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

Sunday, May 27, 2007

To Be, Or Not to Be, — That Is the Question


The phrase "to be, or not to be" comes from Shakespeare's Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Act III, scene I. The popular interpretation of these words is that it is a debate on suicide. Hamlets rather impersonally considers the attractions of death ("not to be"), which he likens to a sleep, over life ("to be"), whose pain seems unavoidable. But in the end he notes that the fear of possible suffering in the afterlife "that we know not of" (as opposed to the known evil that is life) tends to stop human beings from actively ending their existence.

As seen in the phrase --- to be or not to be --- the mind is using logical reasoning, in that, ‘to be’ is one extreme and ‘not to be’ is the other extreme of a pair of opposites. This phrase is Aristotelian, in that, ‘not to be’ is the contrary of ‘to be.’ Plato opens our minds by transforming this phrase into the phrase — to be and not to be. This transformation changes the term ‘not to be’ to the negative of ‘to be.’ With this change ‘not to be’ merely becomes something different. This change does not destroy logical reasoning. It merely lifts our minds above logical reasoning. Let me present an example of using Plato’s negative.

Take the phrase --- to be a Christian. Plato’s negative would generate the phrase --- not to be a Christian. The generated phrase is merely something different. Now, change ‘not to be a Christian’ into something positive. Let me choose this positive thing, ‘to be a US citizen.’ With this choice, the phrase, to be a Christian, and the phrase, to be a US citizen, become a relationship that humans created because of their freedom. With Plato, really new positives in the universe can be found. And, if Plato’s negative is used again, the double negation will reveal God. Logical reasoning does not have this ability. So, the mind has a power that is higher than logical reasoning.

Now, let me show how to relate the phrase, to be a Christian, to the phrase, to be a US citizen. In my book, I discuss the Christian term ‘forgiveness.’ Forgiveness begins with the admission by a person who did something wrong or false. If the person admits, the Christian forgives that person. In my book, I also discuss freedom and its origin. My scientific proof of God says that God is the origin of all finite things in the universe. But, I also say that God’s freedom is absolute. Since our freedom is relative, rather than absolute, our freedom comes from the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God, as identified in the Declaration of Independence. So, it is through laws that man becomes free. Accordingly, ‘to be a US citizen’ every US citizen must always be seeking new laws that increase their freedom. Otherwise, the USA would become a nation of bandits and irrational humans.

Currently, I have been debating with four reviewers of my book, The First Scientific Proof of God. I believe that their reviews are wrong and false. As a Christian, forgiveness is a possibility. And, as a US citizen, I also want to save or even increase the freedom of all other US authors from such wrongs and falsities. As a good citizen, one should test US laws to determine whether a law has been violated. As seen, Plato’s negative opens the mind to new realities. But his negative also creates new laws and increases our freedom.

Clearly, the work of the world’s logicians must be limited by law. Further, this blog’s teaching could be very helpful to unify Eastern and Western Christianity.

14 Comments:

  • At 3:36 PM, Anonymous concerned student II said…

    Reading the last part of your first paragraph I thought: finally George Shollenberger has written something that one can understand and that is without grammar or spelling mistakes. Turns out you copied it from wikipedia...

     
  • At 6:45 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    concerned student,

    Another atheist or champion of the ugly English language and its poetic grammar. I am a scientist not a lover of the English language. You are not a concerned student. Your concern is saving the awful garmmar and structure of the impotent English language.

    What is wikipedia? To look at and not use? Your interest is not in my teaching. Only true students are desired by me.

    Since you had nothing to say about the important teachign of this blog, one more comment like this comment and you are banned from my dialogues.

     
  • At 8:28 PM, Blogger Matt said…

    If you are using text from another source, it's customary to cite that source. Otherwise people will have the mistaken impression that it is your original work.

     
  • At 9:42 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    matt,

    As each blog says at the top of every page, my blogging effort is a teaching effort because the subject is new.

    This teaching is not a formal exchange, a paper, or a book. If I think a citation will help the student, I might use them. But, I will not get into customs because I want this website to be an informal exchange between student and teacher.

    Thanks, anyway.

     
  • At 11:12 PM, Blogger Matt said…

    It needn't be formal, just a quick notation. For instance, if I were to write an article about plagiarism, I might start it with something like "Plagiarism (from Latin plagiare "to kidnap") is the practice of claiming, or implying, original authorship or incorporating material from someone else's written or creative work, in whole or in part, into ones own without adequate acknowledgment. (Wikipedia)"

    No complicated formatting or linking is necessary. Just a passing attribution to prevent misunderstanding. Leaving such attributions off can give an appearance of dishonesty regardless of the level of formality.

    I would never copy and paste any text written by another person into my own communication, even a private email to my mother, without acknowledging the text was not of my own conception.

     
  • At 2:49 AM, Anonymous Sharon Kelly (English teacher) said…

    Mr. Shollenberger,

    It doesn't matter what your effort is or whether your blog has a formal or an informal character - you have to cite your sources. Failure to do so could result in claims of plagiarism.

