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

Friday, September 07, 2007

The World’s Logicians Have Misinterpreted My Book

Since the publishing of my book in late June 2006, logicians have been commenting on the website I use to teach complex subjects of my book. Unfortunately, they have also used my website to judge my book rather than reading it. In yesterday’s blog on a critique of positivism, I was told for the nth time that I cannot use non sequiturs. This time, I decided to challenge the charge that I misuse non sequiturs. After considerable thought, I concluded that this charge is not true. Let me explain my conclusion.

In the first chapter of my book, I present the first and only proof I offer in this book. This proof of God’s existence is made with one statement on page 6. The statement says --- all finite things are originated by an infinite thing. No other proofs are presented in the book. In the rest of the book, I identify and discuss the many thoughts that emerge as a result of this proof of God.

Based on my website writings alone, logicians are concluding somehow that I use non sequiturs in my book. This conclusion is false. If they read my book, they would learn quickly that only one proof is being claimed by me. All of my other writings in the book deal with the possible consequences of this single proof.

The error that logicians have been making on my book is due first to their non belief in God and second due to their ignorance of the difference between Scientific Languages and Talk Languages. The misuse of non sequiturs can occur only in a Scientific Language where a proof is being presented with fixed procedures. However, it is not possible to find a non sequitur in a Talk Language. They cannot be found in Talk languages because a Scientific Language and a Talk language are separated forever. These two symbolic languages cannot be unified in a world that has no end. The Talk Languages function as the world’s engine of change. It is thus futuristic. On the other hand, the Scientific Languages is not futuristic and functions only to identify the permanence of the world.

After I present my single proof on Page 6, my writing style changes from a Scientific Language to many different Talk Languages. The Talk Languages differ because many different fields of thought are impacted by a proof of God. My book can thus be called a book in philosophy. A philosopher will use many different ways to communicate philosophical material to other people. The author of a book uses many words in a Talk language so he or she can communicate to particular audiences. Jesus Christ, for instance, used many different Talk Languages to communicate to us.

Since logicians will not find any non sequiturs in my book or on my website, they have misled many Americans and impeded the flow of new ideas to America. Should logicians admit their error to all Americans? My answer is ‘yes’ because the ultimate king of the world must be God rather than man or logic. In a nation under God, admitting an error is important.

26 Comments:

  • At 1:41 PM, Anonymous Herkowitz said…

    Mr. Shollenberger,

    You have yet to reply to this post of mine (note: this is not about non-sequiturs):

    Consider the two following statements:
    1. a finite thing is the origin of all finite things
    2. a finite thing is NOT the origin of all finite things

    Now, if I were to use either/or reasoning, only one of the two statements could be true. But instead I go beyond logic and use both/and reasoning. In this different line of reasoning both statements are true.

    So you are speaking like a real positivist when you claim that the statement "a finite thing is the origin of all finite things" is not true and illogical.

     
  • At 1:47 PM, Anonymous Daniel Hammerstein said…

    To avoid misunderstandings, could you please quote from your book one single sentence written in scientific language and one written in talk language?

    I don't think that's a tall order and it will certainly help your readers to understand what you are talking about.

    Could you also provide us with examples of the many different talk languages that, according to you, Jesus used and tell us in what way they differ from each other?

    Thank you!

     
  • At 1:54 PM, Anonymous Keira Levison said…

    You wrote:

    "The misuse of non sequiturs can occur only in a Scientific Language."

    That is not true and shows that you are ignorant of what a non-sequitur is.

    If I say for instance: "many americans are atheists, so George Shollenberger is an atheist", the second part - the conclusion - is a non-sequitur because it doesn't follow logically from the first part.

    The problem is that, obviously wothout knowing it, you are very prone to drawing exactly this kind of conclusions. That renders your proof invalid.

     
  • At 2:01 PM, Anonymous Cindy Karlinski, psychotherapist said…

    "Since logicians will not find any non sequiturs in my book or on my website, they have misled many Americans and impeded the flow of new ideas to America."

    That is a lie, George. Many people from all walks of life, not necessarily logicians, have identified a plethora of non-sequiturs on your website.

    The problem is that you refuse (or are mentally unable) to really learn what a non-sequitur is, while your frequent use of it is at the core of the failure of your book.

    In Europe everybody with some education knows what a non-sequitur is and how very wrong it is to use them.

