The Freedom We Receive from God Are Natural Rights but Are Not Found in Any Nation
The freedom given to people by its government and the freedom given to people by God is very different. This difference exists because governments exist either as a godless ruling government (e.g., a dictator) or as a godly limited government that does not know God very good and do not know the rights that God has given to all humans. The rights that God gives to humans are known as ‘natural rights.’ Unfortunately, no nation has yet to achieve the true or rational freedom that is achieved from the rights that God gives to all humans.
Do politicians realize that a government under God has no rights? It has no rights from God because it is not a human being. To have rights, a government under God must receive its rights from ‘the people’ it serves. Thus, a government under God is a ‘limited government’ in which sovereignty lies with ‘the people’ it serves. On the other hand, a godless government is a ruling government that makes ‘arbitrary rights’ and gives them to its people through laws. A godless government is thus a government of ruled people or slaves. Why then do many people today want to live under atheism in which they become slaves and live under arbitrary laws?In any nation, one can thus conclude that rulers govern a nation and make slaves when too few believers in God live in that nation. Thus, a majority of theists in the USA is a healthy situation. It seems clearly that atheism is a mental disease.
In the USA, the ignorance of the US government and its two-party politics is slowly changing the USA from a nation under God to a nation of slaves. This makes me wonder what the Iraq government will become. When are ‘the people’ of the USA going to wake up and express its sovereignty over this ignorance? This specific ignorance and other forms of ignorance are discussed in my book, ‘The First Scientific Proof of God.’ The Table of Contents of the book is posted on July 22, 2006.
Do politicians realize that a government under God has no rights? It has no rights from God because it is not a human being. To have rights, a government under God must receive its rights from ‘the people’ it serves. Thus, a government under God is a ‘limited government’ in which sovereignty lies with ‘the people’ it serves. On the other hand, a godless government is a ruling government that makes ‘arbitrary rights’ and gives them to its people through laws. A godless government is thus a government of ruled people or slaves. Why then do many people today want to live under atheism in which they become slaves and live under arbitrary laws?In any nation, one can thus conclude that rulers govern a nation and make slaves when too few believers in God live in that nation. Thus, a majority of theists in the USA is a healthy situation. It seems clearly that atheism is a mental disease.
In the USA, the ignorance of the US government and its two-party politics is slowly changing the USA from a nation under God to a nation of slaves. This makes me wonder what the Iraq government will become. When are ‘the people’ of the USA going to wake up and express its sovereignty over this ignorance? This specific ignorance and other forms of ignorance are discussed in my book, ‘The First Scientific Proof of God.’ The Table of Contents of the book is posted on July 22, 2006.
posted by George Shollenberger @ 11:47 AM
26 Comments:
At 4:32 PM,
Rev. BigDumbChimp said…
This is your proof?
Pathetic.
What an incredible load of circular logic, double speak and gibberish.
How is this proof George?
At 10:37 AM,
George Shollenberger said…
Response to bigdumbchimp.
When an infinite God is necessary to make finite things exist, logic is not circular because 'what is finite' and 'what is infinite' exist in different worlds.
Mathematicians must get out of their 'box of finites' to see that logical concepts can coexist.
Excluded middle opposites (logic) are different from thesis-antithesis-synthesis and included middle thought structures. When you limit your thoughts to logical reasoning, you prevent your mind from seeing God.
I do not show the scientific proof of God in this blog. What I show is that a free nation under natural laws cannot coexist long with a politicl system that legislates arbitrary laws. The arbitrary laws made by England caused the USA colonists to open the Revolutionary War. Do you want another war?
Those Americans who do not believe in God also do not believe in natural human rights. When a mathematician rejects God, this mathematician must accept arbitrary human rights. This course of action would return the USA to the pre-1776 political situation. How ignorant this action is.
In the USA, all nonbelievers are leading the USA to another civil war. Is that what some mathematicians want? Isn't it more intelligent to determine whether God exists rather than 'assuming' that God does not exist? Since God's nonexistence cannot be proven by scientists or mathematicians, what are they waiting for?
At 4:18 PM,
Anonymous said…
It is so difficult to refrain from an ad hominem after reading your crap George. I mean really. Next to "driving" add "using a computer with an internet connection" to the list of things elderly people should be prohibited from.
