In 1994 a U.S. physicist named George Hammond published discovery of the long sought for STRUCTURAL MODEL of Psychology. 3 years later, as a result of that discovery, he accidentally discovered the world's first scientific proof of God....

http://webspace.we...eg/george_hammond/

Typos and grammar errors in the first two paragraphs are not good signs.



<continues reading...>


Absolute lunatic bullshit in the 5th paragraph is enough for me to stop reading.

I made it through the intro pages.

All I got outta that is a strange feeling that I wasted my time.

If I got this right (and I doubt I do) god is a demonstrable perceptual anomaly caused by incomplete neural development.

Huh?

This 2007 radio interview with Anthony Peake is interesting and easier to understand than a physics paper. Both he and Hammond came up with the same basic conclusions about the brain although independently of each other and working in different fields. The interview is an hour, if anyone cares to listen:

http://www.astraea...radio_2007_frm.php

Both Hammond and Peake appear to be absolute charlatans:

Hammond:
http://www.insolit.../georgehammond.htm

Peake:
http://www.anthonypeake.co.uk/index.php

The "peer reviewed journal" Hammond published in is the Noetic Journal, which isn't even legit enough to have its own web site:
http://www.mindspring.com/~noeticj/

If I got this right (and I doubt I do) god is a demonstrable perceptual anomaly caused by incomplete neural development.

In other words, god is a figment of our imagination.

God is an imaginary friend for adults. Not mine, but funny.

Posted by G to the Race God is an imaginary friend for adults. Not mine, but funny.

You do know you're asking for a war, don't you?

Posted by HarvestmanMan You do know you're asking for a war, don't you?

oh do bring it...
eh... we can move it already established threads advocating anti-jihad

Posted by HarvestmanMan You do know you're asking for a war, don't you?

It's already been fought. Love your avatar, BTW. Tom Baker is the standard by which all other Doctors are judged.

Psychological studies have actually provided evidence that the feeling of unity and oneness that individuals often associate with religious experience is in fact a sort of neural "detachment" from spatial awareness. While this isn't directly related to the original topic, it does demonstrate the "God in the brain" idea and provide a scientific explanation for it.

http://health.hows...rain-religion1.htm

I originally encountered the notion in Haidt's "The Happiness Hypothesis" and found it quite interesting. When the brain structures that cause us to feel grounded are compromised, we can attain a sensation of unity and bliss that comes with a whole host of psychological benefits. My favorite theory is that this functions as a sort of evolutionary self-defense mechanism that protects us from the knowledge of our own mortality and helps prevent us from descending into nihilism (and thus potentially suicide or reproductive apathy).

Posted by splumer In other words, god is a figment of our imagination.

I was trying to make it sound all science-y...

Posted by Cullivan I originally encountered the notion in Haidt's "The Happiness Hypothesis" and found it quite interesting. When the brain structures that cause us to feel grounded are compromised, we can attain a sensation of unity and bliss that comes with a whole host of psychological benefits. My favorite theory is that this functions as a sort of evolutionary self-defense mechanism that protects us from the knowledge of our own mortality and helps prevent us from descending into nihilism (and thus potentially suicide or reproductive apathy).

My favorite has always been Julian Jaynes' The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind.

Jaynes asserts that until roughly the times written about in Homer's Iliad, humans did not generally have the self-awareness characteristic of consciousness as most people experience it today. Rather, Jaynes argued that the bicameral individual was guided by mental commands believed to be issued by external "gods"—the commands which were so often recorded in ancient myths, legends and historical accounts; these commands were however emanating from individuals' own minds. This is exemplified not only in the commands given to characters in ancient epics but also the very muses of Greek mythology which "sang" the poems: Jaynes argues that while later interpretations see the muses as a simple personification of creative inspiration, the ancients literally heard muses as the direct source of their music and poetry.

As a behavioral scientist I consider empiricism and the scientific method to be my bread and butter... That said, sometimes very inappropriate conclusions are irresponsibly extrapolated from valid scientific theories, models, data.

To suggest God can be either proven or disproven by science is startlingly naive. There may be a vocal minority of scientists that suggest God is disproven by science, but visit any reputable physics or quantum mechanics conference or research center and you'll meet the mainstream who are generally agnostic and (who allow for the existence of God, but most often say "I just don't know")

Step back to the very beginning if you will... Two possibilities. One, the universe is eternal and has always been here, a theory that is beyond the ability of contemporary science to prove or disprove - and if you concede this may the case, you've gone as far in "supernatural" belief as many who profess belief in God and, having gone thus far yourself, certainly can't credibly critique God believers. Two, the universe had an origin and made a transition from a state of absolute nothing, to absolute something. Unfortunately, if you believe this, you've got a problem of logic: if "nothing" is really "nothing", it lacks the properties whereby "something" can be created. If nothing could generate something, it'd not actually be "nothing" at all. This is the fallacy of contemporary Big Bang proponents... Because what caused the Big Bang? What existed prior to it? Certainly not "nothing"... And certainly not infinite heat (a supernatural state) or infinite density (another supernatural state).

For those outside the scientific community, many believe that atheism and science are somehow inextricably linked. In fact, mainstream science (particularly physics) and atheism have been moving apart for some time... And agnosticism has largely replaced atheism as a commonly held view.

Posted by Aleksandar butter

Delicious.

Posted by HarvestmanMan Cognitive Dissonance

Also delicious.

Posted by Aleksandar For those outside the scientific community, many believe that atheism and science are somehow inextricably linked. In fact, mainstream science (particularly physics) and atheism have been moving apart for some time... And agnosticism has largely replaced atheism as a commonly held view.

QFT. It's not so much that science has "disproved" god(s) so much as gods don't enter into the equation.