Scientific Proof of God, A New and Modern Bible, and Coexisting Relations of God and the Universe

Wednesday, August 16, 2006

Atheism Is Like a Bad Dream

On this blog, atheists no longer criticize my scientific proof of God. Perhaps, they are reconsidering their positions because the life of an atheist is like a long bad dream. In modern times, this bad dream has been experienced by the Enlightenment people, the Marxists, the Darwinians, and the slavery-believing States of the USA. In the USA, the number of bad dreamers has increased to about 15%. This number includes mathematicians, physicists, economists, bankers, the rich, biologists, medical doctors, and many other intellectuals. The atheist finds no hope for an eternal life and a life after death. Since an atheist believes that he or she has only one life, an atheist often develops the strange life of crime, idleness, party-going, TV watching, idol-seeking, molesting, or becoming a drug or alcohol user. Contributions to the future of a nation are thus not part of the life of an atheist.

A person can turn away from atheism merely by recognizing that God’s existence can be proven by us but that God’s nonexistence can never be proven by us. We cannot prove nonexistences because we cannot perceive something that does not exist. So, an atheist cannot prove that he or she does not exist after death. What exists must be conceived by us. To conceive something that exists, we must perceive it first. Then, we conceive what has been perceived by developing a theory that explains the perceptions. The explanations are called ‘laws of nature.’ We conceive God’s existence by showing that God is the necessary being of all finite beings in the universe. I prove that God exists because necessary being must be not finite (or infinite).

The universe is not that which is being conceived by our physicists. To conceive the universe correctly, we must perceive all beings that exist. This is an endless job. And, after we perceive a being, we must conceive it. This is also an endless job. So, human life and the universe have no end. So, the bad dreams of atheists are merely fabrications of people who are developing irrational minds.

posted by George Shollenberger @ 9:37 AM  

29 Comments:

  • At 6:37 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "atheists no longer criticize my scientific proof of God" No, it's not because you have won the argument or because we're reconsidering our position. It's because your arguments in service of your mythical Santa Claus in the sky are unreasonable, convoluted, and downright stupid. It's pointless to try to reason with someone who will not think or speak reasonably. Any evidence that is presented against your case is ignored. You do not answer questions directly and you are not interested in a rational debate. Your refutations regularly consist of telling others that they are "ignorant" of why you are right.

    You are mistaken in thinking we cannot prove something does not exist. We can be certain no pink unicorns exist anywhere in the United States. Similarly, we can be reasonably certain that no being resembling the Christian God exists for a variety of reasons. I won't waste my time listing them since I have found that you are not interested in hearing such evidence. Admitting there is no God would force you to face your own mortality and that, of course, is an unpleasant reality you would prefer to avoid.

    I think you must not know any atheists in real life if you think we're all criminal druggie slackers. Oh, that must be all those mathematicians, physicists, economists, bankers, and other intellectuals. Yeah, we all love to kick back in our spare time and get high and molest some little kids with graven images.

    Shame on you. If you wish to attack our arguments, then do so. Ad hominem attacks are the refuge of the scoundrel and liar.

     

  • At 7:08 AM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    Response to anoynmous.

    Sorry, I meant "I do not think that certain atheists are criminal druggie slackers."

    The theory of evolution does not explain evolution facts. Just like an infinite God explains all finite beings in the universe, evolutionary theory must explain and predict 'all' evolution facts.

    The group of evolutionists cannot be called a scientific community. For example, polytheism was a powerful force at one time. But it fell to monotheism eventually. Evolutionary theory will fall the same way.

    You cannot prove the charges you made about me and this is why you choose to discontinue our debate. Losing lawyers do the same thing in court cases.

    Unfortunately, evolutionary theory has left the domain of real science and has moved to the domain of politics. I sense this move with the frequent attempts of atheists to assassinate the character of their opposition. Such assassinations are not part of a real science that develops proven laws of nature.

    Anyway, I sense a sound moral character in you. It is too bad that this character is not aimed at your personal and social responsibilities to God.

     

  • At 8:18 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Example of nonsensical statements:
    GS: I am a panentheistic, not a theist."