At 6:41 PM,
George Shollenberger said…
To Scot.
Since your comment has no substance at all, your fear of my writings will remain so that other people can notice the kind of shrimps that live in the new generations.
At 10:55 PM,
Rev. BigDumbChimp said…
George you continue with your babble speak consisting of zero substance. You are starting from the basis that an infinite god is necessary. Why? Proof?... Oh yeah Buy the book.
Logic is the base of truthful thought. When you start thinking illogically, anything is possible. Anything. I think there are some physicists that may have an issues with that line of "reasoning". This is how you start your theories and I'm sure your "proof" is based on such ideas/ Illogical thought and baseless claims.
Those Americans who do not believe in God also do not believe in natural human rights.
What a claim. I do not believe in god and I believe that there are natural rights. Explain that. If you try to suggest that its because of some longing for god, I can assure you, you are mistaken. Are you going to claim that you know my thoughts better than I?
In the USA, all nonbelievers are leading the USA to another civil war.
No, us atheists were content with living our lives as we chose under the laws prescribed by the constitution. It was you of the clouded religious who decided to re-write history and turn citizens aginst each other that caused any "civil war" as you claim (you may want to re-evauluate that statement, it's false and inflammitory).
Isn't it more intelligent to determine whether God exists rather than 'assuming' that God does not exist?
Wow you managed to bring Pascal's wager right on in this discussion and showed your lack of logical contiuity. Can I expect that you'll compare atheists to Nazis next?
At 11:11 PM,
Rev. BigDumbChimp said…
continuity
At 5:54 AM,
zenstar said…
i'm afraid that this blog is a load of hogwash and drivel of the type reserved only for those blinded by religious fervour.
if you could put together a cogent argument supporting your side of the story then maybe people would actually converse with you george (in stead of discrediting you).
unfortunately i have yet to come across a cogent religious argument that wasn't lies or didn't counter every point with the coward's favourite: "you just have to believe."
At 9:49 AM,
PiGuy said…
Uh, which part of the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...") do you not understand?
More on topic, for a seemingly intlelligent and eduacated man, your grasp of logic is pretty weak. At least one of your premises is incorrect or impossible to verify as true like "...an infinite god is necessary..." (Why? Oh, yeah - buy the book) and you try to get around that by, essentially, saying that this isn't a deductive argument (excluded middle) and, therefore, it's an inductive one. Well, surely, a man of your stature knows that inductive arguments do NOT constitute proof as they are not permitted to be deemed valid but can only be, at best, cogent. In other words, if you're saying that your reasoning is inductive, it may convince some that you're correct - but I'll wager that that's limited to people who already believe as you do - but it doesn't prove anyting.
I mentioned at another blog that I'd recently read that the most common application of rational thought is to justify what we already believe. Well, George, I think that you've nailed that one!
At 12:35 PM,
George Shollenberger said…
To bigdumbchimp.
Book sales are crisp. Borrow one so you don't miss my points.
If you ever stidy living things, you will use the kind of logic I use and can see God. Physical scientists do not use my forms of logic I use. American's mechanists are stuck with Aristotle's reasoning.
If you know man's natural rtights, write a book and I will be your first buyer. Many people are searching for ways to determine our rights and will not find them unless they fine God..
Did God make humans rights equal? Or, does Nature make our rights equal? Or, are man's rights unequal?
Which is better? A nation of believers, a nation of non believers, ot a nation of believers and non believers? Answerr this question with sound reasoning and you will find the answer. When people differ in their minds, anything can happen. Try to sell two different laws of gravity to scientists.
Slavery is a theory of atheism. This theory led to a civil war in the USA. Some theories of atheism are not so forceful. Abortion is another theory of atheism. What will happen on this theory? Is abortion a natural right of man?
I am not familiar with Pascal's wager.
At 12:37 PM,
George Shollenberger said…
To bigdumbchimp.
Continuity?
You are not getting through to me.
At 12:51 PM,
George Shollenberger said…
to Zenstar,
My subject is broad and difficult. You will get my most complete messages in my book where you will find the cogent arguments you seek.
