Reviews of My Book by Five Atheists
Book reviews by five atheists of my book, ---The First Scientific Proof of God --- are shown below. These book reviews are found at Amazon.com. I show these reviews here so you can compare the contents of these reviews easily with the Table of Contents of my book, which I present in the blog above. According to Amazon's review guidelines, a book review is expected to address the contents of a book. Amazon did remove the reviews of Bask, utahrc, and bookjunky. But these three atheists resubmitted their reviews. These resubmissions frustrated Amazon because its cost of reviewing book reviews became too high after Amazon's book sales grew. So, Amazon no longer previews the book reviews that it advertises for sales. The atheists are thus taking advantage of this weakness in the Amazon book review process. Note. The atheists also vote for each other's book review.
As one can see in the Table of Contents of my book, all five book reviews have nothing to do with the contents of my book. The purpose of these atheistic book reviews was only to stop the propagation of this important book to Americans. So, US government and citizens must become aware of the games that US atheists are playing. They do not tolerate religions at all. And, they hate scientists like me who are conducting research on the theory of God and a theory that could unite theology and science.
All five atheists seemed to have motives other than reviewing the contents of my book. But, I have learned recently that the practice of atheism is unlawful in the USA. So, their book reviews might be viewed as criminal activities by the Department of Justice. We will see.
Garbage, Mull and more Mull, June 28, 2007
By J. Casador (Las Cruces, NM United States)
I found this book has a paucity of anything scientific. It lacks any scientific evidence, supporting data, let alone PROOF of anything. It appears the he takes notable names from the past scientific community and long dead philosophers and mixes there theories and ideas up with Christian Bible passages to produce a body of knowledge that lacks any reasoning.
I would not recommend this book to anyone. You would have better luck attempting to prove any gods existence staring directly into the sun.
Not even wrong, June 2, 2007
By G. klooster "TheOne" (Europe)
The Austrian physicist Wolfgang Pauli once said that certain theories or theses are so unclearly presented as to be untestable or unevaluatable, and thus not properly belonging within the realm of science, even though posing as such. They are worse than wrong because they can not be proven wrong. Famously, he once said of such an unclear paper: "It is not even wrong." (source: wikipedia)
The First Scientific Proof of God fits this description perfectly: while citing the names of numerous real scientists and philosophers, George Shollenberger manages to break the record of the number of non-sequiturs per page and to present it as a proof of the existence of God.
So be warned: this book lacks everything that is commonly considered to be essential to any proof: logic, scientific rigor and common sense.
No proof, no science, no logic, May 20, 2007
By Dauby Bask
This must be one of the strangest books I have ever read - and one of the worst. Although I don't hold a belief in any deity, alleged proofs of the existence of the Christian God have always interested me because they are at least a rational, philosophical attempt at explaining the supernatural. Some of these proofs have been rather sophisticated, like Aquinas' cosmological argument, while others fail to meet even the lowest standard of logic. Needless to say, Mr. Shollenberger's book falls in the latter category.
Unlike what one might have expected, his book doesn't contain a long series of arguments which towards the last few chapters lead up to only one possible conclusion: God exists. Quite the contrary, the First Scientific Proof of God (for some reason Mr. Shollenberger always capitalizes these words) is already delivered on page 6 (Part I, Chapter 1) and is very short:
"Using the symbols, finite and infinite, God's existence can be expressed with the following statement: all finite things are originated by an infinite thing. This statement contains sense-data which means 'all finite things.' And, this sense-data is explained by the theory -- all finite things are originated by an infinite thing. God's existence is proven if God is that infinite thing. This data and theory satisfy the two-step method of proof known as the scientific method of proof. The proof that God is that infinite thing uses the dictionary definition of the symbols, finite and infinite, and rejects the use of the mathematical indefinite in determining the meaning of the infinite in the above statement."
The density of non-sequiturs is so high and the assertions are so outlandish as to boggle the mind. Why would all finite things have to be originated by an infinite thing? Who says that the word sense-data means all finite things? What does Mr. Shollenberger mean by saying that "this sense-data is explained by the theory -- all finite things are originated by an infinite thing"? Doesn't he understand that he presupposes what he sets out to prove by writing "God's existence is proven if God is that infinite thing"? Etcetera etcetera.