    From Wikipedia.org

    Panentheism is the view that God is immanent within all Creation or that God is the animating force behind the universe.... In panentheism, God maintains a transcendent character, and is viewed as both the creator and the original source of universal morality.

    Theism is the belief in one or more personal deities. More specifically it may also mean the belief that God/god(s) is immanent in the world, yet transcends it.

    Anon:I think it's pretty clear that panenTHEISM is a form of THEISM.

    GS:"I assume that all atheists distinguish themselves from the 'truth seekers' in science by not seeking truths with the scientific method. Instead atheists become empirists. But, empiricism fell out of existence after Kant could not reconcile empiricism and rationalism."

    I do not understand what the first sentence in this paragraph means; frankly, it is nonsense. Regarding empiricism:

    From Wikipedia.org: In the philosophy of science, empiricism is a theory of knowledge which emphasizes those aspects of scientific knowledge that are closely related to experience, especially as formed through deliberate experimental arrangements. It is a fundamental requirement of scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world, rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation. Hence, science is considered to be methodologically empirical in nature.

    Hm, so the scientific method relies on empiricism. This seems to be at odds with your assertion above that "empiricism fell out of existence". How peculiar.

    Try taking some college-level courses in logic and writing I'll consider coming back. Until then, if you wish to consider yourself the "winner" of this "debate" be my guest. I think we both know that's an empty victory.

    Anyway, I sense a sound moral character in you. It is too bad that this character is aimed at promoting a mythical character.

     

  • At 10:32 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    Response to anonymous.

    Since I distinguish panentheism from theism, I will hold the meanings I am using in my book on The First Scientific Proof of God. In my book, panentheism could not be a form of theism.

    Simply, atheists do not seek truths using the scientific method. Instead, they seek half truths, which were known as empirical data soon after Kant's time.

    Wikipedia.org seems to be out-of- date. Empiricism is not a theory of knowledge. Knowledge can be developed only with the scientific method, which produces full truths and relies on sensual data and a theory that explains the data in rational ways.

    Empiricism fell shortly after Kant published his unification of empiricism and rationalism. Only uninformed people speak of empiricism today.

    You are the person who must return to college. You are out of date. The organization you rely on is also out-of-date.

    You do not seem to recognize that sensual data and their explaining theory must be expressed with symbols that we musr define. This is a tough effort. The unified symbols found in the invariant equations of the laws of physics will not explain life and living things.

    The winner is clearly me and the victory will be complete.

    Your speaking of God as a mythical character is interesting because my book proves that God-man communications, across the infinite gap between God and man, are impossible. But, I prove that God and man can exchange information. This information system connects God and man eternally. So, God is hoping all people to look deeper into His intelligent design and His creation.

    It is too bad that your atheism is glued to you and is hiding you from God.

     

  • At 11:43 AM, Blogger Rev. BigDumbChimp said…

    Your speaking of God as a mythical character is interesting because my book proves that God-man communications, across the infinite gap between God and man, are impossible.

    Please enlighten us on your great discovery, for it must be one of the greatest ever. With this power you hold you could prove all atheists wrong. But no, you must be paid. One would think that if this discovery is as great as you claim it the rewards would be piled at your feet a million times over what you'll ever make selling a book.

    Instead it is another kook claiming another way of knowing and is really only out to make a buck.

     

  • At 1:26 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    Response to bigdumbchimp.

    Money does not guide my work because I am 77 yers old and have a retirement annunity. The propagation of my research does guide my work.

    A book was created by me because the theory of God must explain all things found in the universe. This is the way the scientific method of proof works. In other words, I unify in the book, as many things found in the universe as I can, to prove God using the scientific method.

    Thus, following my general proof of the theory of God in Chapter 1, the rest of the book is used to show many particular things in the universe and their consistency with the theory of God.

    I believe that my proof of God is the very first truely scientific proof of God and the universe. Thus, even the theories of the universe, as proposed by the physical sciences today, are flawed. In fact many scientific theories are flawed. These flaws are discussed in the book.

