > > nocturnal dream. > > In short, the only reason why the theory appears > > plausible enough to have survivedfor 5000 years is that > > people are strongly persuaded that the phenomenon of > > nocturnal dreaming is significant evidence of something > > as yet not fully explained. > > This latter fact then tells me as an experienced > > physicist and now accomplished psychologist and > > theologian that the odds-on probability of their > > actually being such a thing MUST lie somewhere in the > > low double digits percentagewise. And I would finally > > note, that this low double digits opinion appears to be > > well inline with average public opinion worldwide. > > > 2. From that assessment of 5000 years of recorded > > history on the subject we then move forward into the > > scientific argument. And here I am referring > > specifically to the cytoskeleton-microtubule-computer > > hypothesis. Let's call it the cytoskeleton-brain > > hypothesis (CB). > > 2000 years ago the New Testament writers (St. Paul) > > using the scientific language of his day advanced a > > rather specific description of how life after death > > actually works in I Corinthians chapter 15 vs > > 35-55. And in what can only be classified now as a > > colossal coincidence, it turns out that according to > > my investigations (and confirmed by Stuart Hameroff > > himself), the CB could very "possibly" resurrect the > > body to a "living-virtual-reality" inside the CB, just > > exactly as St. Paul described it. St. Paul referred > > to it as a "Spiritual body" in the New Testament. > > > 3. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the historical > > probability, which I assume to be no more than say > > 15% judging from historical, public and professional > > opinion, is now raised by virtue of this > > cytoskeleton-computer possibility to something more > > like a 30% probability. Simply because the > > historical belief which obtained at least a 15% > > credibility with world opinion, now has a plausible and > > indeed even remarkable scientific explanation. In > > short, The probability has just been DOUBLED by virtue > > of the discovery of a plausible scientific explanation. > > As you can see, it's really a scientific guessing > > game at this point, a sort of "you bet your life" kind > > of guessing game. And my guess is that the probability > > of a real life after death is somewhere around 30%. > > Now 30% is a long long ways from 51% and even 51% > > is a long ways from a sure thing. On the other hand > > given the import of the matter, a quite credible > > probability of 30% is something that simply cannot be > > ignored! > > > Hope that goes some ways towards answering your question. > > (Geopelia) > Isn't it just wishful thinking? > > When humans realised that we all die in the end, wouldn't the idea have > arisen that there must be something afterwards? How can all the learning and > experience of a lifetime just be snuffed out? How can those who love never > meet again? > > Just about every culture has some theory about life after death. In the old > days, people prayed and sacrificed to the gods. Today we try to find some > scientific proof. > > We can only die in hopes of something surviving. My guess is the probability > is nil. Right; dying is the only way to get the answer. I say, live as if you'll be held accountable for your actions after you die, but don't count on it, and don't rush the process. I fully expect death to be the end of me, but am willing to be surprised. Anyway, who needs life after death when statistics show us that we have a good chance of immortality? (1) out of all the people who have ever been born, a substantial portion (near 1/2? Too lazy to check) are still alive! (2) If you correlate death rates with birth year, things look even better. For young people, anyway. (3) as stock portfolios are always warning, "past performance is no guarantee of future results" or something like that. Just because people in the past have had finite lifetimes doesn't mean *we* will. (4) Richard Bach wrote a whole lot of stuff about living outside the limits of space and time. Surely he wouldn't have done all that just for entertainment purposes, now would he? I better quit before someone takes this the wrong way and starts a religion or something. I'm too busy planning my perpetual retirement fund to pose for any frescoes.
