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

Monday, May 07, 2007

The George Shollenberger Report to the US Government on the Root Cause of the Division of People Worldwide


Recently, I completed four reports to believers on my defense of God. All of them should be read to learn how divided Americans are becoming. This fifth report is for the US government and discusses the root cause that divides people throughout the world. At first, I thought that the division of people is caused by the beliefs and disbeliefs in God. But, after I found a scientific proof of God and published this proof in a book on June 2006 titled The First Scientific Proof of God,’ I concluded that the root cause, which is dividing people, had to be found in other phenomena or ideas.

Today, some people hold the idea that the universe has an end. For this reason, some mathematicians and scientists say respectively that mathematics can be completed and that science has an end. They also say that life has an end. Mathematical physicists say that an ultimate mathematical equation can be found to explain the end of our purely physical universe. Thus, reductionism, completeness, and maximum entropy influence their minds. Some religions agree that the universe has an end. But, these religions believe that life exists after death, in either Heaven or Hell. But, this report is not about any religion. However, it is about God and our theories about God. God and theories about God are constitutional subjects of the US government. These subjects are also mandated subjects of government by the Declaration of Independence, which I prove is the highest law in the USA. Yes, the US Supreme Court did make two major errors.

Beyond my scientific proof of God, my book also unifies science and theology. Recently, I decided to name this unity as a spiritual science. A spiritual science will question many current scientific ideas. In my book, I say that the universe and life have no ends. Thus, I say that the universe and life cannot be completed. However, my research on a monotheistic God is completed and thus perfect. Accordingly, I conclude that all people on this planet are being divided by the false idea that the universe can be completed. This false idea is thus the origin of atheism.

Mathematics and science have been telling us for a long time that a completed universe is false. Some examples follow. For instance, the infinitesimal calculus of Gottfried Leibniz has been applied to solve many human problems by mathematicians and scientists over the last 400 years. Solving problems with the infinite calculus do not lead to completions. The geometrical parabola, for instance, has no end. But we can use it with its first principle, the differential, and its mathematical law. Further, the integers 1, 2, 3, ... cannot be completed. This series of integers has no highest integer and requires only a first principle, the first integer, and the law. This law says: add the integer ‘1' to the last integer to identify the next integer. Also, look at the Fibonacci series, which is 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, ... This series distinguishes certain plants. This series is also incomplete. This series has no end. It begins with a first principle, the number 1. The numbers grow based on a law that says: add the last two numbers to identify the next number. Georg Cantor found the law that generates all rational numbers, 1,2,1/2, 1/3, 2/2, ... He also found the continuum of numbers by finding a higher infinity. This higher infinity is the set of all irrational numbers.

Going beyond numbers, in the 1920s, independent researchers found that sense-data are primarily symbolic. This means that sense-data cannot be completed. Thus, the different qualities of the universe cannot be completed. In 1931, Kurt GÓdel said that the axiomatic method or deductive reasoning cannot develop a totality of true propositions. This statement is known as the ‘incompleteness theorem.’ Thus, logic cannot be used to complete any ultimate equation of the universe. So, the histories of mathematics and science are telling us that the universe has no end.

The spiritual science that I have been developing uses the monads developed by Leibniz. In my book, I refer to his monads as spiritual atoms. The spiritual atoms become the atoms of the universe. According to Leibniz, some of these atoms are dominating atoms. The dominating atoms have the first principle of all things found in the universe. Since God is the origin of all things in the universe, one can say that God is the Principle of all principles. Here, we see that a scientific proof of God must always be true because God is the only absolute truth. All truths we find in the universe are relativistic. So, a scientific proof of a thing in the universe can always be improved. Do the prime numbers and Riemann’s hypothesis identify these dominating first principles? I don’t know.

All spiritual atoms in the universe thus have a first principle and a specific law. This law governs the organizational aspects of the bodies formed by these atoms. For instance, a piece of steel has a first principle and its body functions according to a physical law of steel. Such a law is found in God’s Intelligent Design of the universe. Each human also has a first principle. We call it the soul. The body of a human is governed also by a physical law of humans. This law is also found in God’s Intelligent Design. However, the spiritual atom (or soul) of a human is not governed by a physical law. It is governed by a spiritual law, This law is specific to humans because God gave all humans responsibilities ( personal and social) that can be determined only with human knowledge. This is why humans are the only species that can build knowledge. This spiritual law is a set of moral laws that we must find. Thus, it is only through such moral laws that humans increase their freedom. Here we see that a person’s freedom is not absolute. The development of one of these moral laws is found in the Preamble of the US Constitution. It states, ‘... in order to make a more perfect Union.’