With this blog, I am not selling a book. I have enough advertising. I am also not seeking dialogue because I am teaching this complex material to people who want to know what i am saying. The people who discredit me haven't read my book. So, such messages to me go over my head.
At 1:17 PM,
George Shollenberger said…
To piguy. I understand the First Amendment. What is your question?
Aristotle's logic died in the 14th century when his logic was limited to finite processes. Other forms of logic can now identify determinate infinities. No inductive thoughts are used to identify these infinities.
No one has to believe in God any more. God's reality has been proven.
I suggest that you read the works of Nicholas of Cusa, who I say is the first modern scientist. I cover him in my book.
Logicians also dragged Georg Cantor throw the coals. Eventually, mathematicians agreed with him and called his work the greatest. Cantor was a follower of Cusa. And, I am following them.
At 1:25 PM,
zenstar said…
"Which is better? A nation of believers, a nation of non believers, ot a nation of believers and non believers? Answerr this question with sound reasoning and you will find the answer."
using sound reasoning: currently there are all sorts of violent actions done in the name of religion (jyhads, tibetan monks being persecuted, kids being ridiculed because they "don't believe", people being stoned or forced out of their houses because they are believed to be "witches").
in the past there were all sorts of violent things done in the name of religion (the crusades come to mind not to mention the inquisition and other such witch-hunts).
i have yet to find a report of two scientist getting more violent than prehaps some fisticuffs over a scientific theory.
so one the one hand we have something that supports destruction of the infidels / non-believers etc (that's religion) and on the other hand we have something that tries to understand our surroundings with continuously updating and verifiable knowledge for the betterment of mankind.
you see: religion doesn't believe in evolution because it doesn't evolve. it was a nice story to keep the rabble in line back in the day. it's been superceeded by what we now call law.
so a nation of law abiding, non-religious scientsts would be utopia!
At 2:42 PM,
PiGuy said…
No question. I only note that it is unconstitutional for the "nation of believers" to establish a state religion. It seems that that would be your Utopia but it isn't legal here in the US. Period.
I am familiar with the work of Cusanus. He was, indeed, quite a scientist. First rate. He was not the first one, though. But it is not safe to assume that, because you share his belief about god, trinity, and such, that we all must. Newton was a genius. He was also an alchemist. Just because they did some good - nay, great - work doesn't mean that everything that they publish is irrefutable. You may believe in first cause but using that in your argument assumes facts not in evidence.
My point was that you can't prove anything with inductive reasoning and, despite your arguments, that's what you're using here. You may only attempt to influence the thinking of others with arguments of this type. If, as you say, Aristotelian logic is dead, then proof is no longer an option. I argue that, by that statement, you've supported my argument.
At 4:44 PM,
Rev. BigDumbChimp said…
my forms of logic I use
So you have your own forms of logic. How convenient... I mean ridiculous. Your whole existence is based on other ways of knowing, which in and of itself makes any argument you make suspect.
Which is better? A nation of believers, a nation of non believers, ot a nation of believers and non believers? Answer this question with sound reasoning and you will find the answer. When people differ in their minds, anything can happen. Try to sell two different laws of gravity to scientists.
Now that is one nice false analogy and red herring you have all trumped up there George. At no point does comparing gravity to differing beliefs on and existence of a deity make a valid analogy. A belief (god) and an observable natural law (gravity) are completely different realms. It's a typical tactic you like to employ that is chock full of logical fallacies (real logic George, not your own made up version) and thin on substance.
Please go into detail how slavery is a "theory" (how you call it and abortion a theory is another subject) of Atheism and please please please make the connection between Atheism and the American Civil War. With sources.
WITH SOURCES George, not your senile ramblings and non sequiturs.
Do not duck and run on this.
My continuity comment was a spelling correction from the above post.
At 5:33 PM,
George Shollenberger said…
To bigdumchimp.
I do not use my own forms of logic. They have benn used for centuries. You just have not found them yet. Again, I suggest that you master the works of Nicholas of Cusa and Plato. In Plato's Parmenides, Plato's thoughts are not stopped by Aristotle's logic. By rising above logic, plato shows that the hypothesis "One" does not exist and that if One exists, "other' also exist. Also, study the conjecture of Nicholas of Cusa on the coexistence of "Not-other" and it opposition, "Other." The coexistence of all opposites are one in God.
