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

Thursday, May 03, 2007

A Third Report to Believers on My Defense of God


During my interaction with the ScienceBlogs and Good Math, Bad Math websites, I learned some important facts about evolutionary theory and how these blogs are promoting evolutionary theory to people as a reality. Since evolutionary theory is not a reality, these facts could be helpful to parents, educators, legislators, and judges.

First, an evolutionist is not a physical scientist who must take lots of mathematics and real science classes. Evolutionists are biologists who probably took a biology class in high school so that he or she could dissect frogs. Thus, most evolutionists never become real scientists who have the necessary mathematical skills to do real science. They are unfamiliar with the basic principles of science and are unable to understand the spiritual science that I use in my book. Those biologists who attain PhD levels can become biological research scientists. However, even these biologists will not be able to understand the spiritual science that I use because they do not consider spirits in their research. This is why medical research is developing medicines that have killer side effects and why health problems, such as cancer and diabetes, are not being solved.

My spiritual science begins with God. God is defined with three precisely defined symbols. These three symbols must then lead to other symbols that define the whole universe. In my book, I identify the first three symbols in the universe. I also identified other precise symbols in the universe. A single and endless symbolic language is proposed.

The ignorance of evolutionists about a spiritual science can be seen in the review of my book by Mark Chu-Carroll, the blogger of the Good Math, Bad Math website. His followers urged him to do a review because they could not review my spiritual science. But his review was a failure. His review was called lousy in one comment. But, this poor review was expected by me because he could not understand my spiritual science when I tried to explain this new science to him and his followers. I could not retrain them via the Internet.

Instead of learning the new spiritual science, the evolutionists decided to destroy the new science by assassinating my character. These assassinations can be seen in the blogs created by Carroll. See my blog dated May 1, 2007. This assassination continues in Carroll’s book review when he copies text from my book and makes changes to the text. What was Carroll’s intent?

The spiritual science found in my book is a real science. A real science cannot be developed with the highly flawed English language and with books written with a poetic-style as Richard Dawkins uses. The evolutionists expected me to write this way. Never would I write this way to describe a real science. Evolutionists think this way because evolutionary theory is a religion, not a science. This is why they do not understand a spiritual science, the scientific method of proof, and symbols. This is also why evolutionary theory will eventually fail.

In my book, I discuss Darwin’s evolutionary theory. I conclude that his research was not intended to be godless.

33 Comments:

  • At 8:48 AM, Anonymous Mandy Collins said…

    I don't understand. On the one hand you say you don't believe in the evolution theory, on the other had you wrote a while back that in Iraq a gorilla warfare is going on. If apes are able to fight using sophisticated weaponry, isn't it plausible to conclude that apes and humans are closely related?

     
  • At 10:53 AM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    mandy,

    Evolution is gone if any spiritual science is widely accepted. That I will guarantee.

    Gorilla Warefare is a term that developed during the Viet Nam War. I use it because there is no FEBA (forward edge of the battle area). In military science, the FEBA separates the friends from the enemies.

    I believe Gorilla was used in Viet Nam because this war is an ignorant war, which is a war that cannot be won. A gorilla has no knowledge. Only humans can build knowledge.

    Science is not a game of horseshoes. Research on the subject of similarity was conducted in the early decades of the 20th century, I believe by the naturalists. But, it died.

     
  • At 11:55 AM, Blogger Foxy said…

    The term is actually guerrilla, I believe, coming from the spanish term 'guerra' for war.

     
  • At 3:09 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    foxy,

    I worked closely with the CIA on 5-year threats from 1967-1970 on computerizing the US Army ground forces in Europe. As I remember, the phrase, gorilla war, was being used. But, I would not bet.

    T

     
  • At 3:32 PM, Anonymous K.D. Cleese said…

    George, it is guerrilla warfare, period. Look it up in any dictionary. For once admit you were wrong and made a quite funny mistake. It won't kill you.

     
  • At 5:37 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    k.d.

    You speak as if you are honest and are a very nice person.

    I did not even look at a dictionary o the Gorilla word Often, I take only a few trips a day to the distionary because Ii have macular degeneration. This is why I making more and more errors in my writings. My wife helps me. But she was in a very bad auto accident. So, i do not push her for help.

    I really don't have time for what the new generations expect of a senior like me. We admit errors freely and are not afraid to admit them. I do not fear to admit errors. In fact, if I find an error in me I feel good because I found a falsity.