The US government cannot merely read and file this report. It must act is the security of the US is to be maintained. Finding the root cause that divided people means that all governments should act morally and develop a universal peace treaty among all nations. The wealth of a nation will depend only on such treaties I suggest how some of these changes might be made in my book. I ask readers of this report to inform their representatives in Washington about this important report. This report shows that the Iraq War can be won.

26 Comments:

  • At 11:09 AM, Blogger Foxy said…

    George,

    One thing I'm not clear on is what you expect mathematicians to /do/ about your work. Does your work change the way we understand calculus? Does it change the foundations of number theory? What can your work do to help solve the Reimann Hypothesis? Godel's Incompleteness Theorem says that within any axiomatic system, you can construct statements that can't be proved true or false. However, just because those statements can't be proved true or false doesn't effect the validity of statements that can be.

    - Foxy

     
  • At 1:54 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    Foxy,
    Mathematicians must open their thoughts from that of a closed-system universe to that of an open-system universe.

    No, the infinitesimal calculus is not changed. It is only an example, of an open-sytem and incompleteness. This example is an examples of Leibniz's well known 'universal characteristic.' Number theory does not change. It only extended, for instance, to Cantor's transfinite numbers.

    I have no solution to the Riemann Hypothesis. But, it might explain how all nonliving and living are distinguished from the set of my spiritual atoms. This set of spiritual atoms must contain the first principles that define that origin of species that Darwin was seeking.

    I believe that Godel's work on incompleteness is just another example of people who came to the conclusion that the universe has no end. Yes, there are truth in the universe. But, they are relativistic. The only absolute truth is God.

    When Moses said that God rested on the seventh day. Moses meant that God changed his work to a new phase. Running into statements that are neither truth or false might be a sign that a specific limit has been reached.

     
  • At 9:06 PM, Blogger MarkCC said…

    Typical - once again, you start by admitting that you haven't read something - and then immediately follow that statement with your conclusions about what you just admitted knowing nothing about.

    You bring a whole new meaning to the word "hypocrite".

    You haven't read Popper, fine. Plenty of people haven't. But if you didn't read Popper, then you *don't know* what Popper said, so *don't pretend* that you can draw conclusions about it.

    You criticize other folks for drawing conclusions about your "proof" on the basis of your inane babblings on the web, because after all, how can it be fair to judge your "proof" without reading it? And then in the next breath, you draw conclusions about the works of people like Popper and Gödel which you *admit* you haven't read. People infinitely more intelligent than you.

    Go ahead, George. Tell us again how *brilliant* you are, and how much your "proof" is going to change the world, and how it's unfair for all those nasty atheists on the web to judge your book without reading it.

     
  • At 9:36 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    matthew ford,

    That is private information.

     
  • At 10:04 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    Markcc,

    Come on Mark, Craig Miller told me what Popper said. With the goodness of Miller, I could answer his question. But, I now also know what Popper said without reading him. So, how can you say I pretend to know? Don't you understand that 'certain religious people are always helping each other' on subjects such as knowledge. Your bad ideas seem to be taking you away reality. Get some rest.

    Your statement about my intelligence and comparing it to the intelligence of other people comes right out of Darwin's evolutionary theory on the Descent of Man. This form of intelligence fits the American Museum of Natural History. But, this form of intelligence does not fit God creation of humans.

    Your atheistic friends have chosen their own futures. But, I say that they will fall away from the cutting edge of new science by not reading my book.

     
  • At 8:03 AM, Blogger MarkCC said…

    George:

    By your reasoning, the people on scienceblogs who've criticized your book are doing nothing wrong. They haven't read your book - but they've read considerably *more* about your book and your proof than you've read about Popper. So if it's reasonable for you to draw conclusions about what Popper said, then it's even *more* valid for all of those evil atheists to draw conclusions about what *you* said!

    After all - your critics have volumes of material you've written here and on amazon, and they have a review of your book that describes the basic ideas of your proof. If it's valid for you to conclude that you know what Popper - one of the most influential philosophers of science *ever* - wrote on the basis of a *one* paragraph summary by a random blog commenter, then how much more valid is it for people to draw the conclusion that they know what *you've* said on the basis of your own writings on the network?

    But you continue to insist that anyone who hasn't read your book cover to cover can't draw any conclusions about the value of your work. And even when someone like me actually *did* read your entire book, you still insist that I can't draw draw conclusions, because I must have read it too quickly.

    So according to you, cover to cover readings of your book aren't sufficient to allow someone to draw conclusions about the validity of your "proof". But one-paragraph third-party summaries of other people's work is perfectly adequate to allow you to dismiss their value.