    You see, sending a person my theory of God alone is useless because more questions than answers will come to me. I made a 300 page book but could have built a book of thousands of pages. In this blog, I am 'filling in', little by little, knowledge that is not found in the book.

     

  • At 2:01 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "The winner is clearly me and the victory will be complete."

    I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

    Bored now.

     

  • At 3:14 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    Response to anonymous.

    Like Jesus Christ, I use lots of metaphor. "The winner is clearly me and the victory will be complete" means that I have a big tool that will get the job done on atheism.

    Open your mind to newness and become excited about it. Idols will be gone completely with the scientific proof of God.

     

  • At 3:30 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Life IS exciting. It's trying to reason with you and your repetitive nonsense that get boring after a while.

    Again I say, if you offered the slightest inkling that what you had to say in your book was 1) scientific and 2) proof (in the sense that us atheistic types conceive the word proof) then I would be interested in your book. I'm still waiting to see anything rational here.

     

  • At 6:03 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    Response to anonymous.

    There is enough material on this blog to 'get my message.' Use your research tools. If these tools do not work, you have two choices, buy the book of get a copy from another person who has one.

     

  • At 11:08 PM, Blogger Rev. BigDumbChimp said…

    You see, sending a person my theory of God alone is useless because more questions than answers will come to me. I made a 300 page book but could have built a book of thousands of pages. In this blog, I am 'filling in', little by little, knowledge that is not found in the book.

    I apologize. You must be new to the Internet. On the Internet when you have something called a "blog", you have carte blanche on what you can publish there. You could, in theory, republish a book you wrote that was 1000 chapters that top out at 1000 pages each. Any amount of information would be accessible to the public. Thus, you should be able to post your entire book with all of the corresponding chapters and explanations here, at your blog. If your book for example, claimed a Scientific Proof of God, you could open this vault of information to the masses. If you did, you could defeat all of the atheists because the crushing weight of the proof of God would be irresistible.


    Mr. Schollenberger, if you need any more help with today's technology I'd be happy to lend a hand.

     

  • At 2:10 AM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    Response to bigdumbchimp.

    I could have acted as a Monday quraterback and done what you want me to do. But,I was forced by private publishers to propogate my findings myself. Private publishers seem to have no interest in writers like me.

    At 76 years of age, decisions had to be made. I decided to go with self-publishing. I did not publish the scientific proof of God separately because one cannot separate 'theory' from 'sensual data' in any scientific proof. The scientifc method of proof is a unifying process that many mathematicians and scientists do not seem to understand.

    My book thus has a theory in Chapter 1 and the sensual data in the rest of the book. I am satisfied with the 300 pages of proof realizing that an infinite number of pages of proofs would be necessary to develop a completed proof of God. But, completed proofs in the universe are hard to find.

    Although physicists view the invariant equations as a mystery, I believe that these equations are special gifts from God. I argue that these equations are the infrastructure of human life and are not the universal lws of the universe.

    I have no schedule of additions to my book through this blog. Since the subject I am dealing with leads to endless thoughts, I add to this blog whatever comes to my mind each day.

     

  • At 7:54 AM, Blogger Rev. BigDumbChimp said…

    I could have acted as a Monday quraterback and done what you want me to do. But,I was forced by private publishers to propogate my findings myself. Private publishers seem to have no interest in writers like me.

    You'd think that if you really had the proof they'd be climbing all over themselves to publish your work.

    This excuse for not displayiing your theory online is proof enough for me that it's a fraud and your rambling on about nonsense at this blog is merely a ploy to add numbers to your bank account.

    If you have the proof you should show it now or continue to be known as a charlatan.

    The scientifc method of proof is a unifying process that many mathematicians and scientists do not seem to understand.

    Could that be because they realize that you are a joke?

    Wait you say you aren't a joke? Prove it. Display your findings here and reclaim your respect.

     

  • At 10:35 AM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    Response to bigdumbchimp.

    Your comments have become like a 'broken rcord' and I have responded the best I can to you elsewhere.

     

  • At 2:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    George -

    Keep up the good fight. Don't let the boys impact your important research.

