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

Monday, August 20, 2007

Negation vs. Logic

This response by me below to Rev. Edward Pike on the August 19, 2007 blog on the subject "Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God" could be helpful to others who might miss Pike’s comment,

My Response
When my mind leaves the universe, it enters God's world. My mind can work this way because all things in the universe have a common attribute. The common attribute is the symbol "finite." To enter God's world, I begin my thinking about God by thinking about this symbol.

Plato taught us how to use the symbol 'not' correctly in his Sophist at 257b. To use the symbol 'not,' Plato says that 'not' takes our mind to something different, not to something contrary. If "not" moved the mind to something contrary, a logical relation would be created. Logic cannot lead our minds to God.

I use the symbols "not" as Plato teaches because the symbol "not" leads the mind to positive things rather than contrary things. So, when I use the symbol "not", I am using a process that God wants us to use in our minds. This process in our mind is known as "negation." So, when I bring the symbol "not" and the symbol "finite" together, I create a third symbol. It is written as not_finite. Here is the origin of the new word we write as "infinite." Since this new word is something positive, we can create logical thoughts. For instance, the symbol infinite and finite allow us to form a pair of logically related opposites. As seen, the process of negation must precede all logical thinking. Atheists think about logic first and do not think about God at all.

The third symbol is a completed infinity. Since it is a positive thing, it is an attribute of God. This third symbol is not identical to the infinity used by scientists and mathematics. The infinity they use is a bad or mathematical infinity. Scientists and mathematicians use uncompleted infinities and should be called 'finite infinities."

To reveal God, my mind must rise to the highest level of thought. I rise to this level by negating all finite and all infinite things. This second or double negation reveals God. Nicholas of Cusa, Hegel, and I thus see God as "the coincidence of all opposites."

As you see, God creates the universe out of nothing. Also notice that the universe consists of a set of positive wholes. This set of wholes and the nature of its changes is the intelligent design of God. My modern creation theory is thus our best knowledge of God's intelligent design at this time.

16 Comments:

  • At 4:30 AM, Anonymous Rev. Pike said…

    Mister Shollenberger,

    I asked Rev. Williamson, a pious octogenarian who has graced our gatherings from the very beginning and has spent over 60 years studying the fields of science and theology, to comment on your answer:

    Dear Mr. Shollenberger, in your effort to prove the existence of God, you start out by saying: "When my mind leaves the universe, it enters God's world." In the third paragraph you go on to state: "I am using a process that God wants us to use in our minds."

    I am afraid we have to conclude that your argument is an example of the logical fallacy called circular reasoning: the conclusion of your argument (God exists) is explicitly assumed in one of the premises. In other words, your argument fails to prove anything because it takes for granted what it is supposed to prove.

    Suppose I tried to prove the existence of the Loch Ness monster in the following manner: the Loch Ness monster wants me to interpret certain wave patterns in the lake as a clear sign of his existence. Those wave patterns have been photographed and filmed many times. As you see, the Loch Ness monster exists.

    Do you see the similarity between this proof and yours? In both cases the premise includes the claim that the conclusion is true, rendering the proof invalid.

    Another thing: by saying that the "process of negation must precede all logical thinking" you clearly imply that your use of Plato's negative takes place outside the boundaries of logic. Yet in that very paragraph you draw a couple of conclusions ("So, when I use the symbol "not", I am using a process that God wants us to use in our minds." and "So, when I bring the symbol 'not' and the symbol 'finite' together, I create a third symbol"). If these conclusions aren't governed by logic, then what made you draw them? What criteria made you draw those conclusions instead of any other possible conclusion, like for example: "So, when I bring the symbol 'not' and the symbol 'finite' together, I know that Jesus loves me"?

    Mr. Shollenberger, I hope you will find the time to answer my questions. Please remember, I don't need any proof that our Lord is a living reality, but I happen to be interested in both religion and science. May the Lord bless you and your family,

    Rev. Williamson

     
  • At 9:53 AM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    response to Rev.Williamson,

    Negation does not deal with contraries. It deals with negatives and positives. Thus, Nicholas of Cusa, Hegel and I are not using logical reasoning in our searches for knowledge of God.