    But, evolutioinists should also speak to themselves. Evolutionists will not admit their big error, that is, that evolution theory is false. It is clear that this is why they will not read my book. And, Mark Chu-Carroll's review of my book was a disaster.

     
  • At 10:07 PM, Anonymous kristin said…

    I'm a little confused by one statement that you made...you say, "My spiritual science begins with God." Would this be God as proof, or God as hypothesis? My understanding of the scientific method isn't perfect, but I do believe that most theories start as a hypothesis and through a great deal of testing, become proof.

     
  • At 5:00 AM, Anonymous k.d. cleese said…

    George, there's a whole bunch of online dictionaries that might help you. Just google 'dictionary'.

    What exactly is your beef with the evolution theory? I mean, it is a prime example of the scientific method you claim you are so fond of. It proves that humans and apes have a common ancestor and doesn't need the writings of Plato or Nicholas of Cusa to deliver this proof. Richard Dawkins has written some very interesting books on the subject that you might want to read.

     
  • At 11:08 AM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    kristin,

    When a science begins to develop, it begins with the scientific method. Phenomena are sought. Then, a theory must be made to explain the phenomena. If a scientist does not give precise meanings to the symbols that represent the phenomena and the theory, troubles begin. This is when some scientists might call a theory, a hypothesis. Since most scientists are unaware of the philosophy of symbolism, they use a non-scientific procedure that I do not understand.

     
  • At 11:34 AM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    k.d.

    Thanks for the info on the dictionary.

    I reject evolution because it is not compatible with any theory of God, any theory of God's intelligent design, and any creation theory. One cannot believe in God and also believe in evolutionary theory.

    Evolution is a theory of living things. Since it has not been proven, when a person practices it, the theory of evolution becomes a religion or pseudoscience.

    God was a theory. But, my scientific proof of God proves that God is a truth. The scientific method produced this truth. To prove the evolutionary theory, evolutionists must also use the scientific method.

    There is no 'free lunch' in science.

     
  • At 12:07 PM, Anonymous k.d. cleese said…

    "To prove the evolutionary theory, evolutionists must also use the scientific method."

    Could you focus on a specific element of evolution theory and say why that element is not scientific? That would be very enlightening for all the visitors of your blog. Thanks.

     
  • At 12:11 PM, Anonymous David Mittchel said…

    George,

    Like matt I'm interested in the way your book has been received. Are there any people who have read it AND understood it, to your knowledge? If not, isn't there a danger that it will never be understood by anyone?

     
  • At 2:39 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    k.d. cleese,

    I have never heard of a scientific proof that is consistent with the evolutionary theory. I have heard of facts, fact, facts, etc. Facts are observations. That is step one of the scientific method. Step two is never done, that is, the cause of the facts are never proven. So, nothing has been proven in the evolutionary theory.

     
  • At 3:00 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    david mittchel,

    It took me 25 years of research to study the personalities who I thought were on the right path.

    Then, when I discovered our language problems, I had to find and study those personalities who were working on the philosophy of symbolism. Not too many will be found. So, I had to develop a crude science on this philosophy.

    I also had to spend considerable time on reinterpreting the teachings of Jesus Christ. Thjis was surprising compared to current religious teachings.

    I do not know whether people are understanding my book. But, group study would be better.

    I am teaching the book on this blog. I spoke at the Torch Club on May 1 on symbolic languages and the human mind and some people were understanding it. But, I could see that I was going over the head of others. I would like to work with a group of writers who can create simple textbooks.

    People must master it and unify themselves because the alternative is terrible ---unending wars.

     
  • At 12:55 AM, Anonymous David Mittchel said…

    George,

    Mark has a point there. I haven't read your book, but the section he quoted has exactly the same peculiarities as the things you write on this blog.

    You can't just go about accusing people of changing your words. You have the moral duty to prove that accusation. One alleged misquote would suffice.

     
  • At 11:30 AM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    markcc,

    Three words in your Internet text of my book are different in my book. The differences in your Internet text will mislead your readers. My wife saw these differences in minutes. I confirmed her finding. So, you will find thee differences also.

     
  • At 8:22 AM, Anonymous david mittchel said…

    I think that Mark should scan the section and post it on his website. That way everybody can see who is wrong and who is right.

     
  • At 12:41 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    david mittchel,

    Thanks, but he won't do that. He is a young person who still has a narrow mind. In time, he will expand it because I believe that he has a great mind. Perhaps when he reads my next report tomorrow, he might admit his error.