    It seems to me they missed a few good spankings when they were growing up.

     

  • At 6:03 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    Response to Anonymous.

    I had a similar thought when they made statements.

     

  • At 6:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I'm not a boy. But of course that is of no import.

    If you did have a scientific proof of god which you disseminated, gratis, believe me when I say your fame and fortune would be enormous. First, Christians would be all over you like flies on dog poo. Second, scientists would be working to verify (or disprove) what you claim. Third, you would be spending your time on the talk show circuit promoting your book and theory. And of course atheists and agnostics would have to lick your boots instead of spitting on them.

    Have you sent copies of your books to scientists, publicists and Christian apologists? If not, you have demonstrated conclusively you have nothing of substance to convey. QED

     

  • At 8:47 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    Anonymous, let me explain why a book was necessary.

    First, I retired in 1994. So, I am not in the ordinary loop in which you might work..

    Second, my proof is scientific. Thus, I use the true scientific method that developed during the Renaissance. This method requires sensual data and the theory that explains them.

    My sensual database must be 'all' sensual data in the universe. And, my theory must be one God who is the origin of all sensual data in the universe.

    Since the sensual data are finite and huge in number, a book could never be completed to identify all sensual data. So, I had to make a book of sensual data that could be explained only by God. To do this I sought a book length of around 300 pages. I made sure thatthese pages would not bore readers, but would convince them of my proof.

    To convince the reader, the sensual data had to be consistent with God as their origin. Organizing this database was a very difficult task. This is why the book was designed with unified parts. These parts connect God and the universe into a single thing with precise symbols. God and the universe are thus eternal partners.

    This proof could not be constructed differently because this kind of proof applies to all people in all fields of thought. It would have been unfair to give a 300 page document only to groups of physicists, of mathematicians, or of theologians, etc. Who would have funded that distribution, me? In fact, I conclude in the book that God gave all humans scientific abilities. So, all people should have access to the book. 'The people'are my 'natural peer review group.'

    Finally, I am 77 years old and could pass on any time. I want to stay in the debate as long as possible and necessary. With the book, the bigg fights will begin sooner.

     

  • At 9:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    George, your rationale makes no sense. (Like so many things you write.) I was not debating your decision to write a book versus some other form of publication. My point is that you have done nothing to promote your book. Writing this blog means nothing. You might as well write on the bathroom walls at Costco. It would probably be more effective, at that.

    The "big fights" will begin sooner only if people read your book. Do you understand the publishing industry at all? Without self-promotion your book is completely lost.

    If you could afford to self-publish, you could certainly afford to send out 20 or 30 copies of the book to reviewers. Keep in mind that if your book made an impression on people who read it, you would surely sell many more copies. It's not free to self-publish as we both well know. So you are patently willing to spend money on this project. A few more copies would be cheap in the scheme of things.

    Frankly, I think you're afraid to do it.

     

  • At 8:13 AM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    Response to anonymous.
    My publisher, AUTHORHOUSE, is a big publisher. It knows how to promote a book. As a writer, I paid for as much promotional material that can be purchased from AUTHORHOUSE.

    This month, a big ad on my book will appear in the New York Times Book Review. Shortly, over 21,000 media outlets will receive a Press Release on my book. Members of The Press are already reviewing the book. And, in Sept., an ad will appear in the popular Bloomsbury Review.

    Beyond that, over 100 book stores in cities of over 100,000 heve recently received a beautiful and informative postcard on the book. More, professional material is already prepared for booksigning plans in book stores.

    How can you make such statements when you know nothing about me and the promotional program that is in already place?

    I do not believe that issuing the book to a select group of people is a better plan. Reviewers quickly notice the tremendous research that has gone into this book. It took me over 25 years to study the many fields of thoughts that I discuss in the book.

    Further, my blog is not conceived by me as an advertising tool. My blog adds new information to the 300 pages of information found in the book. My blog is a tool for teaching people in all walks of life.

    I have no fears of any reviewers.

     

  • At 11:20 PM, Blogger Rev. BigDumbChimp said…

    I have no fears of any reviewers.

    I can't wait.