    The job of science is to seek truths. A scientist is thus asked to explain sensual phenomena. he or she explain the phenomena by seeking a theory.

    A theologian is askec to explain that why all sense phenomena originates in God. So, the theologian must find this explanation and can do this with negation.

    One cannot approach God with logic. But, when we approach God with negation, we reveal logical relations, which help us understand God's intelligent design of the universe.

    Knowing God and knowing the Loch Ness monster require different ways of thinking. When our minds are seeking truths about two completely different worlds, one cannot use the same symbolic language.

    When I attach the word 'not' to the word 'finite' to get 'infinite.' infinie is a word we use to learn about God's world. We use the word finite to learn about the world God created.

    Our scientists, theologians, and ficlogicians have difficulty in reasoning with negation. The nature of the human mind is not fully known today. Negation is newly developing ability of the mind.

     
  • At 3:54 AM, Anonymous Rev. Pike said…

    Thank you very much for your lengthy answer, which proved to be a fruitful subject for our Tuesday night gathering. You are truly a man of God. However, Rev. Williamson is in disagreement with most of what you wrote. I hereby copy his reaction:

    Dear Mr. Shollenberger, I can't stress this enough: when scientifically trying to prove the existence of a certain entity (including God), you may not presuppose any knowledge of this entity in your premises. As said, that would amount to circular reasoning.

    Unfortunately, you do exactly that. You claim to know things about God (He cannot be approached with logic, He is different from the Loch Ness monster) before even having proved His existence. That is a fundamentally flawed approach.

    You also wrote: "One cannot approach God with logic. But, when we approach God with negation, we reveal logical relations."

    That is not true. If you don't use logic, you can never reach any logical conclusions. If I'm not mistaken, young people call this a no-brainer nowadays.

    Furhermore, you wrote: "Thus, Nicholas of Cusa, Hegel and I are not using logical reasoning in our searches for knowledge of God."

    Again (and please do address my question): If your conclusions aren't governed by logic, then what made you draw them? What criteria made you draw those conclusions instead of any other possible conclusion, like for example: "So, when I bring the symbol 'not' and the symbol 'finite' together, I know that Jesus loves me"? Or: "So, when I bring the symbol 'not' and the symbol 'finite' together, I know that the Red Sox will win their next game".

    Dear Mr. Shollenberger, I have been studying the fields of religion and science for 62 years (see my papers and, much more importantly, my peer reviewed articles) and have seen quite a few religious scientists make the same mistakes you make. Logic isn't something you can apply at will, a la carte so to speak.

    May the Lord our Savior lead you on the path to wisdom and enlightenment. God bless you.

    Rev Williamson

     
  • At 12:25 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    Response to Rev. Pike,

    Rev. Williamson makes the same error that most scientists make. This is why the new generations of scientists are atheists.

    The origin of ‘logical reasoning’ cannot be ‘logical reasoning.’ Nor can finite come from finite.

    Understanding how anything works is not the same as understanding how it came to be. Thus, understanding how the universe works is not the same as understanding how the universe came to be. And understanding how logic works is not the same as understanding how logic came to be.

    The big bang theory is wrong because its believers say that the origin of a finite universe is a finite explosive thing. Evolutionists have the same problem. They do not seek the origin of nature.

    To know origins, one must develop knowledge of beings. Developing this knowledge is the subject of ontology, the study of beings.

    To study beings, one must use Plato's negative,. With Plato's negation, I can move my mind. Since my interest is fine the origin of all finite beings. I say that all finite beings originate in ‘not-finite’ or in ‘infinity.’ Without this infinity, finite does not exist. This infinity is not the 'mathematical infinity' (e.g., 1,2,3,4, ....)used by scientists.

    So this infinite being and all finite beings are always together. (Thus, we never live in half-worlds as physicists believe.) We always live is a whole world consisting of God and the universe.

    Infinite and finite must thus be unified by a higher being. With the second negation, infinite and finite are unified. This being is a unity of all opposites. We name this unity ‘God..’ Here is the origin of all the logic found in the universe. The origin of logic is God, not our minds. Our minds merely understand God's intelligent design better.

