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

Tuesday, May 01, 2007

A Report to Believers on My Defense of God

My 25 years of research on the historical flow of ideas among people led to new truths about a monotheistic God. These truths strengthened and did not weaken man’s belief in God. This research also led to a new proof of God. This research and the new proof are described in a new book titled ‘The First Scientific Proof of God.’ The new book became available in late June 2006.

On June 9, I opened a Google website. From June 27-29, I suggested that the fields of religion, economics, medical care, and education restudy their works with respect to the new proof of God. And, in July 6, I made the same suggestion to the field of mathematics. The only response to my suggestions began in July 2006 from Mark Chu-Carroll, a mathematician who is the blogger of the Good Math, Bad Math blog. (Click) Another response came in August. 2006. (Click)

Carroll’s blog is part of a website known as ScienceBlogs. (Click) In time, I learned that Science Blogs is defending evolutionary theory, which is a godless theory centered in the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. This museum was established in 1869, ten years after Charles Darwin’s book on the Origin of the Species was published.

In March of 2007, Carrol begins to add four new responses. (Click) ; (Click) ; (Click) ; and (Click) The fourth response was a review of my book. The book review was followed by Ed Brayton, a free lance writer. (Click) He presents me with a Robert O'brien trophy as just another crank who thinks that a proof of God has been found. Carroll now thinks that my cranky behavior and abnormal writing skills be included in the evolutionary theory study of the denialism of cranks. (Click)

As you can see, the ScienceBlogs is an organization of scientists and mathematicians who say that our brains come from nature, not God, and determine our behaviors. Yet, about 85% of Americans believe in God and that the mind, not the brain, determines our behaviors.

10 Comments:

  • At 3:50 PM, Blogger Foxy said…

    Also, the trophy is named after Robert O'Brien. It was actually given to you by Ed Brayton who writes at that blog.

     
  • At 9:14 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    foxy,

    Thanks. Good catch.

     
  • At 11:03 AM, Anonymous Richard Bush said…

    George,

    I'll help you out: the number of people holding a belief doesn't say anything about the validity of that belief.

    You might want to study the other logical fallacies as well, because you tend to fall victim to practically all of them.

     
  • At 12:22 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    richard,

    On the percentquestion, I will stay with the popular statistics.

    On validity, I think that you are wrong by saying that a holding belief has nothing to say about the validity of that belief. Your error is made because you conclude that holding beliefs are not related to the growth of human knowledge. This is a continuous error of evolutionists.

    I sday that humans have a mind and do not behave based on brain instructions and nature's instructions.

    You will learn that I am tough on buying opinions and ideas.

     
  • At 3:29 PM, Anonymous Richard Bush said…

    "On validity, I think that you are wrong by saying that a holding belief has nothing to say about the validity of that belief."

    George, I never said that! Read my comment carefully!

     
  • At 6:18 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    richard,

    It is hard for a scientist to grasp the meaning of sentences made by nonscientists.. So, I will express myself scientifically.

    "There is a functional relation between a held belief and the validlty of that belief."

    George

     
  • At 1:18 AM, Anonymous richard bush said…

    "There is a functional relation between a held belief and the validlty of that belief."

    George, I didn't say that either, if only because it is nonsense. (By the way, the words "functional relation" don't make your sentence scientific.) I wrote: the number of people holding a belief doesn't say anything about the validity of that belief. The emphasis is on "number": the fact that millions of people believe in God doesn't say anything about the validity of their belief. Suggesting that it does is the logical fallacy matt was talking about.

    I am sure all your ennemies over at Scienceblogs would have immediately understood what matt and I meant. The fact that you didn't is very revealing of your intellectual abilities. Face it George, you lack the capacity to understand even a very simple sentence, so you'd better leave complex science to the big boys.

     
  • At 8:29 AM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    richard,

    You judge people easily. But, you don't judge yourself at all.

    Your mind and the minds of your friends are functioning as if Aristotle was alive and in power. Aristotle's concept definition and logic found its way into the Roman Courts and the Roman Church. Your minds are functioning as if they are still there.

    My mind is being influenced by the geometries developed throughout history of the Platonists, etc. To me, your simple languages are logical and not not geometical. My creation theory is completely functional. so, all things in the universe are functionally related.

    I also do not buy into statistics easily.

    I don't have time to argue these points. I recommend that you increase you master the writings of Plato and Nicholas of Cusa.

     
  • At 8:40 AM, Anonymous richard bush said…

    "I also do not buy into statistics easily."

    Now you are being dishonest as well! You yourself quoted statistics (remember?): "Yet, about 85% of Americans believe in God and that the mind, not the brain, determines our behaviors."

    But I am sure you won't admit that either. One of the features of a crank is that they will never admit they are wrong about anything. Poor George, you thought fame was awaiting you when you published your book and now the only thing people agree upon is that you are a crank.

    Do your family a favor. Stop this blog.

     
  • At 11:07 AM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    richard,

    I respect the popular statistics by professional organizations. But, I never buy fully into any statistic. I do not lie!!!!!!!!

    You are all wet. I have never sought fame and and all my friends know that. Yet you know. You are just another jerk who has nothing important to do for the USA.

    I'm sorry, richard. I do not need you. Thus, you are banned. But my blog will be continued ---- for years because the development of a spiritual science is just beginning.

     

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home