Dear Producer,
The following references will provide positve information to what I have stated below; 'The Holographic Universe - it's an illusion' (You Tube), 'Biege the Colour of the Universe' (abc.net.au/science/news/stories*) and Scientific America (August, 2003).
Kind regards
John Berbatis 10th August, 2009
Logical proof of Monotheism & Pantheism.
Syllogisms that I submitted in 1998, which were recognized by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights - Dr Mary Robinson and the Hon. Justice Michael D. Kirby AC CMG of the High Court of Australia.
Time must exist before matter can be created, and only an animate entity can conceive of space-time. Time must be a stabilized and uniform condition before matter can form, thus Monotheism is a Truth.
The Universe consists of space-time; which is functionally active and growing but remains stable. These combined characteristics are indicative of an animate entity only, thus Pantheism is a fact.
As a consequence, all mortals' behaviour and attitudes become conspicuous by our Creator.
Reality is the dream of a Universal sentient being. Sensations of all mortals are merely light flashes within elongated fractal crystals, flowing in a white mist which is time itself; ensconced within a beige coloured and velvet textured Pearl, that is, a holographic Universe.
If all electrical particles were in different time zones - matter would not form, thus time is a controlled electromagnetic radiation (energy) E = mc2.
To be perfect - one must know the past, present and future, there is only one, the one that created Time.
John Berbatis Perth, Australia
[phone number and email address removed, since I'm not completely heartless]
Wow, that certainly was... a bunch of sentences. Which appeared to be written in English. Or something resembling it.
By the way, when I googled this guy, I also discovered that he predicted multiple times that humanity would go extinct last year. Crikey, John, those are some bloody spooky powers you have there! I think this is why most prophets predict major events occurring a lot more than a year in advance.
* The URL provided is broken, but this story might explain some of what he is talking about with regard to the color beige.
Yeah, that's some . . . um, words there.
ReplyDeletehe reminds me of this guy
ReplyDeleteI don't see what the problem is Russell.
ReplyDeleteI mean, I actually did die last year.
And he predicted it.
Therefore, his syllogisms are TRUE.
And so was that.
(Except for the made up parts).
NIKO
http://kingofdeprecation.blogspot.com
I can't decide if this is an argument from personal incredulity or just a bald assertion with weirdness inserted at random. And what's with the beige? The universe is obviously an olive khaki, does that prove polytheism is fact?
ReplyDeleteWhat the hell? I mean honestly!
ReplyDeleteIt hurts to read this.
"The Universe consists of space-time; which is functionally active and growing but remains stable. These combined characteristics are indicative of an animate entity only, thus Pantheism is a fact."
What the hell?!
holy crap, this has no sense-make. It is doubleplus confusing.
ReplyDeletePractically every single sentence boils down to a non-sequitur.
ReplyDeleteI see we already have a winner for this week's Nonsense Competition Regional semi-finals.
ReplyDelete*applause*
I'm sure he'll do very well in the finals.
Right now I am embarrassed to be Australian. That takes a bit.
ReplyDeleteSo basically, instead of the stupid, we got the crazy this time. I think I like the crazy better.
ReplyDeleteI feel not just the shame of shared nationality, i am in the same city!!
ReplyDeleteJust when i am thinking i reside in the kind of place where my exuberant skepticism is perhaps a little wasted, something like this comes along. Unfortunately this guys bullshyte fits nicely with some particularly ignorant letters that have been published in the West Australian newspaper lately.
Dare i ask for the gents email address?
I think not, i doubt any real conversation would be possible.
My actual reactions are in ''
ReplyDelete"Time must exist before matter can be created, and only an animate entity can conceive of space-time. Time must be a stabilized and uniform condition before matter can form, thus Monotheism is a Truth."
'Whoa!' So obviously, when space time was created, matter could be created! Duh.
"The Universe consists of space-time; which is functionally active and growing but remains stable. These combined characteristics are indicative of an animate entity only, thus Pantheism is a fact."
'Whoa!!'
"As a consequence, all mortals' behaviour and attitudes become conspicuous by our Creator."
WHOA!
i lol'd
Pantheism is a fact."
ReplyDeleteMonotheism is a Truth."
Ok which is it?
Can a truth exist when it contradicts a fact?
Time must exist before matter can be created
ReplyDeleteThat's where I stopped reading. Matter/energy, so far as we can establish, cannot be created. How you present a requisite for something that's not possible is one hell of a leap.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_latte
ReplyDelete"Time must exist before matter can be created, and only an animate entity can conceive of space-time. Time must be a stabilized and uniform condition before matter can form, thus Monotheism is a Truth."