    I unite theology and science using a common symbolic language. This unification brings together the being of God and the being of the universe. In Part IIb, I connect God to the universe using logic and the Trinity. And in Part IV, I use Leibniz's monads to connect God to the universe with spiritual atoms.

    In the Xmas season of 2005, my 25 years of research was tiring me. So I decided to self-publish a book because my first and very different book was of no interest to regular publishers. In April 2006, I had a heart attack and had open-heart surgery. My book is the best that i could producer after the surgery. Maybe my book is not clear on the subject of God, theology, and science. But I also believe that the minds of today's scientists and logicians are closed. Their closed minds are a major problem for the USA.

     
  • At 4:34 AM, Anonymous Rev. Pike said…

    Dear Mr. Shollenberger,

    Unfortunately, Rev. Williamson couldn't attend our Wednesday night gathering, which saw 13 scientists/theologians discuss your latests posts. Brett Milroe from the Baptist General Convention of San Diego, who was an eminent scientist (over 30 peer reviewed articles in highly renowned scientific magazines) before he became a minister, volunteered to comment on your recent contributions.

    Dear Mr. Shollenberger,

    First of all, I hope and pray that you fully recovered from your medical problems. God is merciful indeed.

    Over the last couple of days our enthusiasm over your book and blog has made way for slight dissapointment. Our main concern is your apparent inability or unwillingness to accurately answer the very concrete questions you are being asked. Instead, you seem to take questions as an excuse to merely repeat your ideas, which leaves us all in the dark.

    For example, you still haven't answered Rev. Williamson's fundamental questions: If your conclusions aren't governed by logic, then what made you draw them? What criteria made you draw those conclusions instead of any other possible conclusion, like for example: 'So, when I bring the symbol 'not' and the symbol 'finite' together, I know that Jesus loves me'? Or: 'So, when I bring the symbol 'not' and the symbol 'finite' together, I know that the Red Sox will win their next game'.

    I'll give you another example. You wrote: "Infinite and finite must thus be unified by a higher being. With the second negation, infinite and finite are unified. This being is a unity of all opposites."

    Now, if you don't apply logic, what do you base a sentence like "This being is a unity of all opposites" on? Without the use of logic, can you explain why the sentence "This being is the absence of a few opposites" isn't equally valid?

    So please read the questions carefully. Better let them sink in a while instead of immediately writing a reply.

    May the peace and joy from the Lord be with you and your family. You will be in our prayers.

    Brett J. Milroe

     
  • At 10:00 AM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    Response to Rev, Pike and Brett J. Milroe,

    I was not avoiding rev. Pike's questions. I merely thought that Pike's group had scientists who know that man's reasoning abilities are not limited to logical reasoning. So let me start by quoting Gottfried Leibniz in his Monadology.

    31. Our reasoning is founded on two great principles. The first is the principle of contradiction, by virtue of which we consider as false what implies a contradiction and as true what is the opposite of the contictory or false.

    32. The second is the principle of sufficent reason, by virtue of which we hold that no fact can be true or existing and no statement truthful without a sufficient reason for its being so and not differebt; albeit these reasons most frequently must remain ubknown to us.

    33. There are also two kinds of truths: those of reason, which are necessary and which the opposite is impossible, and those of fact, which are contingent and of which the opposite is possible. When a truth is necessary, the reason for it can be found through analysis, that is, by resolving it into simpler ideas and truth until one comes to primitives.

    The first principle is logical reasoning whereas the second principle is cause/effect reasoning.

    I did not seek the opposite of a finite thing. I sought the cause (origin) of all finite things.

    When I bring the symbol 'not' and the symbol 'finite' together, I do not know that Jesu loves me. When I unite not and finite, a new symbol is formed. The new symbol is 'not-finite. Today's dictionaries list this new symbol as'infinite.'

    If all new symbols created with Plato's nagative were listed with the not- prefix, our symbolic languages would improve because the meanings of such symbols would be precise Today our symbolic languages are highly flawed and are creating criminals/sinners.

    In his God as Not-other, Nicholas of Cusa shows that "in a hot thing, what is not-hot is the hot thing."

