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

Wednesday, May 02, 2007

A Second Report to Believers on My Defense of God

Yesterday, in my first report to believers on my defense of God, I was informing ‘the people’ of the USA that the American Museum of Natural History might be more than a museum. It seems also to be a political power for installing the evolutionary theory into the minds of Americans primarily by installing it into high schools. Over the last nine months, I also learned that the ScienceBlogs website works with this museum to oppose all proofs of God.

Further, I do not mind oppositions to my opinions. This is what free speech is all about. But, I believe that assassinating the characters of writers, a seemingly permanent behavior of the members of the ScienceBlogs website, is an immoral human behavior. In fact, I believe that such assassinations are no different than the assassination of Abe Lincoln. So, I believe that it is time to moralize the US Internet with new laws. Remember, it is through laws that humans moralize themselves.

The scientific proof of God in any book is a very important human event. It is not just another proof of something in the universe by a scientist. A scientific proof of God is a proof that God exists and is the only thing who could have created all things we have found, or will ever find, in the universe. In my studies, I learned that the power of a monotheistic God is awesome and that God’s power is beyond the many different forms of energy that we have found and use. Thus, there is no resource limits in the universe. So, I conclude that all people on planet earth or any other planet are already in God’s paradise. And, I also conclude that one will never leave this paradise.

Today, the highest priority of the people in all nations is to feed and help each other. But, the highest priority below that priority is to review and evaluate continually the proofs of God that are being offered in our book stores. These proofs, if accepted, are like new scriptures and connect new ideas to the scriptures we are using and interpreting. A widely accepted scientific proof of God will cause the godless evolutionary theory to be rejected.


  • At 3:33 PM, Anonymous Kim Salinger said…

    Wouldn't you agree that you are a person who has unreasonable ideas about established science or facts and will not relent in defending your own, often laughable, version of the truth? Central to you is the "overvalued idea". That is some idea you have incorporated into your world view that you will not relinquish for any reason. You are completely unwilling to ever be proven wrong and have an indiscriminant obsession with possessing "controversial" or iconoclastic ideas.

  • At 6:12 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…


    I believe that I am an example of a futuristic thinker. To me, a futuristic thinker must master the 'big thinkers' of history. So, I am a follower of big thinkers such as Moses, Plato, Jesus Christ, Nicholas of Cusa, Gottfried Leibniz, Georg Cantor, Ernst Cassirer, Kenneth Burke, and Lyndon LaRouche. But, I am also a futuristic thinker because I am making progress on the development of symbolic languages. I do not know any other person who is following all of these big thinkers. And, I do not know of any person who is developing symbolic languages with success.

    The over-valued idea will not be found in my mind because I reject value systems. In my mind, One will only find consistent ideas. All of my ideas are also consistent initially with the existence of God and His oneness. Going beyond God's existence and oneness requires consistent ideas. Thus, I do not accept ideas that are inconsistent with the existence or oneness of God. Beyond God's existence is my search for consistent truths. Science guides my searches.

    My futuristic way of thinking hurts people because they tend to think either of the past or the here and now. To understand my ideas, one must thus live mostly in the future.


  • At 2:28 AM, Anonymous kim salinger said…

    "The over-valued idea will not be found in my mind because I reject value systems."

    George, again you display a mind-boggling lack of interpretation skills. Value systems (an ethical concept) have got nothing to do with overvalued ideas (a cognitive concept, if you will).

    The conclusion is obvious: if you don't even understand simple phrases like this one, how on earth are you going to grasp the writings of Plato and the like? Get off your high horse, George, those guys are playing a whole other ballgame.

  • At 7:28 AM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…


    Well, have you joined the group of assassins who love to rattle the cage of other people?

    The truth is that these big thinkers and I are playing a different ballgame than most people are playing today.

    How can one overvalue an idea? That silly question applies only to atheism. I either prove ideas or moralize them. Since you cannot prove ideas, you value them.

    Get off of my back.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home