The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jamie Michelle

That was your previous post in this thread. Your previous question was "You mean, forums to which you posted...right?" See http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/sho...&postcount=136 .

---

From your post #120

Quote:

---

As I indicated previously, I have genius-level writing skills.

---

Actually what you indicated previously (in accordance with your definition of "previous") was

Quote:

---

There's a difference between making a typo and doing what you do. I have looked over your posting history and your grammar is consistently horrendous. This explains why you wrongly thought I made a mistake on grammar in the example that you gave, since you don't actually know what good grammar is.

---

LOL. You're flailing Jamie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by loveboof

This is very true! I have tried to have a sensible discussion with Jamie on theological grounds, you have primarily on historical, and Trish has on the physics (among with other contributers to this thread).

Jamie refuses to answer these concerns with anything other than insults and reiterations of what we were already questioning in the first place. I have lost count of the number of times Jamie has spammed out the page with references rather than attempt to actually answer our questions.

Jamie is a joke. Whether she is technically a genius because of her IQ is completely irrelevant; she is a total fool!

---

:joke: Seriously Jamie is a joke, this person cannot truly comprehend nor interpret what he reads, instead all he is good for is plagiarising and regurgitating stuff he has read, as is so obviously clear in his factless style of arguing, genius IQ my arse more like Narcissistic personality disorder:loser:

Got to say Jamie that although you come across as obnoxious and nauseating in your latter posts I do actually agree with most of what you have written in your beginning posts, although I am still trying to figure out whether you arrived at these conclusions by yourself or whether in fact you had seen a lot of this stuff and thought it would make you look clever and feed your ego to post it.

Give unto Jamie that which is Jamies
And give unto God that which is Gods.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

Give unto Jamie that which is Jamies
And give unto God that which is Gods.

---

And give unto the rest of us, what we want - what we really want!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

Give unto Jamie that which is Jamies
And give unto God that which is Gods.

---

Well since you put it like that I guess as we are nothing more than a configuration of atoms spawned from the creator, then I surmise that none of it is Jamies or anyone else's, but in fact it is all "its" in "its" many guises and we are simply deluded into believing our own individualism as it doesn't really exist:confused:

There are a lot of assumptions there. Are we nothing more than a configuration of atoms? The material world consists of spacetime, matter, energy, fields and their associated particles, and perhaps quantum waves (the materiality of which is still being argued). Are we nothing more than a configuration of these material entities? Are our constituent particles, fields etc. the spawn of a creator? Perhaps they are the debris of some cosmic destruction caused by a malignant destroyer. Perhaps the universe has no teleological cause at all. Does pantheism preclude the individuality of cognitive agents?

With terminological slight of hand, clever jargonese and mathematical obscurantism, Tipler and Jamie have fooled themselves into thinking all these questions are settled and that their answers have a indisputable scientific grounding (though they are not yet accepted by the scientific community, even though it's been eighteen years since their initial publication). There's a sucker born every minute, but it's always most amusing when the grifter falls for his own con.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

There are a lot of assumptions there. Are we nothing more than a configuration of atoms? The material world consists of spacetime, matter, energy, fields and their associated particles, and perhaps quantum waves (the materiality of which is still being argued). Are we nothing more than a configuration of these material entities? Are our constituent particles, fields etc. the spawn of a creator? Perhaps they are the debris of some cosmic destruction caused by a malignant destroyer. Perhaps the universe has no teleological cause at all. Does pantheism preclude the individuality of cognitive agents?

With terminological slight of hand, clever jargonese and mathematical obscurantism, Tipler and Jamie have fooled themselves into thinking all these questions are settled and that their answers have a indisputable scientific grounding (though they are not yet accepted by the scientific community, even though it's been eighteen years since their initial publication). There's a sucker born every minute, but it's always most amusing when the grifter falls for his own con.

---

The material universe may be more immaterial than you think or maybe it is just some thought construct, think of all the quantum weirdness, the double slit experiment and its ensuing paradox, the fact for now that almost all of the universe is missing, atoms that in reality are 99.9999999999999 empty space, meaning you remove the empty space from each of ours then the total worlds populations resulting matter could fit in a teaspoon, reality is wacky and less real and solid than I figure Jamie understands no doubt will either do in depth research now or will keep very quiet or maybe an unknown will come into the equation:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jamie Michelle

There's a difference between making a typo and doing what you do. I have looked over your posting history and your grammar is consistently horrendous. This explains why you wrongly thought I made a mistake on grammar in the example that you gave, since you don't actually know what good grammar is.
As I indicated previously, I have genius-level writing skills. But that's because I have an IQ that is genius-level (according to the researchers at the University of Texas at Austin who conducted my IQ tests). That doesn't mean I never make mistakes in writing, but it does mean that my writing level is exceedingly high.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jamie Michelle

You wouldn't be able to notice, Trish, since your writing skills are horrendous, as this very post by you demonstrates. But yes, many people have noticed my superlative writings skills. Indeed, that's how I began writing articles, as people noticed my writing skills and depth of knowledge on forums I posted to and I was asked to write articles on politics and religion.

---

Lovely!
We now know for a fact genius can be utterly silly…
Trying to prove the existence of God through theoretical physic is like trying to prove that causality is in the end a magical process…

Just reminds of some old imagery, doesn’t it?