    Thus, I can also say that "in a finite thing, what is not-finite is the finite thing."

    Here we see that many different essentias of God are found 'in' all things in the universe.

    Hopefully, these words will help.

    George

     
  • At 11:45 AM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    Second response to Rev. Pike and Brett J. Milroe,

    Brett repeated me,

    I'll give you another example. You wrote: "Infinite and finite must thus be unified by a higher being. With the second negation, infinite and finite are unified. This being is a unity of all opposites."

    Then, Brett says,

    Now, if you don't apply logic, what do you base a sentence like "This being is a unity of all opposites" on? Without the use of logic, can you explain why the sentence "This being is the absence of a few opposites" isn't equally valid?"

    If one stops at the first negation, one must conclude that 'not-finite' is the cause of all finite things. However, not-finite cannot explain all finite things because the phenomena of all things in the universe have many, many properties beyond the property of 'finite.'

    Now, if my mind stops at not-finite, I have two choices. I can either turn my mind downwardly or turn my mind upwardly. If I turn my mind downwardly, I am thinking logically beause my mind turned to 'finite'. But if I turn my mind upwardly by using a second negation, I find a fourth symbol, not-not-finite. This symbol has the meaning "beyond not-finite and finite." At this level of thought, I have found something that unites all opposites.

    In other words, by using a double negation, I have found a monotheistic God. So, the symbol not-not-finite is the intellectual name of God.

    As you can see, our minds can be moved by us. When we move the mind we think with the ways we developed our reasoning abilities.

    George

     
  • At 8:05 AM, Anonymous Brett J. Milroe said…

    Dear Mister Shollenberger,

    Thank you very much for your replies. We discussed them over the weekend, but still have plenty of doubts as to the validity of your statements.

    You wrote: "But if I turn my mind upwardly by using a second negation, I find a fourth symbol, not-not-finite. This symbol has the meaning 'beyond not-finite and finite'"

    It is the sheer arbitrariness of your reasoning that bothers us and that suggests us the following remarks and questions:

    1. In 'not-not-finite' the first 'not' negates the rest. So not-not-finite simply means finite. It most certainly doesn't mean 'beyond not-finite and finite'. What gave you that idea, if you don't mind my asking?

    2. Why would you stop at this stage? Why not move on with a triple negation: 'not-not-not-finite'? And a quadruple negation, etc.?

    3. Why do you choose to negate? Why don't you multiply? Or substract? Or divide?

    4. If this is your proof, why do you call it scientific? With all due respect, but this has got absolutely nothing to do with science.

    5. The term 'symbolic languages' is redundant: languages are by definition symbolic. The word 'chair' is not a chair, but a symbol for a chair.

    Looking forward to your answers. May the Lord bless you and your loved-ones for all eternity. Yours truly,

    Brett J. Milroe

     
  • At 10:16 AM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    Response to Brett J. Milroe,

    I expect people to have doubts at first because my path to God is new, beyond all known scriptures, and beyond today's thoughts of scientists.

    You might want to follow my recent blogs on God's Warriors by Amanpour because I am trying to discuss my path to God to the three big religions --- Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

    Your mind cannot remain in a world of finites when you negated all finite things. When you negate all finite things, you have removed all positive things from the universe. All finite things in the universe are positive things. Thus, not-finite is something positive and infinite. The second negation is something positive and beyond what is infinite and what is finite. This second positive thing unifies infinite and finite and all other opposites. This is God. The mind cannot go higher than not-not-finite because this is the pure One or God.

    You must use the negative beause you are seeking other different and positive things. If you seek other finite things, you do not use negation. To find other finite things, you are seeking finite things that are functionally related.

    This path to God will become clear if you master Plato, Nicholas of Cusa (On Learned Ignorance), Gottfried Leibniz (Monadology), Friedrich Hegel (Phenomenology of Spirit), and Goorg Cantor (on his transfinite numbers). I master them, and many other personalities, for the reader.

    I call my proof of God a scientific proof because God is 'the cause' and His universe is 'the effect.' There are thus scientific truths about God.