    Do you not see the incredible arrogance and hypocrisy of that?

     
  • At 11:10 AM, Anonymous matthew ford said…

    George,

    I asked you which people exactly belong to the large team that you claim is spreading the word of your latest report. You replied: "That is private information".

    Then they can only be family and friends who are doing you a favor and don't want to be publicly associated with your proof. Why else the secrecy?

     
  • At 11:16 AM, Anonymous Mary Mulrow Pinkerton said…

    Hi George,

    Could you please keep us posted on the latest results of your book and your recent report? I am searching the web (CNN, USA Today, Fox), but to no avail.

     
  • At 4:13 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    matthew ford,

    Many people do not like their names to be propagated to others. I respect this request. Why must you have this information?

     
  • At 4:26 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    mary mulrow pinkerton,

    I wiil release this info when I hear something. Th report has tough tough material and i don't exactly know how it will work.

    My breakthrough on the existence of God is unexpected. It has shocked the atheists. Instead of determining whether the breakthrough is real or unreal, they are assassinating my character. The USA has really changed and could be in much more truble than people know.

     
  • At 4:46 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    markcc,

    Karl Raimund Popper Austrian-born British philosopher of natural and social science who subscribed to antideterminist metaphysics, believing that knowledge evolves from experience of the mind.

    Although his first book, Logik der Forschung (1934; The Logic of Scientific Discovery), was published by the Vienna Circle of logical positivists, Popper rejected their inductive empiricism and developmental historicism. After studying mathematics, physics, and psychology at the University of Vienna, he taught philosophy at Canterbury University College, New Zealand (1937–45). In 1945 he became a reader in logic at the London School of Economics, and he served there as professor of logic and scientific method from 1949 until his retirement in 1969.

    Popper's principal contribution to the philosophy of science rests on his rejection of the inductive method in the empirical sciences. According to this traditional view, a scientific hypothesis may be tested and verified by obtaining the repeated outcome of substantiating observations. As the Scottish empiricist David Hume had shown, however, only an infinite number of such confirming results could prove the theory correct. Popper argued instead that hypotheses are deductively validated by what he called the “falsifiability criterion.” Under this method, a scientist seeks to discover an observed exception to his postulated rule. The absence of contradictory evidence thereby becomes corroboration of his theory. According to Popper, such pseudosciences as astrology, metaphysics, Marxist history, and Freudian psychoanalysis are not empirical sciences, because of their failure to adhere to the principle of falsifiability.

    I read it. Now what?

     
  • At 6:12 PM, Anonymous Able Whelmright said…

    Your description of Popper is remarkable. It is obvious you are well read with regard to his work. Once again you have proved the intelligence and honesty of a man of God.

     
  • At 9:32 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    able whelmright,

    Thanks. I got the information on Popper from my computer encyclopedia. But, I did not need to read Popper's work to discover my proof of God.

    I keep telling these atheists that my proof of God is attained only by lifting the mind above logic. They don't understand this higher level of thought because they are evolutionists and think of matter over mind.

    Now these evolutionists are expanding their effort to assassinate my character. now they call me a hypocrite and a plaglarizer. What is next from these poor losers.

     
  • At 1:03 AM, Anonymous Joshua Van Buren said…

    Man, this is an interesting discussion! One thing I don't understand: who called you a plagiarizer (I guess for copying and pasting from the Britannica)?

    Another thing: you say you lifted your mind above logic to prove God. If you didn't use logic, what did you use to deliver this proof?

     
  • At 1:15 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Mr. Shollenberger,

    I am new to this blog. Having read the most recent heated discussions I must say you puzzle and worry me.

    You judge a friend of yours by calling her lazy and incompetent, then you say you don't judge people because you are a Christian and you get mad at commenters asking you about this inconsistency. Or is this an example of you lifting your mind above logic?

    Remember, the path to heaven is paved with honesty.

    Regards,

    Rev. Mulroney, Worcester MA

     
  • At 2:51 AM, Anonymous Mary Lina Wickeford said…

    Come on, George, those 'atheists' aren't trying to assassinate your character. I teach theology at Brown University (as a visiting professor) and just like them I would only want you to explain two things:

    1. How can you call your friend lazy and incompetent (for criticizing your book) and then go on to say that you don't judge people?

    2. How can you first falsely pretend to know what Popper's theory is about and then reject this theory on the basis of one extremely short summary?

    By not answering these questions you are undermining your own credibility, which will give atheists all the more reason to criticize us Christians.