All these questions remain unanswered in his book. Mr. Shollenberger doesn't have a high opinion of logic. He claims to have risen above it; otherwise he wouldn't have been able to deliver his proof. So much for its alleged scientific qualities... He doesn't seem aware of the huge epistemological problems that arise when one, whether consciously or not, abandons the use of logic. How can we gauge the validity of a philosophical or scientific claim without the use of logic?
Among all his other highly peculiar claims, one definitely stands out: in the first part of his book he asserts that there are two symbolic languages: scientific languages and talk languages. If I understand him correctly (which is very difficult due to his lack of logical skills and his many grammar and spelling mistakes), he seems to think that scientists use a language that is completely different from our everyday language. Unfortunately, he doesn't give so much as a hint as to the nature of these differences.
Furthermore, he claims that the English language is poor compared to the German language, because it is weakened by "Aristotle logic" and affects the human mind negatively, and that the German language is strong thanks to Plato's use of logic. Again, no examples whatsoever are given to illustrate these bizarre claims.
I'll leave it at this. Anyone interested in the wondrous workings of the human mind should by all means buy Mr, Shollenberger's 'proof'. I will consider it a valuable contribution to my collection of books on the flat earth, shape-shifting reptiles and Atlantis.
Awful, May 14, 2007
By utahrc
This book is very poorly written, with grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors so pervasive as to distract from whatever point he may be trying to make. This is ironic given one of the primary premises of the book is that human language is incapable of adequately communicating certain concepts. The author's obvious lack of language skill should make anyone question his qualification to criticize language.
His claim on having a "scientific proof of God" requires that science be redefined as something which no scientist would recognize. Indeed, the author believes that all fields of science and mathematics have to change once exposed to this book. As with the claim about language, this claim is rather dubious given his obvious deficiency of knowledge about science or mathematics as presently practiced.
Badly written pseudoscience, July 22, 2006
By bookjunky
This is badly-written pseudoscience composed with a complete disdain for the scientific process. No peer reviews of this work exist. The "proof" consists of assertion piled upon assertion with no actual scientific process to back it up, relying instead on ancient philosophers and the Bible. Even creationists and Christians would have to find this "support" embarrassing. Don't waste your money on this.
As one can see in the Table of Contents of my book, all five book reviews have nothing to do with the contents of my book. The purpose of these atheistic book reviews was only to stop the propagation of this important book to Americans. So, US government and citizens must become aware of the games that US atheists are playing. They do not tolerate religions at all. And, they hate scientists like me who are conducting research on the theory of God and a theory that could unite theology and science.
All five atheists seemed to have motives other than reviewing the contents of my book. But, I have learned recently that the practice of atheism is unlawful in the USA. So, their book reviews might be viewed as criminal activities by the Department of Justice. We will see.
Garbage, Mull and more Mull, June 28, 2007
By J. Casador (Las Cruces, NM United States)
I found this book has a paucity of anything scientific. It lacks any scientific evidence, supporting data, let alone PROOF of anything. It appears the he takes notable names from the past scientific community and long dead philosophers and mixes there theories and ideas up with Christian Bible passages to produce a body of knowledge that lacks any reasoning.
I would not recommend this book to anyone. You would have better luck attempting to prove any gods existence staring directly into the sun.
Not even wrong, June 2, 2007
By G. klooster "TheOne" (Europe)
The Austrian physicist Wolfgang Pauli once said that certain theories or theses are so unclearly presented as to be untestable or unevaluatable, and thus not properly belonging within the realm of science, even though posing as such. They are worse than wrong because they can not be proven wrong. Famously, he once said of such an unclear paper: "It is not even wrong." (source: wikipedia)
The First Scientific Proof of God fits this description perfectly: while citing the names of numerous real scientists and philosophers, George Shollenberger manages to break the record of the number of non-sequiturs per page and to present it as a proof of the existence of God.
So be warned: this book lacks everything that is commonly considered to be essential to any proof: logic, scientific rigor and common sense.