    In Part I, see my discussion on the linguistic discovery of the symbolic nature of empirical data of the 1920. You are right. Chair is a symbol. However, the philosophy of symbolism is not being developed properly by man. Man must develop and improve continually the field of etymology.

    The school of physics found the dimensionally invariant equations with ease because the symbols they were using were giving precise meanings to each other. But, these meanings are not working after the physicists began to investigate the infinitely small and infinitely large regions. They have not found the physical atom (infinitely small) and won't, and they have not found the cause of the universe because they do noy consider God.

    Hopefully, these responses answer your questions.

    George

     
  • At 7:45 AM, Anonymous Brett J. Milroe said…

    Dear Mr. Shollenberger,

    You wrote: "The second negation is something positive and beyond what is infinite and what is finite."
    This is not true. Like I said, not-not-finite simply means finite.

    All the members of our group have read the works of the philosophers you mention in their original language, because most of the translations are notoriously corrupt. I trust you have done the same; all those years of research without mastering a second and/or third language would be a waste. As Einstein famously put it: Read philosophers in their native tongue or don't read them at all.

    Mister Shollenberger, it pains us to say this: your proof is no proof. You put the word 'not' twice in front of the word 'finite' and you think you found God. It just doesn't work that way.

    And even it if did mean God, you would be wrong in asserting that "the mind cannot go higher than not-not-finite because this is the pure One or God." If not-not-finite means God, then my mind can easily go higher: not-not-not-finite negates the existence of God.

    You juggle with words. Saying that your proof is scientific because "God is 'the cause' and His universe is 'the effect'" is, to put it mildly, difficult to be taken seriously. When I slice the bread, I am the cause and the sliced bread is the effect, but that doesn't mean slicing the bread is a scientific act.

    You are curious, which is a good thing, but your curiosity is untrained and undisciplined, causing you to draw unsound conclusions. We are afraid that your pride and the intensely gratifying feeling of - allegedly - having found a proof of God got the better of you.

    Our advice: forget your 'proof' and bow your head to the mighty God, who is all-loving and merciful. He will forgive your pride and fill your heart with the pure joy of being alive and feeling the presence of Jesus in your life.

    May the good Lord lead you to true wisdom and understanding.

    Brett J. Milroe (also on behalf of Rev. Pike and Rev. Williamson)

     
  • At 10:57 AM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    response to Brett Milroe,

    I conclude that you do not understand dialectical thinking at all. This is why you do not understand the negative thoughts found in the Bible. Plato solved Socrates problem of negative thinking but you do not understand how Plato's positivism helped man.

    The line of thoughts from Moses through Cantor is well known. I am sorry that you don't know this fact because the teachings of Jesus Christ are in this line. Don't you know that Einstein is in this line of thought and that the Catholic church is in this same line of thought after the Eastern Christians gave the Western Christians a copy of Plato's writings?

    Unfortunately, the Catholic Church did not translate (into English) the 15th century Platonic work of Nicholas of Cusa until 1980. This was the initative of Pope John Paul. With this translation, Cusa's negative theology was planted into the USA and I was one of the first student of this new theology.(Check out the American Cusanus Society.) Why do you think that Pope John Paul apologized for the imprisonment of Galileo? Why do you think Pope Benedict is opening the Vatican to new initiatives in modern science, specifically in the infinity of God? Soon, you and other Protestants will have to oppose the Catholic church, not only me.

    The current teachings of Christianity have inconsistancies. I correct some of them. I don't care what you and your friends say about my book. I am curious only about the sayings of Jesus Christ.

    I conclude that your thoughts about my book are being guided by the thoughts of today's US scientists and logicians. I sensed this when you did not understand the inability to use logical reasoning on investigation of God. Do you believe that Leibniz's two basic principles of reasoning are wrong? I have used both of these principles throughout my life as a scientist. Do you know that today's scientists and logicians are atheists and are failing? How can you be a follower of atheists?

    Your responses to me indicate that you have been away from science and philosophy too long to be helpful to Christians. Retire and give a Platonist a chance to clear the ugly smoke that you are puffing into the air of your Christians.

