General Book Information: The First Scientific Proof of God
This information is intended to inform a potential buyer of the book’s content and its usefulness and comforting potentials.
The book began to develop after 25 years of research by the author on many social problems currently addressed by the fields of science and religion. 165 citations of the related thoughts of widely accepted ancient and modern personalities are used.
The book’s highest ideas are God, science, theology, life, and universe. These ideas form one God, one world, one knowledge and talking language, one science, one life, and one infrastructure of life, which is the universe. These ideas would cause human life to leave the ‘current modern era of uncertainty’ only to enter a ‘future era of certainty’ where world peace, abundance, equity, beauty, and happiness are certain. The book would thus represent the beginning of a major worldwide change in the way people live.
Because of its wide coverage of human thoughts, the book is multi functional and can serve all walks of life, all mature people, many classes in high schools, colleges, and universities, many research projects, all sciences, all theologies, all religions, all historians, all political movements, and all government agencies. It thus fits among those other intellectual books that already exist in our growing family libraries.
The opportunity for this major social change came with the finding of a real scientific proof of God. This proof was made possible by advancements in mathematics, science, and theology beginning in the 15th century. This finding will unify all religions and all sciences while simultaneously unifying Science and Religion. Its contents will thus be very useful to futuristic thinkers and comforting to all people.
Chapter 1 is my proof of God. It is the cause of change that will be debated among interested readers. The worldwide change begins to take shape in Chapter 2 and ends with the end of the book.
The book began to develop after 25 years of research by the author on many social problems currently addressed by the fields of science and religion. 165 citations of the related thoughts of widely accepted ancient and modern personalities are used.
The book’s highest ideas are God, science, theology, life, and universe. These ideas form one God, one world, one knowledge and talking language, one science, one life, and one infrastructure of life, which is the universe. These ideas would cause human life to leave the ‘current modern era of uncertainty’ only to enter a ‘future era of certainty’ where world peace, abundance, equity, beauty, and happiness are certain. The book would thus represent the beginning of a major worldwide change in the way people live.
Because of its wide coverage of human thoughts, the book is multi functional and can serve all walks of life, all mature people, many classes in high schools, colleges, and universities, many research projects, all sciences, all theologies, all religions, all historians, all political movements, and all government agencies. It thus fits among those other intellectual books that already exist in our growing family libraries.
The opportunity for this major social change came with the finding of a real scientific proof of God. This proof was made possible by advancements in mathematics, science, and theology beginning in the 15th century. This finding will unify all religions and all sciences while simultaneously unifying Science and Religion. Its contents will thus be very useful to futuristic thinkers and comforting to all people.
Chapter 1 is my proof of God. It is the cause of change that will be debated among interested readers. The worldwide change begins to take shape in Chapter 2 and ends with the end of the book.
posted by George Shollenberger @ 9:45 AM
18 Comments:
At 2:22 AM,
Anonymous said…
You should be ashamed of yourself for spreading this kind of crackpot pseudo-science. The world does not need any more of this nonsense to mislead impressionable dimwitted people. Shame, shame, shame. As you were presumably at one time an intelligent person, one can only conclude your brain has been completely addled by repeated and prolonged exposure to the Bible.
At 6:47 AM,
George Shollenberger said…
To bookjunky. You are showing your unawareness of the knowledge linkage between modern science and the scriptures made by the ancients. If you will take time to conduct proper research, you will learn that human knowledge has been growing steadily for over 4 million years. Scriptural writings are only one phase of this growth.
At 10:43 AM,
Unknown said…
George,
Can you print the scientific proof so it can be parsed through by scientists and educated laymen alike, somewhere on the web.
Scientific proof includes formal priciples of logic and/or pure mathematics, or acceptable physical proof (based on accepted physics, such as the standard model, for example).
No "x" factor wildcards - no "fields of pure potnetiality", or "spiritual DNA" or other such nonsense.
You are claiming scientifc proof, and you yourself are an engineer. Let's see it freely accessible on the web. I am sure Stephen Hawking and other prominent physicists would love to parse through your proof, and many mathematicians and ligicians would love to analyze the logic and correctness of the calculations.
If this is earth-shaking, at least a few of Earth's greatest physicists should be able to independently verify your proof.
Thank you.
At 1:26 PM,
George Shollenberger said…
The first scientific proof of God is a major breakthrough and is supported by other major scientific breakthroughs. The proof of God consumes one complete chapter (Chapter 1) and the supporting scientific breakthroughs require much more space in the book at the right places. Further, the whole book is forming a unity that must be comprehended and understood as the whole that I present.