     

  • At 11:21 PM, Blogger Rev. BigDumbChimp said…

    Anonymous

    Keep up the good fight. Don't let the boys impact your important research.

    Good one Anon. Have some balls and make some substantive comments or just slink back into the recess of ingorance from which you came.

     

  • At 1:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    >>Since an atheist believes that he or she has only one life, an atheist often develops the strange life of crime, idleness, party-going, TV watching, idol-seeking, molesting, or becoming a drug or alcohol user.<<

    George, this is your amazing discovery? That atheism is the root of all evil? Boy, you must not know many Christians. All the activities you mentioned are committed by Christians on a daily basis, though only "crime" rates as something bad. What's wrong with TV? Every atheist I know rejects unethical behavior as harmful to society. And, get this, god didn't tell them it was bad; they just knew.

     

  • At 3:07 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Many are the anonymi.

     

  • At 3:54 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    For bigdumbchrimp. Ihis information is not my aazing discovery. Its another wrong guess by you.

    This amazing discovery of the research staff of the National Institute of Justice, US Department of Justice. I was a member of this research staff for 24 years.

    But, I did made a big discovery on the subject of crime after I retired. That discovery is in my book. Enjoy it.

    Further, I would never say that all atheists develop strange lives. Some people only forget their personal and social responsibilities to God. Read my words correctly.

     

  • At 2:11 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    “God includes the world; he is, in fact, the totality of world parts, which are indifferently causes and effects. Now AR [absolute perfection in some respects, relative perfection in all others] is equally far from either of these doctrines; thanks to its two-aspect view of God, it is able consistently to embrace all that is positive in either deism or pandeism. AR means that God is, in one aspect of himself, the integral totality of all ordinary causes and effects, but that in another aspect, his essence (which is A), he is conceivable in abstraction from any one or any group of particular, contingent beings (though not from the requirement and the power always to provide himself with some particulars or other, sufficient to constitute in their integrated totality the R aspect of himself at the given moment)..... Just as AR is the whole positive content of perfection, so CW, or the conception of the Creator-and-the-Whole-of-what-he-has-created as constituting one life, the super-whole which in its everlasting essence is uncreated (and does not necessitate just the parts which the whole has) but in its de facto concreteness is created - this panentheistic doctrine contains all of deism and pandeism except their arbitrary negations. Thus ARCW, or absolute-relative panentheism, is the one doctrine that really states the whole of what all theists, if not all atheists as/well, are implicitly talking about.”
    Charles Hartshorne, Man's Vision of God and the Logic of Theism (1964).

     

  • At 1:42 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Greetings!! Friend, you can indeed post your entire book on your website at no charge - just as Scott Adams has done with "God's Debris", a fascinating missive covering questions of God, physics, pandeism, personal relationships and many other topics. Adams' book is available at http://www.andrewsmcmeel.com/godsdebris/

    Now, granted, Adams book is only 132 pages, but it should make no diffence whether it is 132 or 1,320 to host a book as a .pdf file!!

    If you can email me a .doc or .pdf version of the book, I will gladly distribute it through my own blog. Drop me a note here if you are willing to email it, and I'll send you my email address!!

     

  • At 2:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Hi, please post a free copy of your book, thanks.

     

  • At 2:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Caeiro unterläuft die Unterscheidung zwischen dem Schein und dem, was etwa "Denkergedanken" hinter ihm aus-machen wollen. Die Dinge, wie er sie sieht, sind als was sie scheinen. Sein Pan-Deismus basiert auf einer Ding-Metaphysik, die in der modernen Dichtung des zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts noch Schule machen sollte. Bald nach Pessoa kam schon der Franzose Francis Ponge und feierte, nur scheinbar bescheiden, die Seife, und später dann den Kiefern-wald. Ponge arbeitete zwar mit anderen Mitteln, aber aus den gleichen Motiven heraus. Motive, die noch in dem Zyklus der Langsamen Heimkehr Handkes spürbar sind. Caeiros Hüter der Herden beharrt darauf, dass seine Gedanken alle-samt Sinnesempfindungen seien.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home