    Although God does not have a telephone for communicating to us, I show in my book that God and man are continuously exchanging information. I wonder whose information is affecting God, your information, my information, or both?

    George

     
  • At 5:05 AM, Anonymous Mary O'Connor (Roman Catholic Diocese of Newton MA) said…

    I am truly appalled at your rude reply to Mr. Milroe. You don't tell an eminent scientist and much beloved religious leader to retire. You just don't!

    The man is trying to help you, telling you that your proof is not valid, and all he gets is a foul mouth. What kind of values do you live by?

    Leibniz' principles are not entirely wrong, but much too vague to base a proof on. And unlike what you seem to think, they do appeal to logic. Schopenhauer improved upon the priniples in his publication Über die vierfache Wurzel des Satzes vom zureichenden Grunde. You might want to read that. (And yes, don't worry, there is an English translation.)

    Just a thought: why would dialectical thinking be right? Because Plato or Hegel told you so?

    By the way, if God is infinite in every possible way, he knows everything. So your question about information affecting him is irrelevant and nonsensical. Mr. Milroe is right: your mind is untrained and undisciplined.

    There are two things left for you to do:
    1. Follow Mr. Milroe's advice
    2. Apologize to him.

     
  • At 1:05 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    Response to Mary O'Connor (Roman Catholic Diocese of Newton MA,),

    Mr. Milroe belittled me. So he deserved a belittling response because brotherly love does still not even exist, even among religious thinkers.

    I am a scientist and expect to receive a scientific response. I did not expect a negative opinion of my life and career.

    Further, Milroe's responses were not scientific. His final response seems to be a message to his church members so he can survive my disagreements of his teachings. It seems as though he does not agree with the unification of Religion and Science. I am against the separation of Religion and Science. On this subject, I am aligned to Popes John Paul and Benedict.

    The two principles of Lebniz are the foundation of modern science. Cause/effect and logic are in this foundation. I use cause/effect to prove God's existence. Then, I use logic and the Christian Trinity to connect God to His creation scientifically. To my knowledge, this is the first scientific proof of God and the first connection of God to His creation.

    Bishop Nicholas of Cusa was the firs big student of the writings of Plato, after Plato's writings were received by Western Christians from Eastern Christians. The Western Christians were unaware of Plato prior to the Renaissance. It was thus Nicholas who brought the Western world into a modern world. Plato's positive writings on Socrates' negative thoughts was a major knowledge transfer to the Western world. Apparently Milroe was unaware of this scientific knowledge.

    Milroe says that not-finite does not reveal anything other than something finite. Thus, he says that a finite thing, which is not finite, is actually finite. Thus, he creates a contradiction with the symbols not-finite and finite. If the symbol not-finite is identical to finite, why write the symbol not-finite? His fallability is showing.

    I will not apolygize to Milroe and will certainly not follow him.

    Instead of learning something new for his church members and admitting that he might be teaching his church members wrongly, he belittled me only so that he can maintain his current teachings. He must learn to admit errors and move on.

    I am just another victim of religious dishonesty.

    I learned dialectical thinking from many dialecticians (Plato, Aristotle, Marx, Nicholas of Cusa, Hegel and Far East philosophers of ying/yang). Dialectical thinking is the right way to think because of the relativism of God's intelligent design and because there is no end to God, no end to God's intelligent design, and no end to God's creation. My lines of reasonings tell me that God does not commit suicide and is not caused.

    In God, all things are one. So, God's infinite is identical to all other godly attributes we find through the process of negation. It is also identical to all other godly attributes that cannot be found through the process of negation. The phrase 'all ways' speaks of the essentials of God. I don't like to use the word 'all" when I talk about a monotheistic God, but must at times in order to force a reader to think like God.

    Thus, God's wisdom is identical to God's infinity. But, God's wisdom cannot be equated to 'all knowledge' because knowledge is an attribute only of knowing things in the universe. So, God's infinite cannot be equated to all knowledge. As you can see, Mr, Milroe is wrong. My mind is well-trained and well-disciplined to distinguish God and the universe. I thank Bishop Nicholas of Cusa, et al.

