The Infinite qua Infinite
As a noun, the infinite is an attribute of God. It was thus appropriate for the early Jews to name God ‘the infinite God. This noun can be generated in any national language by beginning with the symbol ‘finite.’ The infinite, as a noun, is generated by negating (or removing from the universe) all finite things.’When one negates all finite things, one generates the symbol, not-finite. Here is the path of thought that led me to a scientific proof of God.
Plato gave my mind an intellectual boost when he rejected Aristotle’s definition of the symbol ‘not.’ Aristotle’s negation can move a human mind from something positive to its contrary (or opposite). This is the origin of Aristotle’s logic. However, Plato wanted to correct the negative thoughts of Socrates. Plato’s negation can move our minds from a positive idea to a new positive idea. The new idea is merely a different idea. Plato makes this argument in his Sophist dialogue, 257. Aristotle’s negation leads to logical reasoning. But, this movement can hide the intellectual tool that God gave us.
When the symbol finite is negated and our mind follows Plato, our mind is contacting the symbol infinite, which is something new and different. But, the symbol finite does not vanish with this movement of our minds. Only if logical reasoning is used, will all finite things be destroyed. The movement of the mind from finite to infinite tells us that infinite and finite coexist. This movement of the mind is known as both/and reasoning. This form of reasoning is a level of thought higher than the level of either/or logic.
My scientific proof of God follows Plato’s path of thought. This path of thought tells us that every finite thing in the universe is connected directly to an infinite God. There is nothing in between, as the song writer said, ‘Accentuate the positive. Eliminate the negative. And, don’t mess with Mister in-between.’
6 Comments:
At 9:16 AM, MarkCC said…
George, do you just delete every comment that you can't answer?
You're *wrong* that Jews call God "the infinite God". Both me and another commenter have pointed that out to you repeatedly. The Jewish name for God is an acronym/contraction for "I was/I am/I will be".
What's so horrible about admitting that you made a mistake?
At 10:09 PM, George Shollenberger said…
mark,
I did not make a mistake. This statement is information offered by Bishop Nicholas of Cusa and repeated by me. I cited him. I respect the writings of Cusa and the information in the Vatican. Your fight is with the translator of Cusa and the Vatican.
To find my mistakes, you should be challenging my ideas not only my citations, style of writing, etc.
I only delete comments of atheists and then only when i sense a character assassination.
Atheisstic ideas and character assasinations are criminal-like.
At 10:04 AM, MarkCC said…
You didn't make a mistake? Give me a break. You took the word of a medieval Christian priest about Judaism, and then insisted that you were right despite multiple people pointing out the error.
The fact remains that *Jews do not call God "the infinite God". You're *wrong* when you say that. Fobbing the error off on someone else doesn't excuse it. Cusa was wrong, and you're wrong to.
And you *don't* only delete the comments of atheists. As I've pointed out plenty of times, I'm not an atheist. I'm Jewish. In case no one ever explained this to you, Judaism is *not* the same thing as atheism. Jews (me included) do believe in God. And yet you consistently and repeatedly call me an atheist, and you repeatedly delete my comments when I simply point out that you made a mistake.
For example - you deleted the comment where I explained to you the mistake you made about transfinite numbers. It's inescapably true that *you made a mistake* in how you describe them. But when I point that out, you just delete it.
What's atheistic about pointing out that you're wrong when you are, in fact, wrong?
At 11:48 AM, George Shollenberger said…
Markcc,
I deleted your earlier posting because you deleted me on your website. That deletion made us identical from the deletion stndpoint. I believe strongly that God made all men equal.
I do not agree with your position on Cusa. Otherwise, a research project can never end. You have an opinion and you have presented it to me. You have taken your position and I took my position. Time only determines who is right.
People in all religions express beliefs. If I say that someone is an atheist, this does not mean that a person does not believe in God. It means that this person also believes in a contradiction.
No religion is perfect.
You had a spelling error.
At 3:40 PM, MattP said…
George, you may not say that an atheist does not believe in God, but everyone else does. In order to communicate effectively you cannot redefine common terms and expect people to understand you.
At 9:14 PM, George Shollenberger said…
matt,
People must learn the phylosophy of symbolism because the meaning of a symbol could be wrong. If the meaning of a symbol is wrong, it should be corrected.
The philosophy of symbolism is difficult because each symbol receives it meaning from other symbols.
The laws of physics were found with ease because physicists learned that physical symbols are defining each other. Physical science is the only field of thought that has found the relations between precisely defined symbols.
Our life sciences create symbols and define them by using Aristotle's method of defining. Further, many of these symbols are defined with logical reasoning. This is not th way to develop a symbolic language.
Post a Comment
<< Home