It is inappropriate at this time to put the whole book on the Internet. It would lead to chaos and short fuses because my book is very different.
I suggest that you organize a small group and share. If not, try Bill Gates because he might have solutions to problems like you present.
At 3:14 PM,
Anonymous said…
It's so profound and revolutionary you can't share it online? I think more likely 1) you want to sell books more than you want to share the Word or 2) you know very well it won't hold up to scrutiny.
4 million years? Humans have not been around for that long. Unless you are talking about Ardipithecus ramidus and on - hominid, not human. You are right that I am unaware of any linkage between modern science and the scriptures which the ancients have made. Please feel free to enlighten me.
At 4:01 PM,
George Shollenberger said…
Rersponse to bookjunky. Why would one pay the cost of self-publishing a book, pay the book's cost for advertising, and build a blog to teach it and expant it when he or she knows that a book will not hold up to scrutiny?. Such a writer would be is irrtional. I have confidence about the contents of my book.
I argue that your classification of anstralopithecine is flawed. Brain functional organization, not size, determines the hominid, as confirmed by the finding of the hobbits in Indonesia recently.
The linkage of knowledge over long periods is my subject of all of Part I
At 5:54 PM,
Anonymous said…
I am still interested in hearing your proof. I am certain that there are many atheists who would be interested as well. Although Christians characterize atheists as closed-minded, in fact, most of us have examined the scientific evidence at some length before we came to the conclusion that we did. Therefore, if you have new evidence, we would love to hear it. Many current atheists spent years in denial of what logic and reason dictates, which is, there is no God - before finally accepting reality.
If you could convince me that you had some actual evidence rather than pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo based on your New-Age re-reading of the Bible, I would consider buying the book. What is more, if you convinced me of your logic and evidence, I would recommend it to others. All I see here, though, is a lot of vague hinting.
At 9:27 AM,
George Shollenberger said…
My response to bookjunky and yogi's world and music.
Point 1: A self-publisher is a profit-making organization. Since US self-publishers are providing many more US authors the ability to communicate their ideas to people, I do not want to be unfair and deny them of their anticipated earnings. So, I think it is unfair in a free nation to extract any part of a published book and print it on the Internet so that people can discuss it as if the US is a socialistic nation.
Point 2: I believe that I am fair by teaching and expanding my very differnt book on the Internet with this blog. At the same time I am trying to convince people that my book is useful and will become a major guide of the future of people in all nations.
Point 3: My book is not a crackpot pseudoscience. It is filling many current scientific voids, filling many current social needs, and solving many social problems.
Point 4: It was just a matter of time before new alternatives would appear to fill the failure of physicists to find a natural atomic system for the universe; the failure of cosmologists to prove the Big Bang theory; the failure of physicists to prove that living things come from nonliving things; the failure of biologists to prove evolutionary theory; the failure of social scientists to develop natural social systems; the failure of political scienticts to develop a natural government for people; the failure of medical researchers to develop natural medical care systems, etc. These alternatives are possible only with new ideas such as those found in my new and very different book.
Point 5: Today, on July 23, 2006, I will post a message that will show why my blogging effort is not 'alot of vague hinting.' This posting will show that the scientific method of proof is two-folded and thus produces truths about both God and the universe.
At 12:39 PM,
Anonymous said…
You point out in one response to a commentator that you don't have too long to live. My advice, as someone in the same boat (50 years max. for a 70-yr-old), is to grab what's left now instead of lounging in an easy chair with a rugrat (back problems, already?)
And forget the godtosh - there is zippo evidence, and scientifically-speaking there never can be. Read the work of philosopher Sir Karl Popper to find out why this is so.
At 5:54 PM,
George Shollenberger said…
To a well-wisher. Take notice that we do not live in the past. But, Karl Popper suggested that we should live in the present beased on the experiences of mind. I choose to take a portion of my life so that I can live some of my life in the future and help the new generations with truths, plans and goals.
Popper's 'me generation' is not for me because his social theory has no God that I recognize. And, the situation of the world today proves that today's view of God is too far away from the truth.
At 1:31 AM,
Greg said…
Dear George,
Like you, I am a professional electrical engineer from a prestigious research university, with an interest in philosophy (particularly epistemology).
I understand the commercial imperative that impedes you from fully disclosing your proof, but could you please confirm the following:
1) Your "proof of God" is a proof of the existence of God?
2) The argument is that God necessarily exists (like a proof that "all uncles are men"), rather than, say, that the sky is blue (true, but could easily have been green).