ReplyDeleteI love these kinds of facts that people come up with because I can give away so much and yet prove that the conclusion is ridiculous or false, here are the free ones I'll give you:
1. Time must exist before matter can be created
2. Only an animate entity can conceive of space-time
3. Time must be a stabilized and uniform condition before matter can form
I will freely give you all 3 even though I disagree with them, but your conclusion is still stupid:
4. Monotheism is a Truth.
How? Why not Polytheism? And even if monotheism is true you have in no way shown that it has to be either omnipotent, omniscient or give a damn about human affairs.
But I would say that, I'm a Pisces...
I just love how this person is a perfect example of the semantic gap between spoken and logic languages on the one hand and the ability to conclude everything from a faulty premise on the other hand. I think I'll refer to this post from now on whenever I need to pull an example for either out of my hat next time.
ReplyDelete"Time must be a stabilized and uniform condition "
ReplyDeleteThis is down right wrong and bizarre. Especially since he quotes Einstein who demonstrated that time was not only merely a persistent illusion, but relative and dependent on SPACE. Since Time Dilation/Expansion has been shown beyond scientific doubt and we know natural phenomena of significant mass "bend" time, this statement is DAMN the opposite of what is true. If anything time is dependent on space.
This guy was published in Scientific America?
What a load of bunk!
ReplyDeleteThis guy should read "Time Cube" which really explains reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Cube
Read and weep Mr John Berbatis
No, of course he wasn't published in Scientific American. He MENTIONED a story somebody else published in Scientific American, and pretended to understand it.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this I found the missing piece I needed for my own proof. Here goes.
ReplyDeleteThe universe consists of space-time. This implies that sentient bananas are on the rampage in Paolo Alto. Thus polytheism is a fact and fishsticks have souls.
Holy shit.... literally....
ReplyDeleteHere's something not quite as crazy but still fairly silly from Oprah-land:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.oprah.com/article/omagazine/200805-omag-science-spirituality
Notice the carefully worded title - he's not proving any gods, he saying that people are "spiritual" because it feels good. He also seems to try to distinguish between "negative" good feelings and "positive" good feelings and of course gives religion full credit for the latter.
I wonder how it felt to be one of the 911 hijackers - really believing you were doing the best thing. I bet they felt really good at the time...
Ah, I just saw the beige update.
ReplyDeleteAnother, "public finds relevance in insignificant data" deal.
"He also seems to try to distinguish between "negative" good feelings and "positive" good feelings "
ReplyDeleteWTF? Um...definition of "negative and positive" good feelings?
Ing: I'm off-topic talking about the Oprah article I linked there. You should be reading my quotes there as heaping scorn on the author. Here's a snip:
ReplyDelete"Positive emotions work better than negative emotions in an evolutionary sense. The forgiveness of the Marshall Plan led to a much safer Europe than the retributive justice of the Versailles Treaty. Ideas supported by positive emotions have a survival power that ideas built on negative or greedy emotions don't. And yet you have to be patient to see this. If you look just at the past 2,000 years, it's easy to complain about how awful things are."
Reading it again now, I'm stuck by how glibly he claims to know what "works best" in an "evolutionary sense". (Read more scorn) Wouldn't "evolution" be better served if there was stiffer competition caused by "negative emotions?"
What? It makes perfect sense to me...
ReplyDeleteChaos Song,
ReplyDeleteI wont pretend that the "evolutionary sense" statement has been justified. But has been some investigation done in this area.
I think the prisoners dillemma has been discussed here before at some time. And the relative (possibly evolutionary?) advantage that is gained by taking a tactic of occassional forgiveness (positive emotions?).
Just saying, that while the article may be poorly written, it doesnt mean they are entirely full of shyte.
Jason:
ReplyDeleteWell no, it certainly doesn't stink as much as this Berbatis fellow. But it IS poorly written and I really dislike the way he conflates religion with everything good.
No argument from me there Chaos.
ReplyDelete@ Chaossong:
ReplyDeleteIt reminds me of the book Liberal Fascism which my local Barnes and Noble is really pushing as a "best seller" and "recommended reading". First chapter the guy basically redefines fascist as liberal/socialist and then spends the rest of the book "proving" historically that all fascism was liberal. by his definition fascism wasn't the totalitarianism, nor was it the abject worship of the state and military, the focus on violence, and erosion of human rights; nope it was government regulating businesses and making social programs.