    George

     
  • At 2:55 AM, Anonymous Greg Martinez said…

    I have been following this mind-blowing discussion and would like to make the following remarks:

    You wrote about Mr. Milroe: "Thus, he says that a finite thing, which is not finite, is actually finite. Thus, he creates a contradiction with the symbols not-finite and finite."

    Please read carefully what you wrote. What is wrong with saying that a finite thing is actually finite? How can that be a contradiction?

    Further, you defend the use of dialectical thinking to prove God's existence "because of the relativism of God's intelligent design and because there is no end to God, no end to God's intelligent design, and no end to God's creation".

    There is the circular reasoning again you have so often been accused of. You just can't say: to prove entity X I use a particular method (in this case dialectical thinking) because there is no end to entity X. At that stage of your 'proof' you aren't supposed to know anything about entity X (like, for example, that there is no end to it), whose very existence you have yet to prove.

    In other words, if you set out to prove the existence of entity X, you can't use any alleged attributes or qualities of entity X as input in your proof.

    People have been trying to explain this to you for over a year now, but judging by your answers you just don't seem to get it. I guess that (and the fact that you had never heard of the basic term 'non-sequitur') is why they call your mind untrained and undisciplined.

     
  • At 10:31 AM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    Response to Greg Martinez,..

    You said, "Please read carefully what you wrote. What is wrong with saying that a finite thing is actually finite? How can that be a contradiction?"

    My sentence structure was bad. Mr. Milroe said that my 'not- finite' thing, is actually finite.

    I do not see any circularity in my proof of God's existence. My proof uses the scientific method which explains the origin (cause) of all finite things (effects). In my scientific proof, the cause of all finite things is a real infinite, not the mathematical infinity. With negation, the word finite reveals a completed or determinate infinity.

    If my proof is circular, all cause/effect processes are circular and we have no science at all.

    You say, "In other words, if you set out to prove the existence of entity X, you can't use any alleged attributes or qualities of entity X as input in your proof.

    People have been trying to explain this to you for over a year now, but judging by your answers you just don't seem to get it. I guess that (and the fact that you had never heard of the basic term 'non-sequitur') is why they call your mind untrained and undisciplined."

    I am saying that logicians do not understand reasoning. Reasoning is not limited to logic.

    Let me show you how my mind is working. As atheists, you do not believe that our mind work the way I show you below.

    To move my mind into "the unknown," I take something positive with me. How can you take nothing into the unknown? When I take 'finite' with me, my mind has a specific 'beginning.' So, my mind is seeking an end. In this end it is seeking a new positive thing.

    In this specific beginning, I will negate finite. In this beginning, my mind is moving away from finite. To move my mind, I negate finite and reveal not-finite. Not-finite is posited as an infinite thing. This new thing is a real infinity, not a mathematical infinity. This new thing is a positive thing and an end.

    Now, I can search for more unknowns. This time I will take 'infinite' with me. So I new beginning is made by negating 'indinite.' When infinite is negated, my mind has revealed a new positive thing named 'not-infinite.' (Its name could also be 'not-not-finite.')

    The double negation is another end. This end reveals a new positive thing. This thing unifies all opposites such as infinite and finite. This thing is a 'one-thing.' Thus I can also name this one-thing God because my mind cannot negate God. The atheists negate God and thus negate every infinite and finite thing. To negate God is to admit insanity.

    If one wants to stop smoking, one must take the concept 'smoking' into the unknown of the smoker's mind. Otherwise, the smoker cannot get his or her mind to negate smoking.

    It should now be clear why your sales of logic to me for the last year did not work.

    George

     
  • At 12:26 PM, Anonymous Edward Lock said…

    So very interesting reading the exchange between such intellectuals!

    I myself am NOT an intellectual, just an ordinary Jo, so take my opinion for what it's worth.

    Rev Pike, I appreciate your belief in God, though you've proven nothing. Even not being able to mentally grasp much of the scientific talk between the parties I can still grasp the fact (fact?) that your using "circular reasoning" in your attempts to prove god exists. You're using your belief in Gods existence as part of the equation in trying to prove his very existence! I respectively think you know this, but have no legitimate way out so you are trying to save face by ignoring it.

     

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home