No proof, no science, no logic, May 20, 2007
By Dauby Bask
This must be one of the strangest books I have ever read - and one of the worst. Although I don't hold a belief in any deity, alleged proofs of the existence of the Christian God have always interested me because they are at least a rational, philosophical attempt at explaining the supernatural. Some of these proofs have been rather sophisticated, like Aquinas' cosmological argument, while others fail to meet even the lowest standard of logic. Needless to say, Mr. Shollenberger's book falls in the latter category.
Unlike what one might have expected, his book doesn't contain a long series of arguments which towards the last few chapters lead up to only one possible conclusion: God exists. Quite the contrary, the First Scientific Proof of God (for some reason Mr. Shollenberger always capitalizes these words) is already delivered on page 6 (Part I, Chapter 1) and is very short:
"Using the symbols, finite and infinite, God's existence can be expressed with the following statement: all finite things are originated by an infinite thing. This statement contains sense-data which means 'all finite things.' And, this sense-data is explained by the theory -- all finite things are originated by an infinite thing. God's existence is proven if God is that infinite thing. This data and theory satisfy the two-step method of proof known as the scientific method of proof. The proof that God is that infinite thing uses the dictionary definition of the symbols, finite and infinite, and rejects the use of the mathematical indefinite in determining the meaning of the infinite in the above statement."
The density of non-sequiturs is so high and the assertions are so outlandish as to boggle the mind. Why would all finite things have to be originated by an infinite thing? Who says that the word sense-data means all finite things? What does Mr. Shollenberger mean by saying that "this sense-data is explained by the theory -- all finite things are originated by an infinite thing"? Doesn't he understand that he presupposes what he sets out to prove by writing "God's existence is proven if God is that infinite thing"? Etcetera etcetera.
All these questions remain unanswered in his book. Mr. Shollenberger doesn't have a high opinion of logic. He claims to have risen above it; otherwise he wouldn't have been able to deliver his proof. So much for its alleged scientific qualities... He doesn't seem aware of the huge epistemological problems that arise when one, whether consciously or not, abandons the use of logic. How can we gauge the validity of a philosophical or scientific claim without the use of logic?
Among all his other highly peculiar claims, one definitely stands out: in the first part of his book he asserts that there are two symbolic languages: scientific languages and talk languages. If I understand him correctly (which is very difficult due to his lack of logical skills and his many grammar and spelling mistakes), he seems to think that scientists use a language that is completely different from our everyday language. Unfortunately, he doesn't give so much as a hint as to the nature of these differences.
Furthermore, he claims that the English language is poor compared to the German language, because it is weakened by "Aristotle logic" and affects the human mind negatively, and that the German language is strong thanks to Plato's use of logic. Again, no examples whatsoever are given to illustrate these bizarre claims.
I'll leave it at this. Anyone interested in the wondrous workings of the human mind should by all means buy Mr, Shollenberger's 'proof'. I will consider it a valuable contribution to my collection of books on the flat earth, shape-shifting reptiles and Atlantis.
Awful, May 14, 2007
By utahrc
This book is very poorly written, with grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors so pervasive as to distract from whatever point he may be trying to make. This is ironic given one of the primary premises of the book is that human language is incapable of adequately communicating certain concepts. The author's obvious lack of language skill should make anyone question his qualification to criticize language.
His claim on having a "scientific proof of God" requires that science be redefined as something which no scientist would recognize. Indeed, the author believes that all fields of science and mathematics have to change once exposed to this book. As with the claim about language, this claim is rather dubious given his obvious deficiency of knowledge about science or mathematics as presently practiced.
Badly written pseudoscience, July 22, 2006
By bookjunky
This is badly-written pseudoscience composed with a complete disdain for the scientific process. No peer reviews of this work exist. The "proof" consists of assertion piled upon assertion with no actual scientific process to back it up, relying instead on ancient philosophers and the Bible. Even creationists and Christians would have to find this "support" embarrassing. Don't waste your money on this.
posted by George Shollenberger @ 6:17 AM
14 Comments:
At 10:48 AM,
Anonymous said…
You write that "all five book reviews have nothing to do with the contents of my book".
With all due respect, but doesn't Mr. Bask comment on a quote from the first chapter of your book? Or did he just make that up?
And what's with all the non-sequiturs he accuses you of making? Weren't you aware of making them or is this a false accusation?