     
  • At 2:03 PM, Anonymous A.-M. Dreyfus said…

    I think you still owe me an answer to the following questions.

    You made two statements:
    1. reasoning goes beyond logic
    2. the origin of all finite things is an infinite God.

    By using the word "thus" you implied that statement 2 follows logically from statement 1. Do you see that such is not true? And that statement 2 would still be a non-sequitur if you replace "God" with "thing"? Or with any other word, for that matter?

     
  • At 2:17 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    response to Herkowitz,

    The two statementa are logical reasoning. This is either/or.

    When one goes to both/and reasoning, infinite and finite co-exis, one goes beyond logical reasoning, and the synthesis of the thesis(finite) and antithesist (infinite) is sought. If one takes this step, one hah found a thing that unifies all opposites. We call this thing God.

     
  • At 2:24 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    Response to Daniel Hammerstein,

    I use scientific language in my proof of God's existence. In all other statements, I use talk lnguage.

     
  • At 2:35 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    Response to Keira Levison,

    I limit the concepts, sequiturs and non sequiturs, to scientific languages.

    If you force logic in talk language, logicians will seek control of human creativity. The field of creativity should never be controlled by science or any of its lines of reasoning.

     
  • At 2:46 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    response to Cindy Karlinski, psychotherapist,

    As you can see in my responses, I am holding my position on what I said. I used no non sequiturs in my book. You are trying to change the fields of theory, philosophy, creativity, etc.

    I do not lie. Like others I make errors. Bur this is an awful judgment without proof. Proofs will not be found in talk languages. Errors, bad opinions, poor statements, etc. but no proofs.

     
  • At 3:03 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    Response to A.-M. Dreyfus,

    As a phisosopher, theologian, dialectician, and scientific theorist, I use the symbols thus, therefore, so, implies that, is consistent with, impacts, etc. because I am seeing a 'connection.' We use these connecting symbols freely. And, we change them often so that we don't write like a machine and so that a book will be published.

    I made such a statement because I see an connection between God and a line of reasoning beyond logic. Take such a statment away from from a theorist and you limit man's development. Talk languages cannot be closed down. Talk languages are change agents. Limit these agents and you will stop human progress.

     
  • At 10:17 AM, Anonymous Kate Shopweazle, Dallas said…

    Okay you say that when you lift your mind above logical reasoning and use both/and reasoning, you find God.

    But you also say: "once a new idea is found, logical reasoning must be used to prove the new idea".

    So my question obviously is: could you please follow your own statement and use logical reasoning to prove your idea that God exists?

     
  • At 10:20 AM, Anonymous Daniel Hammerstein said…

    Hi George,

    You forgot to answer this very important question:

    Could you also provide us with examples of the many different talk languages that, according to you, Jesus used and tell us in what way they differ from each other?

    Thanks!

    Daniel Hammerstein

     
  • At 10:28 AM, Anonymous Maurice Tormé said…

    Your assumption that non-sequiturs can't occur in everyday speech (I think that's what you mean by the term'talk language') is wrong and cranky.

    A non-sequitur is nothing fancy, it simply is an invalid conclusion, and normal people draw no less invalid conclusions in their everyday speech and writings than scientists do in their work.

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

    response to Kate Shopweazle,

    If it is true that the logical statement, "all finite things are originated by an infinite thing," then God is necessary.

     
  • At 1:02 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    response to Daniel Hammerstein,

    I conclude that the sayings of Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas is a talk language appropriate to an intellectual audience. In Matthew, Mark and Luke, I conclude that Jesus is using a common talk language for workers. In John, I believe that Jesus is using a talk language appropriate to a Greek-like audience who have some familiarity with the writings of Plato and Aristotle. When jesus uses metaphoric statements, I believe that his talk language is futuristic and deals with new generations.

     
  • At 1:18 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    response to Maurice Tormé,

    Logical reasoning is more than something fancy. It is a rigid structure of thought that produces scientific proofs.

    Talk languages cannot be equated with scientific languages.

    When logicians said that my book is filled with non sequiturs, they misled the potential readers of my book. My book has one proof and many talk languages. Misleading Americans is a very dangerous human behavior.

    Don't walk away from your error. Admit your errors when you make them.

     
  • At 5:29 AM, Anonymous Basil Young said…

    "However, it is not possible to find a non sequitur in a Talk Language. They cannot be found in Talk languages because a Scientific Language and a Talk language are separated forever."