     
  • At 12:51 AM, Anonymous david mittchel said…

    George,

    Frankly, I don't understand your last words to matt. He respectfully shows you that you are wrong (which is clear to any visitor of your blog) and you tell him that his words are sickening and that he will be banned.

    Having a blog is about having discussions with people, not about banning them when they expose an error in your reasoning.

     
  • At 4:54 PM, Anonymous Mary-Lou Sagan said…

    There! You did it again! You again called your friend Ginni incompetent. You again judged her. And then you deleted her mail! Why the censorship? Why can't you take a little bit of criticism? What is wrong with the USA? Why does it allow people like you to blog?

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

    mary-lou-sagan,

    I was not criticized by Genni and i did not criticize me. She is a Christian and so am I. Both are critizing ideas not each person.

    I must decide what enters and what is deleted from this teaching website. I do now want drastically abnormal ideas on my website. If you do not like what I say to you, remove it from your web.

    This teaching website draws students. I will not teach top-notch scientific ideas while simultaneously maintaininf a file of 'junk mail.'

    Ginni ideas were noy adding anythisn in terms of ideas to this web.

    The USA needs teachers like me. Do you want to take my free speech away?

     
  • At 12:50 AM, Anonymous mary-lou sagan said…

    "The USA needs teachers like me."

    Teachers have an open mind and can take criticism. Teachers don't practice censorship. Your friend Ginni didn't express any "drastically abnormal ideas". If anything, she said that your ideas are quite abnormal and that you aren't able to explain them. Deleting her comments is plain cowardice on your part.

     
  • At 8:54 AM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    mary-lou sagan,

    Thanks for your opinion.

     
  • At 2:45 AM, Anonymous Rev. Mulroney said…

    Mr. Shollenberger,

    I couldn't help noticing a strange contradiction: when you call your friend Ginni (who seems a good Christian to me) lazy and incompetent you claim you are only talking about her ideas. When people call you cranky and a lying hypocrite you accuse them of assassinating your character. Have you considered the possibility that they are only talking about your ideas?

     
  • At 10:02 AM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    rev. mulrooney,

    There is no contradiction. If you read enough of my writings, you will have learned that I say that the English language and most other national languages are highly flawed. This means that the KJV of the Bible is also flawed and cannot be interpreted perfectly.

    The corruption of Western languages was made by Aristotle, his method of defining words, and his use of logic to define these words. In his work, Bishop Nicholas of Cusa says that Aristotle could have save us lots of time. Cusa also says that we can approach divine matters only through a mirror of symbols. The more precise the meaninn of a symbol is, the closer one becomes to God.

    With the English language, the correct use of adjectives are impossible. For instance, one can say that the idea of a person is the result of lazyness or is not the result of lazyness. One can also say that the idea of a person is the result of competence or is the result of incompetence. This is the kind of stupid statements the English language forces upon us.

    On the use of nouns, the English language fails again. For instance, when a person says that I am a hypocrite, that person is using a noun. A noun gives me a name beyond the name I was given at birth. These other names give me a character that God did not give me. Names that give a person a character is a force against our free souls. For this reason, I believe that character assassinations shouls be considered as crimes.

     
  • At 9:52 AM, Anonymous Rev, Mulroney said…

    Mr. Shollenberger,

    I find your reasoning quite chaotic, which worries me. Would you like my colleague in your parish to have a little chat with you? Maybe he can help you.

    Here is a few of the chaotic things you say:

    "Names that give a person a character is a force against our free souls."

    So if I would call you a genius that would be a force against your free soul? I don't think so, Mr. Shollenberger.

    "With the English language, the correct use of adjectives are impossible. For instance, one can say that the idea of a person is the result of lazyness or is not the result of lazyness. One can also say that the idea of a person is the result of competence or is the result of incompetence. This is the kind of stupid statements the English language forces upon us."

    First you say that in English the correct use of ADJECTIVES is impossible, and then to illustrate that assertion you go on to talk about the NOUNS lazyness and (in)competence. With all due respect, but that is nonsense, even in the eyes of the Almighty.

    Mr. Shollenberger, I just spoke with my colleague and he would be willing to pay you a visit.

    With the highest regard,

    Rev. Mulroney

     
  • At 2:33 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    rev.mulroney,

    The force can be negative or positive.

    My lazyness and not lazyness and the compentence and incompentence ststements are not stupid statements. They are two pair of opposiing ideas that our Aristotelean minds are considering in order to form stupid statements.