From: George Hammond on 28 Dec 2009 13:43 On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 02:44:04 +1300, "Geopelia" <phildoran(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > >"George Hammond" <Nowhere1(a)notspam.com> wrote in message >news:7asgj5do09o939v2jp54o9j7g5i9e3n4rg(a)4ax.com... >> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 18:48:38 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." >> <paul(a)hovnanian.com> wrote: >> >>>George Hammond wrote: >>>> >>>> CAUTIONARY NOTE ON THE AFTERLIFE >>>> >>>> Copyright: George Hammond 2009 >>>> >>>> As I've said many times before my best estimate of the >>>> probability of life after death is only about 30%. >>> >>>What sort of measurement or analysis do you base that 30% on? >>> >>>Why not 3%? Or 3ppm? >>> >>> >> [Hammond] >> Excellent question. Naturally I will immediately answer >> any on topic serious and competent inquiry. >> Unfortunately, I have to spend most of my time beating >> back a horde of nonprofessional and anti-intellectual >> hecklers, not to mention not a few atheistic and outraged >> scientists. >> The answer to your question is that the actual numerical >> probability that I have assigned is based upon a balanced >> weighing of the various lines of evidence involved. >> Bear in mind that I have been studying the matter for >> nearly 30 years, full time, and have in fact published a >> major discovery in Psychology (the discovery of the >> long-sought for Structural Model of Personality) and have >> also discovered and published the world's first bona fide >> scientific proof of God. >> I only mention all that in order to establish my >> credentials in the fields of Psychology and Theology. As >> far as Physics goes my credentials are established by the >> normal Curriculum Vitae which shows that I have a Masters >> degree in Physics. >> >> Okay, having established my credentials in the various >> fields which bear on the determining of this probability I >> can sum up the situation briefly as this: >> >> 1. Historically, the theory of life after death is at >> least as old as the Pyramids upon whose walls details >> of it remain engraved in miles of carefully chiseled >> hieroglyphics where they can be seen to this day. >> Furthermore, a psychological and theological >> investigation of this long history shows unequivocally >> that the root origin of the idea is intimately connected >> with the universal human experience of the ordinary >> nocturnal dream. >> In short, the only reason why the theory appears >> plausible enough to have survivedfor 5000 years is that >> people are strongly persuaded that the phenomenon of >> nocturnal dreaming is significant evidence of something >> as yet not fully explained. >> This latter fact then tells me as an experienced >> physicist and now accomplished psychologist and >> theologian that the odds-on probability of their >> actually being such a thing MUST lie somewhere in the >> low double digits percentagewise. And I would finally >> note, that this low double digits opinion appears to be >> well inline with average public opinion worldwide. >> >> 2. From that assessment of 5000 years of recorded >> history on the subject we then move forward into the >> scientific argument. And here I am referring >> specifically to the cytoskeleton-microtubule-computer >> hypothesis. Let's call it the cytoskeleton-brain >> hypothesis (CB). >> 2000 years ago the New Testament writers (St. Paul) >> using the scientific language of his day advanced a >> rather specific description of how life after death >> actually works in I Corinthians chapter 15 vs >> 35-55. And in what can only be classified now as a >> colossal coincidence, it turns out that according to >> my investigations (and confirmed by Stuart Hameroff >> himself), the CB could very "possibly" resurrect the >> body to a "living-virtual-reality" inside the CB, just >> exactly as St. Paul described it. St. Paul referred >> to it as a "Spiritual body" in the New Testament. >> >> 3. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the historical >> probability, which I assume to be no more than say >> 15% judging from historical, public and professional >> opinion, is now raised by virtue of this >> cytoskeleton-computer possibility to something more >> like a 30% probability. Simply because the >> historical belief which obtained at least a 15% >> credibility with world opinion, now has a plausible and >> indeed even remarkable scientific explanation. In >> short, The probability has just been DOUBLED by virtue >> of the discovery of a plausible scientific explanation. >> As you can see, it's really a scientific guessing >> game at this point, a sort of "you bet your life" kind >> of guessing game. And my guess is that the probability >> of a real life after death is somewhere around 30%. >> Now 30% is a long long ways from 51% and even 51% >> is a long ways from a sure thing. On the other hand >> given the import of the matter, a quite credible >> probability of 30% is something that simply cannot be >> ignored! >> >> Hope that goes some ways towards answering your question. > >(Geopelia) >Isn't it just wishful thinking? > > [Hammond] No, and that is precisely the point about the theory of life after death and why it won't go away. There is an undeniable 5000-year-old observational history of a well-defined scientific possibility that it could be real. It is easy to dismiss wishful thinking, it is impossible to dismiss observational facts, and that is why the theory won't go away. These observational facts are as follows: 1. There is an invisible world ( a.k.a. part of reality is invisible. This can now be actually scientifically measured to three significant figures. 