The Scientific Proof of God Can Produce Major Social Problems in a Free State
Some people in the US do not believe in God because they were born in an atheistic family or because they considered God themselves and rejected the scriptures and teachings of religions. Many of these people are educated well, work as scientists, mathematicians, medical doctors, researchers, school teachers, ... etc., and do not want to lose their jobs and careers.
The scientific proof of God will not affect believers greatly. But, it can affect nonbelievers in serious ways. For instance, the current national debate on teaching evolutionary theory and/or creation in high schools is already heating up. The addition of the scientific proof of God to this debate could make this coming winter very hot.
On the Amazon.com Internet book store and on this web site, I have already discussed and defended the scientific proof of God with evolutionists, biologists, physical scientists, and mathematicians. I detect a degree of concern in them. So, it is clear that new debates between believers and nonbelievers are increasing and also becoming hotter. Rather than waiting for new social problems to appear and become hot in the USA, the US government can and should prevent them. Preventing social problems might be a new idea for government. Yet, thinking into the future is a gift from God to both humans and governments. President Bush should consider this futuristic initiative.
The scientific proof of God will not affect believers greatly. But, it can affect nonbelievers in serious ways. For instance, the current national debate on teaching evolutionary theory and/or creation in high schools is already heating up. The addition of the scientific proof of God to this debate could make this coming winter very hot.
On the Amazon.com Internet book store and on this web site, I have already discussed and defended the scientific proof of God with evolutionists, biologists, physical scientists, and mathematicians. I detect a degree of concern in them. So, it is clear that new debates between believers and nonbelievers are increasing and also becoming hotter. Rather than waiting for new social problems to appear and become hot in the USA, the US government can and should prevent them. Preventing social problems might be a new idea for government. Yet, thinking into the future is a gift from God to both humans and governments. President Bush should consider this futuristic initiative.
posted by George Shollenberger @ 1:17 PM
4 Comments:
At 12:14 AM,
Anonymous said…
GH wrote: "Some people in the US do not believe in God because they...considered God themselves and rejected the scriptures and teachings of religions. "
Most atheists I know of rejected theism after spending considerable time and thought and weighing all the alternatives. Many were devout Christians, many fundamentalist evangelical Christians. They came to reject the teachings of the Bible after studying it in great detail. Most of those evangelicals gave it up very reluctantly after years of struggle and anguish. Atheists are generally more likely to be censured for their beliefs than not, given the current religious fervor in the United States.
If indeed you have scientific proof for God, why are you not seeking a Nobel Prize? In physics, say, or perhaps a Nobel Peace Prize, as proof of God's existence would surely solve much of the world's religious strife? Instead of self-publishing a book that is bound to languish in obscurity?
Nobel Prize Nomination Information
One guesses the degree of concern you have detected in biologists, physical scientists and mathematicians is for your own state of mind rather than for your astonishing discoveries.
At 9:54 AM,
George Shollenberger said…
Respond to thorn.
I believe that science and self knowledge will always win the battles over human knowledge that has no end.
Pope John's apology for Galileo's imprisonment established a new way for religious leaders to lead people. Now Pope Benedict is continuing this new way. I hope other religions follow them.
I treat the Bible as just another book that can be read and given meaning. No one can read any book and give perfect meanings to its contents. The Bible is thus a book of many knowns and unknowns.
Unfortunately, most religious leaders have misled people because they do not understand mind, the way our symbolic languages form it, and the way we give meaning to the symbols we use in our languages. No book can be like a machine that is cast into concrete.
So, I say that the field of religion is at 'ground zero.' My scientific proof of God will launch this field and all other fields of thoughts into a new world guided by a book of new ideas that emerge from the ideas that Jesus Christ expressed in the New Testament.
The book is more important than a prize because what follows the 'proof of God' (Part I, Chapter 1)will help to launch all people into a new world.
At 2:43 PM,
Anonymous said…
If you really had proof you would have peer-reviewed studies. You would be making waves in the scientific community instead of self-publishing. It's not a question of a monetary prize or fame for YOU but of conveying valuable information to all of humanity. Isn't that what God wants? Why toil in relative obscurity?
At 4:52 PM,
George Shollenberger said…
Response to anonymous.
Most people do not understand the situations of a tired, retired and aging researcher. I am 77 yerars old and lost my wife to a brain tumor in 1999. I have been a diabetic for 45 years. And, my eyesight is going fast.
When I began to write in Decemper 2005, I saw two jobs: to present the scientific proof of God and apply it by presenting its impacts on common people, governments, scientists theologians, economists, politicians, judges, etc. This job began in December was set up to self-publish in April.
In the third week of April, I had a heart attack and underwent open heart surgery and died for almost 2 minutes. After the double bypass surgery, 10 days later I came home to a galley of the manuscript. I did not have enough energy and eyesight to even edit the text of the galley. By early July, I was under surgery again to open my coratid artery. So, my situation was somewhat abnormal. One might say that I could have died without even writing a book. But I didn't.
In december, it never came to my mind to split the two jobs after I decided to integrate theory and application in a single book. I am sorry for not following the accepted procedures of peer review. But, according to my experiences in my research effort in government, peer review groups do not always work for the benefit of the people. I saw a peer review group kill an excellent theory.
Post a Comment
<< Home