3) You have reviewed the five historical proofs of the existence God (see Bertrand Russell), but yours is new and cannot be "re-worked" into one of the five.
4) The God you have proved to exist bears a strong (perfect?) correlation with the figure described throughout the Torah, and later the Gospels - but not the Koran. Or, for that matter, whatever Joseph Smith dug up in his fields.
5) The proof is understandable to an educated, open-minded lay person without theological training?
6) The proof does not require belief in or acceptance of of any events, phenomena or entities that one wouldn't find in a standard university science/engineering textbook at a reputable university?
7) The argument is couched in such a way that two reasonable, well-intentioned people could agree to disagree about its validity without any hard feelings, personal invective or animosity?
8) You've presented the proof and received positive feedback from a range of scholars held in high regard within academe in science, philosophy and theology?
Thanks for answering these.
Cheers,
-Greg.
At 8:18 AM,
George Shollenberger said…
Hello Greg,
My proof of God employs the scientific method of proof. It thus explains the origin of all finite things that have existed and will exist in our world. So, it proves God's necessary existence, the necessary natue of God's infinity, and that God exists necessarily beyond all positive and negative concepts found in the creation.
My proof is aligned to Judeo--Christian teachings but not to the teachings of the Qur'an and Joseph Smith.
Yes, my proof is simple and teachable to all maturing people without theological training.
My proof requires no religious belief or faith to be taught at a reputable university with a standard science/engineering textbook.
My proof can be discussed among many different people without yelling or creating fights.
My proof is being presented for the first time in my book because related research in many fields of thought had to be conducted and presented in the same book.
The five historical proofs you mention on God's existence are ontological proofs. My proof of God's existence is both scientific and ontological. My proof of God says that God is ontologically prior, but not before in time, to all things He creates. My proof of God is scientific because God's infinite is scientifically related to all finite things found in our world.
Hopefully, these words are helpful.
George
At 11:13 AM,
Greg said…
Thanks for your response, George.
I'm not sure that that all established (though disproved) proofs are ontological - for example there's the teleological or "argument from design" proof.
You keep mentioning "scientific" - do you mean your proof falls broadly into the hypothetico-deductive approach, or some something more concrete?
If we're talking about Popperian falsificationism, I don't even see how such a proposition could be considered "scientific" in the first palce.
Or, in Humean terms, how we could inspect the causal conditions or indeed replicate them in a controlled experiment. Or perhaps you mean "scientific" in a more metaphorical sense ie synonymous with "logical" or "rational" or "authoritative" etc?
Are you able (without giving away your secrets!) to explain how the question of God's existence could be regarded as a scientific one?
(I don't want to pre-suppose your response, but I suspect either your definition of "God" or your definition of "scientific" is out of kilter with the rest of us.)
Thanks.
-Greg.
At 3:46 PM,
George Shollenberger said…
Hi Greg,
I reviewed Russell's five historical proofs of God again. I still conclude that all of these proofs are ontological arguments because they do not include time in the arguments. Kalam argument uses the beginning/becoming/end ontological sequence and the teological argument is using the purpose/becoming/end ontological sequence.
My proof of God is a scientific proof because it uses the 'scientific method.' This method connects my theory of God to all empiricsal data in the universe. A precise symbolic languagea must explain this connection and form scientific laws.
Popper's (and Russell's) logical positivism are not considered by me.
Hume's mindset would take my thoughts into deism and materialism. I am a spiritualist, a scientist, and panentheist.
I do not hide any secrets. God is one truth. All other truths are absolute and relative and are found in the universe. On the truths in the universe, I view science as the only truth seeking field of thought. So, proving God or proving any absolute or relative truths in the universe are scientific and godly efforts.
The definition of 'God' and the definition of 'science'is clear to me and is not out of kilter. This clarity is shown by me in my book. At this time, I conclude that all hard and soft sciences have drifted away from God and are out of kilter because they are not considering God in their scientific research and education effort.
At 9:11 AM,
George Shollenberger said…
Hi Greg,
To explain why I believe that hard and soft sciences are out of kilter, I made a posting on 08/05/06 titled 'Science Produces Man’s Deepest Thoughts About God and the Universe.' This is my view of the unity of science and theology.
Have a good weekend,
George
At 12:24 PM,
Anonymous said…
Your are Nice. And so is your site! Maybe you need some more pictures. Will return in the near future.
»
At 9:39 AM,
George Shollenberger said…
Response to anonymous.
Thank you. The idea about pictures is a good one.
At 10:08 PM,
Anonymous said…
I say briefly: Best! Useful information. Good job guys.
»
Post a Comment
<< Home