     
  • At 9:20 AM, Anonymous Justin Underwood said…

    Hi George,

    I found this on the internet and thought I'd share it with you:

    Some people overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.

    Some people insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.

    Some people rarely if ever acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.

    Some people exhibit a lack of academic achievement, in which case they typically assert that academic training in the subject of their belief is not only unnecessary for discovering "the truth", but actively harmful because they believe it "poisons" the minds by teaching falsehoods. Others greatly exaggerate their personal achievements, and may insist that some alleged achievement in some entirely unrelated area of human endeavor implies that their opinion should be taken seriously.

     
  • At 12:50 PM, Anonymous Matthew Ford said…

    George,

    I am with the Atheist Resistance Army and we are currently identifying people who don't serve our purposes. This is important work, and therefore I ask you one more time: who are the people helping you to spread the word of your latest report? We need names, birth dates, addresses and professional activities.

     
  • At 3:52 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    joshua vab buren,

    Mark Chu-Carroll, the blogger of the Good Math, Bad math web is trying to assassinate my character. His latest labels for me are hypocrite and plagarist.

    Thanks for talking about science. This web is absent of real scientists as seen in my report to 'the people' today.

    Instead of using either/or logic, I use both/and logic. The extremes of both/and coexist and the synthesis is God.

     
  • At 4:08 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    Rev. Mulroney,

    i am a Lutheran Christian and am a big follower of Jesus Christ. My research on Jesus led me to new and very different interpretations of Him. So, my behavior might also be new and different. I believe that the English language is causing the division o people, churches, nations, etc. When I use the word compentent and its opposite, incompetent, i must decide which side to use. I can call someone competente. But, if this person is more incompetent than compethent, am i supposed to tell lies?. We must reform the English language now, not later.

     
  • At 4:25 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    mary lina wickeford,

    Did yiy scan the clicks on my first repors. Then tell me that they do not assassinate an author's character. They have one purpose, to get evolutionary theory in the high schools. This is why they wan to stop sals of my book.

    Io rev. Mulroney, I explain the problem of the English lnguage and why this language forces us to use wrong language choices. The major English language problem is Aristotle's logic.

    Most American scientist are not prepared to allow their mind to move above logic where Popper's work does not apply. This is the toughest teaching I am doing. It seems as though the American mind is stuck in some kind of strange mud.

    Some people will soon get the points I am making. It is all very tiring to me.

     
  • At 4:38 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    justin underwood,

    Your words explain much of what is happening to me on this web. Thanks.

    Some examples. For instance, my book unifies theology and science. But, the thelogians and scientists do not want to change their status. So, they generate false ideas.

    The same occurs when I suggest that one must rise above logic to see God clearer. But, logic is like a god. So, many logicians want to worship logic and reject God.

    To develop symbolic languages, we must pull languages out of the American mind just like the dentist pulls a tooth.

     
  • At 4:43 PM, Anonymous mary lina wickeford said…

    George,

    You are like some of my students who don't read carefully. I asked you two specific questions, both of which you didn't answer. I even told my class (they are doing a course in Christian credibility)about how curious I was about your answers and how important these would be for Christianity. So please don't let them down. In case you forgot, these were my questions:

    1. How can you call your friend lazy and incompetent (for criticizing your book) and then go on to say that you don't judge people?

    2. How can you first falsely pretend to know what Popper's theory is about and then reject this theory on the basis of one extremely short summary?

    Thanks in advance!

     
  • At 8:36 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    mary lina wickeford,

    I guess that i shouls have referred you to my response to rev. Muulroney on the human problem od using a pair of opposites like competence and incompotence. There is no perfect answer to the question you are asking. But, I see myself free to use the word incompetence in the response to me is incompetent. I do not feel that I have judged the person because I am judgine the idea that the person expresses.

    On question 2, I never pretended tat i kew Popper's theory. That theory was given to me by craig miller. based on miller's information, I said that the Popper theory will not have any effects on my scientific proof of God. This is because this scientific proof is above logical reasoning and used both/and concepts..

     
  • At 6:12 AM, Anonymous Samuel Malone said…

    George,

    What part of Justin Underwood's post would you say applies to you? For example, you also claim that your proof is urgently important, don't you?

     
  • At 8:51 AM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    samuel malone,

    Please read my response this morning on symbolic languages. You will learn why I believe my proof is urgently important. This response is found in my report on the debates between creation and evolution.

    On the differences among people and their positions in a society, I agree with Nicholas of Cusa who says that a layman and lettered philosopher are equal with respect to God. So, I believe that the work of a librarian for God is as important as the work of our Presidentis for God.

     

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home