2. This invisible reality is caused by a deficit in human growth, specifically in the brain. And this deficit is intimately connected with a well known hallucinatory reality known as the nocturnal dream. 3. It is now known that there is an enormous "cytoskeleton-brain" which is optically interconnected and could easily read out a lifetime of "real-life virtual reality" in a split second at the moment of death. And that this would precisely fit the Christian theory of the resurrection of the body at death as outlined in the New Testament in I Corinthians chapter 15, vs 35-55. 4. Any competent scientist can see that the last futile hope of an ignoramus to try and classify this as "wishful thinking" must be ruled out of court. . . >When humans realised that we all die in the end, wouldn't the idea have >arisen that there must be something afterwards? How can all the learning and >experience of a lifetime just be snuffed out? How can those who love never >meet again? > > > [Hammond] Without the existence of a plausible scientific explanation such arguments are nothing but idle "philawswphy" conjectures. > > >Just about every culture has some theory about life after death. In the old >days, people prayed and sacrificed to the gods. Today we try to find some >scientific proof. > > [Hammond] as I said, that is a historical fact, and I have pointed out the observational rationale for why that historical fact exists. > > >We can only die in hopes of something surviving. My guess is the probability >is nil. > > [Hammond} Quite frankly Mdm., your "guesswork" is of very little relevance to the issue. ======================================== GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE Primary site http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond Mirror site http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com HAMMOND FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3 =======================================
From: George Hammond on 28 Dec 2009 13:49
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 06:58:14 -0800 (PST), BruceS <bruces42(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >On Dec 28, 6:44�am, "Geopelia" <phildo...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: >> "George Hammond" <Nowhe...(a)notspam.com> wrote in message >> >> news:7asgj5do09o939v2jp54o9j7g5i9e3n4rg(a)4ax.com... >> >> >> >> > On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 18:48:38 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." >> > <p...(a)hovnanian.com> wrote: >> >> >>George Hammond wrote: >> >> >>> � � �CAUTIONARY NOTE ON THE AFTERLIFE >> >> >>> Copyright: �George Hammond 2009 >> >> >>> � �As I've said many times before my best estimate of the >> >>> probability of life after death is only about 30%. >> >> >>What sort of measurement or analysis do you base that 30% on? >> >> >>Why not 3%? Or 3ppm? >> >> > [Hammond] >> > � Excellent question. �Naturally I will immediately answer >> > any on topic serious and competent inquiry. >> > � Unfortunately, I have to spend most of my time beating >> > back a horde of nonprofessional and anti-intellectual >> > hecklers, not to mention not a few atheistic and outraged >> > scientists. >> > � The answer to your question is that the actual numerical >> > probability that I have assigned is based upon a balanced >> > weighing of the various lines of evidence involved. >> > � Bear in mind that I have been studying the matter for >> > nearly 30 years, full time, and have in fact published a >> > major discovery in Psychology (the discovery of the >> > long-sought for �Structural Model of Personality) and have >> > also discovered and published the world's first bona fide >> > scientific proof of God. >> > � I only mention all that in order to establish my >> > credentials in the fields of Psychology and Theology. �As >> > far as Physics goes my credentials are established by the >> > normal Curriculum Vitae which shows that I have a Masters >> > degree in Physics. >> >> > � Okay, having established my credentials in the various >> > fields which bear on the determining of this probability I >> > can sum up the situation briefly as this: >> >> > 1. � � Historically, the theory of life after death is at >> > � � least as old as the Pyramids upon whose walls details >> > � � of it remain engraved in miles of carefully chiseled >> > � � hieroglyphics where they can be seen to this day. >> > � � � Furthermore, a psychological