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

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

The Theory of God

In my discussion on this blog with ‘agony beetle’ and ‘anonymous’ on ‘July 26, 2006 ’ it seems clear that many scientists are atheists only because they are not using the ‘scientific method of proof’‘ as it was developed during the Italian Renaissance. This development is described by John Randall in his paper on ‘The Development of Scientific Method in the School of Padua" (Journal History of Ideas, Vol. 1, 1940).

Randall informs us that the scientific method has two steps — discovery and demonstration. The discovery is perceptual and reveals new sensual data. On the other hand, the demonstration is conceptual and reveals a new theory of man that explains the sensual data. Today, the demonstration is known as the ‘cause’ and the discovery is known as the ‘effects.’ New information on the scientific method appeared in the 1920's by linguistics who concluded that ‘sensual data are primarily symbolic.’ Thus, the scientific method of proof must be expressed by a symbolic language.

Since God cannot be sensed, atheists say that God does not exist. This belief is flawed. In the scientific method, no theory of any kind can be sensed. All theories explain sensual data and must be conceived by our minds. For instance, God is a theory. My theory of God proves that only an infinite God can explain all finite things in the universe. God is a theory conceived by man. God is not a religion. Religions exist because they conceive a theory of God. Religions differ because their theories of God differ. For instance, polytheism and monotheism are different theories of God.

I presented the material above in more detail in ‘The First Scientific Proof of God. Thus, I recommend that all sciences consider a theory of God. I also recommend that all sciences consider the theory that man conceives and perceives. But, medical doctors must stop treating living things as purely physical things. Also, the mind and brain are not the same thing.


  • At 1:29 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    >>In the scientific method, no theory of any kind can be sensed.<<

    What about the theory of gravity?

    >>The mind and the brain are not the same<<

    You are correct. The brain is an organ composed of nerve endings and neurons. The resulting function of the brain is a consciousness known as the mind. Defects in the brain demonstrate its direct effect on the mind. There's no real debate about this, George.

  • At 3:08 PM, Anonymous An only mouse said…

    Don't forget germ theory.

  • At 4:12 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    For anonymous.

    Quickly, I would say that gravitational phenomena are the sensed 'discovery' whereas the theory of gravity is a theory that 'demonstrates' the law of gravity.

  • At 6:15 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    To only mouse.

    Good input.

    Can you speak of the theory of germs in the brain in more detail and the sensual data the seems to be related to the detailed theory?

  • At 2:09 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    The real problem with all of this is that it is completely pointless. science is a method developed for investigating and understanding the physical, perceivable world. The single fundamental principle underlying the scientific method is uniformitarianism. If you hypothesize that something caused something else, whatever the cause is must be something that can be invoked, and its effects repeated, so that the hypothesis about the nature of the cause and effect can be tested. Religion, by its nature, is outside the realm that the scientific method was designed to investigate, since it invokes one-off interventions by deities, and explicitly says that they are not testable. Science and religion are just completely different things, with different uses, and any argumant to the contrary is specious.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home