The irony: he criticizes liberals for using polemics.
So yes, if you make your definition framed like that, of course you can make the argument since you've fraking weaseled your way out of actually proving anything. It's the "Matt is Black" method of scholarship.
i can has spacetime!
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed this post so much I made it into a song (power ballad). Enjoy the cheese if you wish:
http://willmoremusic.com/elongated_crystal/elongated_crystal.mp3
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIng: truly repulsive - I just had to look at it on Amazon:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0767917189/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250087321&sr=8-1
There is a review posted there from the WP trashing it that is a fun read. Too long to post but here's a clip that made me laugh:
"Liberals have rarely supported violence, militarism or authoritarianism, because they are doves and wimps -- or at least that is what both conservatives and socialists usually say."
twillmore: lol, are those backup singers or did you dubb your own voice in?
ReplyDeleteTwillmore wins. Flawless victory.
ReplyDeletetwillmore = epic win! Loved it. :-D
ReplyDeleteif Twinmore's song is not the opening to the next Non-Prophets I will be the sad.
ReplyDelete@Chaossong:
ReplyDeleteThat Barnes and Noble has been doing some weird stuff when it comes to shelfing. I don't know if it's just me being selectively observent but it seems like stuff like Glen Beck, Coulter, and some other religious stuff get put prominently and pushed. I first took notice when it seemingly non-sequitorly had the entire left behind series in the island display for "Ideas for Father's day". Is it just me? I've been on the look out at other Barnes and Nobles and Borders and definitly havn't seen anything like this at Borders as they seem to shelf to not advertise overly diversive materials, while Barnes and Noble few are like that one but for example are often pushing the Liberal Fascism book. If anyone knows if this is just me being paranoid, or if Barnes and Noble is known to have a more Right slant than other book sellers, let me know (my guess is that the one has a Born again manager and the others just follow some store policy for always displaying the NYT best sellers prominently)
Off topic, to any of the crew working the ACA: since the comment threads here are fairly popular and you often get a bunch of jerks like me or theists wanting to chat about stuff off topic of the thread post, have you considered starting up an ACA/AA/NP forum for fans/anti-fans? I know there's probably many other atheist forum things out there but a little forum on one of the free hosting might be a good way for fans to put up extra info from show topics or for apologists to start in on their argument without bringing a whole thread off topic.
Ing:
ReplyDeleteFrankly, I don't get out much so I couldn't tell you what my local bookstores are displaying. I would not necessarily jump to the conclusion that B&N is promoting an agenda - I bet that they are much more interested in what sells.
When I worked for the book club, the ragged right (Coulter, O'Riley et. al.) always sold big. I think that much of the audience for this sort of thing haven't discovered the interwebs yet and this leads to disproportionate sales, but that's just a guess.
Glad you enjoyed!
ReplyDelete(Background vocals are me.)
Judging by the kind of airy-fairy language John employs in his devastatingly dim discourse I'd suggest that he's been paying far to much attention to the “science portion” of Futurama episodes, especially the shows where Deepak Chopra is quoted.
ReplyDeleteMaybe John was channeling Prof. Hubert J. Farnsworth through some kind of beige, pearl like, holographic space-time displacement field with a disentangled, pure creator mind force acting as a bonding medium between their actual and fictional subconscious mind stream. Which, as we all know, would result in a waveform collapse, therefore producing a net-neutral outcome requiring no further explanation.
One Farnesworth quote does seem unusally accute to the whole theist thing
ReplyDelete"That's impossible"
Prof: "Not at all!"
"Then explain it"
Prof "Now THAT'S Impossible!"
The very first sentence after the opening paragraph devoted to auto-fellatio exhibits the key problem with what we can refer to as an assortment of words: "Time must exist before matter can be created..."
ReplyDeleteWe're now working on the baseless assertion that matter can be created.
The rest is just unadulterated mind-vomit.
Wow, I've heard some random statements before spoken by all manner of people but this takes the cake.
ReplyDeleteMy greatest laugh comes at how these people always assert there is a 'God' through one sense or another. Thinking that ahah i've proved it ergo one god must automatically be our god and calidates everything the bible says.
However i'm crediting this berbatis character too much.
If i was handed a paper like this, i'd immediately go for the great red stamp of 'Epic Fail'.
"To insults against logic Australia says no"
for berbatis we say sorry
What is you guys' email address anyway? I can't find it on this blog anywhere
ReplyDelete