I merely make theories freely and apply them to their opposing theories.
Atheism and Theism are the opposing theories of interest. When Theism rejects abortion and someong accepts abortion, the accepting person belongs to Atheism because there are no middle position unless atheism and theism can be mixed. Mixing atheism and theism is not possible because God is not in
both.
Thanks on the continuity question.
At 6:51 PM,
George Shollenberger said…
second response to piguy.
I don't believe in Utopias because a world that has no end is always in motion and cannot sit in a utopia. So, I a trying to make sure that this motion does not stop in the slavery that rulers make.
The US government has stopped us in a slavery position by removing God from itself. Governement and religion are separated by law. But, state and God are not separated. To seek the truths about God are constitutional. Reeligions are practice of a specific theory of God. Seeking the true theory of God (false or true) is not a religion. Finding the truth about God is the interest of all people.
Glad to learn that you are familiar with Cusnus. I studied him for eight years before I moved forward with my book. The English language and Aristotle's logic controlled my mind and did not allow me to understand Cusnus immediately. Cusa's negative theology is the only current path to God. The God i prove and Cusa worked on is the origin of all evidence found in the universe. The alternative to this God will take any mind into Hell.
Neither Cusanus nor I use inductive reason. We ride to higher throughts through negations.
To find God, one must raise the mind above logic. Logic is a process of thought and is thus not a God.
At 7:01 PM,
George Shollenberger said…
Second response to zenstar.
Just because people become evil does not mean that God should be rejected. We are the origin of evil not God. Our problem is a proper educational system in which one learns truths and opinions To develop this kind of educational system, we must find the true God. otherwise, we live in circles and see-saws. I found that God. Now let's reform the educational system
At 7:12 AM,
zenstar said…
i never said people are evil.
i said religion fosters hate.
if that means people become evil then the root cause is religion.
you yourself have stated that some religions are untrue: "my proof is saying that other theories of God are false."
which means that (to some degree) there is conflict between your belief and the belief of others.
that conflict fosters intollerance.
a truly all-powerful and loving god would not allow such hate to be fostered.
so maybe he isn't all-powerful? (can't watch everyone all the time) or maybe not loving? (doesn't care about the destruction of his creations) or maybe doesn't exist? (just not there to govern the situation).
if he's not all-powerful then he's a liar by claiming that he is (in many scriptures) and therefor cannot be trusted.
if he's not loving then why should we bother to care about him?
if he's not there then what is the use of religion?
At 11:29 AM,
George Shollenberger said…
To zenstar.
Let me begn by saying the evils come from humans not God.
I too have problems with the teachings of some religions. I have lots of problems with the teachings of religious fndamentalism.
Religion is a practice not a theory. I do not judge religions. I deal only with the theory of God. This means that I am a theologian and judge different theologies. I discuss the major theologies in my book.
Since I have proven God scientifically, my theology is scientific and I am a panentheist.
I have a proof not a belief. This is how I differ from other theologies. I don't view this difference as a conflict. My difference is a matter of discussion, not wars as we see today.
Since the God I proved is active and I have not done a comprehensive effort to research His activities, I do not know much about His activities. My major research effort on His activities was limited knowledge and the transfer of God's wisdom to the human species. So, I know very little about His other ctivities.
I say in my book that God does not micromanage life in the universe. I say this because God gave us 'knowing' abilities. So, if humans have conflicts, they have erred, not God.
Today's terrorism is a human conflict that must be solved by people. I say this because God does not micromanage us.