Regards,
Paul Astor
At 11:00 AM,
Anonymous said…
I think you are being unfair. You can't expect reviewers to cover the whole content of your book. Reviewers, especially at the amazon website, are entitled to write down their general impression of a product. Okay, it turns out that these reviewers didn't like your book, but that's their prerrogative. An honest question: have you considered the possibility that the quality of your book might in some way responsible for their reactions?
At 2:30 PM,
George Shollenberger said…
response to paul c. astor,
Bask's review was removed by Amazon because it did not meet the review guidelines. His review was removed a second tim time for the second time.
I told Bask about Part I, Chapter 1. And, he still does not know the proof. He does not know how to use negatives. This proof is only a very small part of the book. I do not consider him as a scietist.
My book deals with knowledge, not logic, in Part. The subject of this Part is primarily epistemology. Only the last Chapter in Part I deals with excluded middle opposites.
Part II deals with theology, not logic. Part III deals with physical sciences, not logic. Part IV deals with God's Intelligent Design, not logic.
So tell me where I am using non-sequiturs. They have not identified any non sequiturs. They are generalizeng and have make bad assumptions.
You also seem to be confused about the content of my book.
At 2:53 PM,
George Shollenberger said…
response to Melissa Carpenter,
Amazon removed their reviews because they expect constructive comments and feedback. Since Amazon does not preview book reviews anymore, the author must act to keep the book review honest. I told Amazon about their awful book reviews and they fully agreed and had them removed.
Ppresenting impression, instead of a well constructed book review, are inappropriate in science.
Book reviewers have no authority to judge a book when they haven't read it. This is the United States. The point is that none of them read the book.
Other people have spoken highly about the book. And, today's scientists will accept it when they learn about it.
The intolerating practice of atheism will soon be judged because theology and religion are protected by the US Constitution.
At 5:03 PM,
Anonymous said…
You wrote: "Part II deals with theology, not logic. Part III deals with physical sciences, not logic. Part IV deals with God's Intelligent Design, not logic. So tell me where I am using non-sequiturs."
You seem to think that non-sequiturs can only be found in texts about logic. That is a serious mistake. Any author can write down a non-sequitur in no matter what kind of text.
Do you understand? Then you will also understand that, ironically, this very quote of yours is a non-sequitur. Again: first you state that your book is not about logic, then you draw the wrong conclusion that because of that your book can't possibly contain any non-sequiturs.
By the way: I am not confused about the contents of your book.
At 6:00 PM,
MattP said…
You say that they are voting for each other's reviews. Since these votes are anonymous, how do you know that? Also, how does that account for the fact that some of the reviews have more votes for them than the total number of reviewers? Wouldn't that mean that even if they were voting for each other's reviews, that other people are also voting for them?
At 10:18 PM,
George Shollenberger said…
response to paul c. astor,
I have lived for 78 years and worked for over 50 years in the field of scientific research. I never heard of the word sequitur until people in your field told me about it. Then, a person in your field told me that logicians use the word non sequitur but do not use the word sequitur. There is something wrong with your field of thought.
I have dealt with included and excluded middle opposites most of my life. I have used if/then statements too. I get along without your new concept. Perhaps, your field of thought is the reason US science is failing.
I disagree with you that my quote is a non sequitur. Didn't you understand what this quote said?? If you didn't your mind is flawed.
Soon the work of Nicholas of Cusa will be propagated widely by the American Cusanus Society, your desire to control our minds and symbolic languages with logic will fade into a black hole. Humans are not machines, as you believe, and humans will never write with some pure logic as if humans are machines.
At 10:41 PM,
George Shollenberger said…
matt,
It was clear what the atheists were doing soon after they posted their reviews. The number of votes were following the submissions and resubmissions.
rev. bigdumchimp was also part of the group. But, he did not resubmit his review after Amazon removed it. He respected the will of Amazon and I honor him for that moral human behavior. The others are immoral.
I have no knowledge of the voting patterns after the six reviews are accounted for. I really don't care because I know what is in the book. There are many ways to save the chicken and catch the fox.
I worked on research on the criminal mind and human motives for 26 years. I am not ignorant.