    That is not true. Non-sequiturs occur in every kind of language and circles, in universities as well as in baseball stadiums. Readers of your blog have identified lots of non-sequiturs in your writings.

    So I think it is only fair that potential buyers of your book know what to expect: lots of unsound conclusions instead of a solid proof.

    And don't forget that at first you denied the very existence of the word "non-sequitur". And that you never apologized to the people who very patiently tried to convince you that you were very wrong.

    Telling lies is very dangerous human behavior.

     
  • At 5:48 AM, Anonymous Hadassah Milton said…

    You wrote: "I use scientific language in my proof of God's existence. In all other statements, I use talk lnguage."

    You have also been telling us that your proof is but a very small part of your book. So this warrants the conclusion that you use "talk languages" only in a small part of your book. Why then do you write the following on your amazon blog:

    "My book is a whole. Thus, it uses my scientific language everywhere. It is not here or there where I can tell you where my scientific language differes from what might be called the 'national language.'"

    Potential buyers of your book will not be pleased with these contradictory statements.

     
  • At 5:53 AM, Anonymous Richard Van Winkel said…

    On your amazon blog you wrote (in a discussion where almost all of your contributions were erased - why?) "In my scientific writings, I have a tendency to use short sentences. I prefer a series of small sentences instead of long sentences with commas. When editing, I try to reduce long sentences to shorter sentences."

    So in your scientific language you use short sentences and in your "talk language" you use longer sentences?

     
  • At 6:17 AM, Anonymous Kenneth Marillion said…

    Interesting! As far as scientific language is concerned, do you see a connection between the teleological aspects of triskaidekaphobia and the inductive (not deductive of course!) ramifications of your proof?

     
  • At 10:42 AM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    Response to Basil Young,

    As an engineer, I made machines, not humans. In making these machines, I never heard of the symbols,sequiturs and non sequiturs, in my workign career on machines. Yet, I used logical reasoning such as if/then and cause/effect statements in my work on machines.

    Logicians, because they treat humans as machines, want to apply the concepts, sequiturs and non sequiturs, into all talk languages as if people are talking machines. Treating people as machines is against the US Declartion of Independence and the US constitution.

    Scientific language and talk language are different symbolic languages. You must be careful because you are dealing with the human mind. Logicians already ruined my book. But the Father of logic, Aristotle, ruined something bigger, the Roman Empire and the Roman Church.

    Please think before you act.

     
  • At 11:03 AM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    Response to Hadassah Milton,

    have no fear, people who read my book will be enlightened. My discussion of scientific and talk languages in my book is brief. On my website, my discussions are expanding because the differences of scientific languages and talk languages are becoming clearer.

    In my book, my proof of god's existence is the most precise scientific language because it presents a proof. The rest of my book is dealing with concepts and ideas that are impacted by this proof. Some of these impacts are very clear while others are still unclear. If a subject is clear, I talk and write like a scientist who is getting ready to develop a proof. If a subject is unclear, I talk like a researcher who is still collecting data and developing theories.

    Hopefully, these words inform you that my book was not a simple task.

     
  • At 11:19 AM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    Response to Richard Van Winkel,

    I erase my comments on any Amazon.com dialogue when the dialogue becomes silly.
    \
    You are confusing scientific languages and talk languages. Scientific languages deal with scientific proofs. Talk languages, when they are scientific in nature, are searching for possible proofs.

    When I use a talk language on a scientific subject, Ii prefer short sentences. I do noy like long sentences but can be long if I give many samples.

    Short and long language can be used in scientific languages of proofs or in and talk languges.

     
  • At 11:41 AM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    Response to Kenneth Marillion,

    I hold no superstitions and see no connection between my proof of God's existnce and triskaidekaphobia. I have an interest in the prime numbers and Riemann's hypothesis because of my interst in God's intelligent design of the universe.

     
  • At 11:39 AM, Blogger Rev. BigDumbChimp said…

    I see you are still redefining terms as you choose to fit your cranky old non-theory.

    Things haven't changed much with you have they?

     
  • At 9:24 AM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    Hi Robert,

    No, I exposing terms that have been hideden from logic. Yes, things are changing because I am bringing new guns to the argument.

    How you guys and gals can live in a half-world and with half truths is very interesting to me and reminds me of the 'ass-kicking' contest in which a one-legged man becomes useless.

     

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home