At 5:11 PM,
zenstar said…
i believe the "god does not micro-manage" point of view to be a "cop-out."
if god is omniscient and omnipotent then why not micromanage? it seems selfish to let the world become unjust and to let millions suffer without intervention.
and if god knows all then surely god cannot complain if i question the belief in god, nor can it get upset when i don't believe. if god created me and is all knowing then it will have forseen all events in my life and know which choices i've made to become who i am (especially since god lives outside time and is therefor the past, present, and future combined).
and that someone does not believe in god.
if god dares punish me for that then it only has itself to blame because when it created me it knew who i was to become.
if god does not punish me for that then why bother worrying about god at all? we are who it made us to be and so we should be able to be without believing in god.
following this logic: either athiesm is god's will, or god is not nice (i could have put that less politely).
i believe "not nice" things should never be revered in any form!
of course we could assume god to not be all knowing. in which case god is not all powerful. now this does create a quandry for theology because suddenly a lot of theories on god fall apart if god is no longer all powerful.
either way: i don't believe.
you're viewpoints put forward here have not convinced me to believe.
my opinion stands: "there is no god."
i have not swayed you and your opinion stands "god is proven."
i do not belive either of us will convince the other especially since we have to buy your book just to discover half of your arguement.
so i end our dialogue at this point with a final note:
i allow for the possibility that i am wrong on this point. i just think that the possibility is so small as to converge to zero.
remember: you could also be wrong. many scientific proofs have been discovered to be incorrect at a later stage.
At 10:36 PM,
Rev. BigDumbChimp said…
Rising above logic George? Your admitting your insanity. Logical thought is the base of reason. Illogial thought is the base of confusion and insanity.
Again you are confusing your toughts with reality. You are using the tactic of the techofilibuster to try and muscle your point across. Please cite Sources about how atheism caused the civil war. Do not ignore me again.
Prove me worng George. How did atheism cause the american civil war.
Be specific and provide sources.
Don't try and side step the question again. Doing so will prove what a fraud you are.
At 11:33 PM,
George Shollenberger said…
ITo zenstar.
If God micromanages, you become a puppet on the strings of God and you lost your freedom.
Be careful because God's omniscience is not identical to 'all knowledge."
God does not punish. He has hopes for you. But what you become is only up to you and your social relations. God does not foresee you and all events. He is not in our world.
God makes you possible in many ways. He does not make you what you become in social relations.
You continue to remove your freedom and ability 'to know.'
Atheism is not God's will. Atheism is your choice.
God is nice because all created things are images of God
god is omniscient and omnipotent. This is explained where? --- yes, in my book.
I offer thoughts. and ideas. What you do with them is your business. Without God, you would have never existed. The energy of the universe had to come from something. If you can originate energy without God, let me know.
Errors have been made my man formany, many years. But when science emerged, it emerged with a mathod of proof called the scientific method. The fact that I used the scientific method to prove God is mind-blowing to you because you have never believed in God or haven't believed in God for a long time. I can only teach you and can only do that if your mind is opened. At this time your mind is welded shut by logic.
Thanks for letting me offer my proof.
At 12:05 AM,
George Shollenberger said…
To bigdumbchimp.
Your logic is popularily known as either/or. My logic is popularily known as both/and. I use your logic and my logic. Thus, i am not insane. You are merely unaware of my logic and how to use it. Limiting yourself to your logic causes you to think and live only in one-half of the whole world in which I think and live.That does not mean that you are insane. It only means that you are not conscious of the whole world.
Read any good book on the Civil War and Lincoln's assassination (e.g., Harry Jaffa) to learn that the South supported slavery. Slavery was not accepted by the founding documents. See the Declaration of Independence, which states that all Men are created equal (by God). The USA was thus founded as a nation under God. (See today's posting by me) So, any person in the USA who supports slavery is a non believer or atheist.
Hopeful, these words help.
At 12:42 AM,
Rev. BigDumbChimp said…
Your logic an my logic? Again proving your "other way of knowing".
You really are a trip.
Yes the South supported slavery. And yes the founding document (the constitution, yes the constitution is the founding document of law) does not suport slavery, but the grand canyon sized leap you are taking to say that slavery is a result of atheism is beyond insane and crushingly poor logic. Non-sequiturs are your best friend and staunchest opponent. How many slave owners in the south (which by the way I am from and know the history well, as disgusting as it is) were atheists?
Humm?
Your premise is unfounded and devoid of evidence and historical fact.
Your premise has zero basis and is the result of a clouded and disturbed mind.
At 9:57 AM,
George Shollenberger said…
To bigdumbchimp.
Better ending.
.... because God and the opposite of atheism cannot be the origin of slavery.
Post a Comment
<< Home