    Aristitles' opposing ideas, which were embedded in the Roman Empire by Cicero and into the latin by the Roman Church became eventually embedded into the English language, where they are used in America as adjectives, are indeed nonsense.

    Apparently,your colleague does not know the problem of humans. language

     
  • At 3:27 PM, Anonymous Rev. Mulroney said…

    "My lazyness and not lazyness and the compentence and incompentence ststements are not stupid statements. They are two pair of opposiing ideas that our Aristotelean minds are considering in order to form stupid statements."

    I refer to the comment from another poster, Mr. Jones. He rightly points out that God has given the human languages the possibility to convey very precise meanings. No need of symbolic languages. If we were to use those, God would have taken care of it. Don't underestimate Him, who created heaven and earth!

    "Aristitles' opposing ideas, which were embedded in the Roman Empire by Cicero and into the latin by the Roman Church became eventually embedded into the English language, where they are used in America as adjectives, are indeed nonsense."

    You overestimate Aristotle's influence. Do you really think that ancient Greek changed because of his ideas? That before him this language had no 'opposing ideas'?

    We are humble creatures of God, George. And if there is one quality that God dislikes most of all, it is hubris. This ancient Greek word applies to you in a way that worries me. My colleague (Rev. Clarkson) will visit you Thursday afternoon.

    May God have mercy on us.

    Rev. Mulroney

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

    rev. mulroney,

    My scientific proof of God was not a simple task. To my knowledge, this proof was the first scientific proof that God did create all things found in the universe. A symbolic language was used to discover this proof. So, I cannot agree that symbolic lnguges are necessary for man.

    Above all, I don't underestimate God because my proof of God also shows that a monotheistic God has no oppositions and is not merely infinite but is also absolutely infinite. As an absolutely infinite thing God is a determinate infinity and is thus not the indeterminate infinite used by mathematicians.

    Aristotle influence was terrible. His symbolic language introduced the Western world to the awful non-progressive Middle Ages and degenerated the cannon laws of the Roman Church.

    You and I have very different views of God. My view is of a loving and giving God. Your view is fundamentalistic and teaches fear.

    You downgrade human searches for truth. You are thus teaching ancient views of Christianity. The modern Christians today are perfecting Christianity.

    Rev. Clarkson is welcome. But, tell him to come with an open mind.

    George

     
  • At 7:48 AM, Anonymous w. jones said…

    One more thing. You wrote:

    "Aristitles' opposing ideas, which were embedded in the Roman Empire by Cicero and into the latin by the Roman Church became eventually embedded into the English language, where they are used in America as adjectives, are indeed nonsense."

    That is nonsense. Before Aristotle was born ancient Greek had already just as many adjectives as English has today, and they were used in the exact same way.

     
  • At 8:42 AM, Anonymous rev. Mulroney said…

    Mr. Shollenberger,

    You dissapoint me. From what exact words of mine do you conclude that my view of God is fundamentalistic and that I teach fear?

    Your other words were also meant to be hurting , but considering the mental condition you are in I will turn the other cheek. We have to forgive and help where we can.

    Rev. Clarkson was thrilled to learn that he is welcome. Thursday morning he will be in Winton Farm Lane (as it happens very close to where you live), visiting a fine young Christian who is recovering from a terrible accident. Right after that he'll drop by at your place. And trust me, he has an open mind.

    Remember: pride is to the devil what love is to God.

    Regards,
    Rev. Mulroney

     
  • At 9:41 AM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    w. jones,

    If what you say is true, why do people speak of Aristotle as the Father of logic? Why did Kant identify antinomies and use Aristotle's nine categories to reconcile the empiriciats and rationalists. Why do the soft sciences use Aristotle's method of defining concepts? etc, etc.

    When you get free time, look at Plato's use of logic in his Parmenides. It is not readable to me. I only read the results.

    My interest is not in the number of adjectives in any language. My interest is only in their meanings.

     
  • At 11:09 AM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    rev. Mulroney,

    Negatives shorten one's life. So don't let me dissapoint you.

    Argument is healthy for those who seek the truth about God and the universe. So the symbol, hubris, seemed to be inappropriate to me. That is why I thought you might be a fear dealer.

    The downward motion of words from a pulpit are important for those who don't have the time and interest in seeking the truths about God and the universe. So, keep up the good works.

    My mental condition is sharp. But, the macular degeneration of my eyes is becoming more troubling than anything else in writing at age 78. I believe that the mind remains sharp until the end and that the organs (brain, etc.) continue to degenerate.

    Thanks for turning the cheek.

    George

     

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home