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.