    As far as the English language is concerned: it isn't ugly and it hasn't got an awful grammar. Your English is ugly and your grammar is outrageously bad. If you were in my class, you would never pass a test.

     
  • At 8:53 AM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    matt,

    In my one and only book, I do use the literary customs. And, I used the customs when I was in the US government. But, to be consistent with my proof of God, I am trying to make a new social relation, for instance, with students that represent the Christian custom known as brotherly love.

    So, I will try to make social relations more informal. To me, customs are a form of evilness. Customs are evil when they connect the present to the past, just as if the past is the cause of the present. The past is not a cause. It only represents our experiences.

    My interest is to teach people how to think about the experience of the past so that their minds can think properly about the future. I thus believe that the US 'me generation" is a lost generation. Living in the present is an illusion.

     
  • At 9:37 AM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    sharon kelly,

    Plaglarism is one of those many symbols that are fabricated in a laissez-fair economy by godless lawyers and the godless rich class so that both can become richer. Plaglarism is one of those symbols that is part of the ugliness of the English language.

    When you place any national language above the human mind as you are doing, you should not be a school teacher. Mind creates language and language then creates MINDSETS. You MINDSET seems to be moving in the wrong direction.

    With my ugly English and bad grammar, my mind produced many achievements in my career. After I retired, my mind continued to use ugly English and bad grammar and found the first scientific proof of God. So even though I would not pass you test, your test would have nothing to do with my development of my MINDSET.
    Based on the experiences of my life, knowing how to find truths was the key, not grammar.

    I would not recommend you as a school teacher because your MINDSET does not distinguish lnguage and mind.

     
  • At 11:47 AM, Blogger Matt said…

    Do you believe that all customs are a form of evilness? What about saying please (connecting present with future) and thank you (connecting present with past)? How do you differentiate between politeness and custom?

     
  • At 12:46 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    matt,

    Some historians are atheists and want to build a science from man's histories. To them the world is purely physical, that is, a machine. In such a world the freedom you believe you have is an illusion.

    Most historians are believers in God. With God, human freedom, although not absolute, is relative and a reality, not an illusion.

    Some customs are godly. They are the customs thta remain in a nation. The evil customs decline and go out of existence. For instance, the drug culture in the USA will decline and will go out of existence.

    The pair of opposites, permanence and change, could eventually be called the 'law of customs' when it is put into mathematics.

    I can't answer the please and thank you custom. But, I believe this custom has the potential to be a permanent custom becaise it agrees with the 'brotherly love' custom. These two customs seem to be well-developed in the orient.

     
  • At 1:00 PM, Anonymous Sharon Kelly said…

    You have some nerve, Mr. Shollenberger! First you copy and paste a large chunk of text from wikipedia, then when confronted with this act of intellectual robbery you write: "Plaglarism is one of those symbols that is part of the ugliness of the English language". What a sorry excuse!

    Plagiarism is stealing other people's thoughts. You are a thief of the ideas that other people carefully formulated. I won't tell my students about your website. I want them to grow up to become honest US citizens.

     
  • At 4:07 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    sharon kelly,

    I never stole anything and I do not expect to steal anything now or in the future. Like Socrates, I do not violate the laws of the USA. That does not mean that I agree with the laws of the USA.

    Ben Franklin did not ask for a patent for his stove. And, he said that when people need money, print them some. His MINDSET is typical of all of the founders of the USA.

    As a teacher your mind is stuck with the USA as it was made by the rich classes after Lincoln was assassinated. Unless you understand the founders, you will not understand anything I teach.

    Note. The Top of the page says "Teachings: The First Scientific Proof of God."

    All students are welcome. I do not expect students to teach me.

     
  • At 7:35 AM, Anonymous Sharon Kelly said…

    Benjamin Franklin told people they could freely make a copy of his stove. However, the author of the wikipedia article you plagiarized didn't give you permission to copy part of his or her text without citing your source. I am sure you see the difference.

    One's mindset doesn't have anything to do with this issue, and neither do the founders of the USA. That is just a smokescreen you are trying to create in order to hide the truth, which is that you plagiarized and refuse to apologize for it.

    Dishonesty is the root cause of many serious problems in the USA. Think about that.

     
  • At 7:40 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    sharon kelly,

    I believe I made an error and now come to your side. This is because I was informed wrongly about wikipedia. I will add the citation.

    I disagree with you on MINDSET, which adjusts continually to the environment. The opposites, permanence and change, explain the MINDSET development or degeneration. New customs develop and old custome fade away.

    The founders knew the negatives of developing a rich class. England and the USA has produced a very poor sector of the population, not by evolutionary theory. But both use the ugly English language. Don't you see any relation between poverty and the English symbolic language of economies?

    There is no smookscreen. But, one must open the mind and challenge the MINDSET. Otherwise changes are hard to come.

     

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home