At 4:48 AM,
Anonymous said…
You wrote:
"I have lived for 78 years and worked for over 50 years in the field of scientific research. I never heard of the word sequitur until people in your field told me about it. Then, a person in your field told me that logicians use the word non sequitur but do not use the word sequitur. There is something wrong with your field of thought."
I have been asking around a bit. Turns out everybody with a PhD knows what a non-sequitur is. Some were even offended that I asked them something as obvious as that. So I really have serious doubts about your education and your 50 years of scientific research. I haven't found any articles, let alone peer reviewed articles, from you in any (scientific) magazine.
So come on, George. It's okay to be an amateur, as you obviously are, it's also okay and rather endearing to publish a book for your friends and family, but it's not okay to lie about one's past. That sets a very bad example for all the young people in our beautiful country.
At 10:05 AM,
George Shollenberger said…
paul c astor,
You are trying to hide the failures of your genertation. The PhDs of your generation are lost and are becoming useless to the USA. They have failed in physics, biology, medical care, psychology, evolution, etc. Your generation is also failing in mathematics. Come on, atheist and wake up to the real world.
You can't find the achievements of a scientist in engineering in the paper crap you are reading. See if you can find out how my basic work in the 1950s led to the reality of Bill Gates and the home computer. Scientific engineers do not produce paperwork. We make papers. We make real and useful things for real humans.I was not a 'publish or perish' PHD.
My book is my first book. you will not understand it. It is beyond your mental abilities.
At 5:53 AM,
Anonymous said…
"Book reviewers have no authority to judge a book when they haven't read it. This is the United States. The point is that none of them read the book."
How do you know they haven't read your book? Because they think it stinks? How could they even quote from it if they didn't have their own copy?
"Other people have spoken highly about the book."
Let me guess: friends and family, maybe your dentist or your doctor. People who don't want to offend you. But can you send me a link to say three independent, positive reviews of your book by people you dont know?
At 11:35 AM,
George Shollenberger said…
response to melissa carpenter,
I know they haven't read my book because they do not talk about any content in my book.
Atheists would say that it stinks only because they cannot comprehend it.
I know they have the book because they were allowed to made a review of my book.
I will not share my friends with you or any any other atheist. Just another sign that aheists are also not polite.
My book and my thoughts are beyond your converstional abilities. Time is important to me. My interests are only with godly people. So let this conversation be the last one.
At 4:01 PM,
Anonymous said…
"Atheists would say that it stinks only because they cannot comprehend it."
This is your standard reaction to people who criticize your book: you call them atheists and you say that they just don't comprehend your book. Not once on your entire blog have you conceded that your book contains many, many mistakes. Not once have you seriously tried to understand the criticism. Confronted with criticism your mind goes blank and your reflex reaction is to lash out to all the people who are just trying to help you, showing you the limitations of your mind.
Why, Mr. Shollenberger? Why?
At 8:25 PM,
George Shollenberger said…
response to solomon richter,
I do not hold such a standard. I expect criticism from atheists because I know they are unfamiliar with the newest theologies. Since atheists do not know the newer theologies, they also do not know the newer sciences. They do not realize that neither science nor mathematics can be developed without including God and God's intelligent design in the development.
Don't you realize that the physical sciences, the life sciences, and the mathematicians are lost?
I do not know what atheists are doing in science and mathematics. But, I do know that whatever they are doing in science and mathematics is useless to the people of the USA. When are atheists going to admit that they are lost scientifically and mathematically.
Do you really think that I would publish a book that has many mistakes? You know nothing about me and my career In fact, you are not thinking well tonight.
I do not listen to what atheists have to say because they are on the wrong paths of thoughts lost. Why should any scientist or theologian, who believe in God, open their mind to godless thoughts? Its a waste of time.. The talk of an atheist is of interest only to another atheist. Thus, I view atheism as a cult because atheism has nothing to do with the development of knowledge through science, theology, and mathematics.
Don't you realize that it is the minds of atheists that are limited? Their minds are really closed and this is why they can't read my book. I wasted lots of time listening to what atheists are saying over the last year. That listening is now over. I wasted my time.
My research on crime at the National Institute of Justice, informs me that the mind of an atheist is criminal-like.
Post a Comment
<< Home