and theological >> > � � investigation of this long history shows unequivocally >> > � �that the root origin of the idea is intimately connected >> > � �with the universal human experience of the ordinary >> > � �nocturnal dream. >> > � � �In short, the only reason why the theory appears >> > � �plausible enough to have survivedfor 5000 years is that >> > � �people are strongly persuaded that the phenomenon of >> > � �nocturnal dreaming is significant evidence of something >> > � �as yet not fully explained. >> > � � � This latter fact then tells me as an experienced >> > � �physicist and now accomplished psychologist and >> > � �theologian that the odds-on probability of their >> > � �actually being such a thing MUST lie somewhere in the >> > � �low double digits percentagewise. �And I would finally >> > � �note, that this low double digits opinion appears to be >> > � �well inline with average public opinion worldwide. >> >> > 2. � � �From that assessment of 5000 years of recorded >> > � � �history on the subject we then move forward into the >> > � � �scientific argument. �And here I am referring >> > � � �specifically to the cytoskeleton-microtubule-computer >> > � � �hypothesis. �Let's call it the cytoskeleton-brain >> > � � �hypothesis (CB). >> > � � � �2000 years ago the New Testament writers (St. Paul) >> > � � �using the scientific language of his day advanced a >> > � � �rather specific description of how life after death >> > � � �actually works in I Corinthians chapter 15 vs >> > � � �35-55. �And in what can only be classified now as a >> > � � �colossal coincidence, it turns out that according to >> > � � �my investigations (and confirmed by Stuart Hameroff >> > � � �himself), the CB could very "possibly" resurrect the >> > � � �body to a "living-virtual-reality" inside the CB, just >> > � � �exactly as St. Paul described it. �St. Paul referred >> > � � �to it as a "Spiritual body" in the New Testament. >> >> > 3. � � Therefore, in my considered opinion, the historical >> > � � probability, which I assume to be no more than say >> > � �15% �judging from historical, public and professional >> > � � opinion, is now raised by virtue of this >> > � � cytoskeleton-computer possibility to something more >> > � � like a 30% probability. �Simply because the >> > � � historical belief which obtained at least a 15% >> > � �credibility with world opinion, now has a plausible and >> > � �indeed even remarkable scientific explanation. �In >> > � �short, The probability has just been DOUBLED by virtue >> > � �of the discovery of a plausible scientific explanation. >> > � � � �As you can see, it's really a scientific guessing >> > � �game at this point, a sort of "you bet your life" kind >> > � �of guessing game. �And my guess is that the probability >> > � �of a real life after death is somewhere around 30%. >> > � � � Now 30% is a long long ways from 51% and even 51% >> > � �is a long ways from a sure thing. �On the other hand >> > � �given the import of the matter, a quite credible >> > � �probability of 30% is something that simply cannot be >> > � �ignored! >> >> > Hope that goes some ways towards answering your question. >> >> (Geopelia) >> Isn't it just wishful thinking? >> >> When humans realised that we all die in the end, wouldn't the idea have >> arisen that there must be something afterwards? How can all the learning and >> experience of a lifetime just be snuffed out? How can those who love never >> meet again? >> >> Just about every culture has some theory about life after death. In the old >> days, people prayed and sacrificed to the gods. Today we try to find some >> scientific proof. >> >> We can only die in hopes of something surviving. My guess is the probability >> is nil. > > >(BruceS) >Right; dying is the only way to get the answer. > > > [Hammond] Who told you that? What makes you think so? modern science proves the existence of things that they can't see almost every day. There is no reason to think that life after death is any different. > > > I say, live as if >you'll be held accountable for your actions after you die, but don't >count on it, and don't rush the process. > > [Hammond] Yeah yeah yeah, that's known to history as "Pascal's Wager" and were all familiar with it. > > > > I fully expect death to be >the end of me, but am willing to be surprised. Anyway, who needs life >after death when statistics show us that we have a good chance of >immortality? > > [Hammond] We have no chance of immortality in this life. All of history proves that. The only known possibility of immortality is described in the New Testament, and has now become a scientific possibility. Which is what we are talking about. > > > <snip the usual common knowlege recitation> ======================================== GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE Primary site http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond Mirror site http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com HAMMOND FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3 ======================================= |