Scientific Proof of God, A New and Modern Bible, and Coexisting Relations of God and the Universe: An Interim Report on Charles Fillmore’s Book on "Atom Smashing Power of Mind"

Saturday, November 10, 2007

An Interim Report on Charles Fillmore’s Book on "Atom Smashing Power of Mind"

I have read the first ten chapters of Fillmore’s book and felt that I was reading Part IIb

of my own book, "The First Scientific Proof of God." Fillmore’s and my interpretations of the teachings of Jesus Christ are independent and similar. Both of our interpretations of Jesus Christ are thus very different from the old teachings of Protestant and Catholic churches today. Using our interpretations of Jesus Christ and using the 21st century linguistic terms, the teachings of Jesus Christ are only about ‘intelligent design’ of God’s creation and the ‘human mind.’ Both of us are also saying that the teachings of Jesus Christ are of a divine origin.

Since my book also applies spiritual atoms, symbolic languages, the negative theology of Nicholas of Cusa, and dialectical thinking, I believe that members of the New Thought movement ought to consider these new applications found in my book.

If the old interpretations of Protestant and Catholic churches about Jesus Christ are replaced by the new interpretations, major changes must take place in the USA because our knowledge of the theory of God has now become very clear. This clear view of God will cause US citizens to force the US government to become a ‘government under God in a nation under God.’ No longer can the US government be godless or legislate atheistic laws. The current godless nature of the US government is in a nation under God. This form of government is the result of irrational political thinking.

How long did the Democratic and Republican parties expect this irrational US government to maintain itself? It is also becoming very clear that the God of Christianity is becoming the most advanced religion in the world and could eventually become the God of all people in the USA.

17 Comments:

At 9:59 AM, Anonymous said…

Mr. Shollenberger,

As board chair of a comprehensive network of national colleges I stumbled upon your book while doing research for the science and religion classes.

I was preparing tot order appr. 30.000 copies of it when a corporate partner on our executive committee sent me a link to your amazon page. That was quite a shock! What bothered me most (apart from all the critical reviews) was the way you responded. Not only were you rude, but you displayed an alarming ignorance of fundamental philosophical concepts like "non-sequitur", a term we expect our first graders to be familiar with.

We teach our students to be open-minded and to adopt a critical attitude towards everything. Your book won't help them.

Regards,

Stephen Black
At 2:30 PM, George Shollenberger said…

response to Stephen Black,

My dialogue with atheists and atheistic logicians over the last 15 months was not typical of my scientific and theological career. I was well respected before I retired. After retirement, I gained respect on this website and from a diversity of intellectuals of the Torch Club.

I am now gaining respect on the Google and Yahoo search engines. FYI --- search Google and Yahoo on the following subjects: george shollenberger, spiritual atoms, and scientific proof of God.

Your conclusion about me seems to be the result of a single event in my life. I can explain this abnormal eventby suggesting that you look at the May 01, 2007 blog on this website. This blog summarizes how a group of logicians and atheists have assasinated my character, and my book, soon after my book was published in June 2006. I was never involved before in this kind of scientific discussion.

On the Amazon.com profile, I tried to defend my book against the book reviews of six nasty atheists, who are unfamiliar the material in my book. I contacted Amazon about their reviews and it removed them immediately. But, three of them resubmitted their book reviews every time Amazon removed them. Eventually, Amazon gave up. Since they did not follow the decision of Amazon, I concluded that the atheists had formed a conspiracy.

The US atheists and US logicians have never read my book. It is clear that they were interested only in stopping the propagation of my book. They were quite successful at first but will not win their war.

My book unifies Science and Theology. It also connects an infinite God to his intelligent design of a finite creation with logic, not non sequiturs.

Atheists and logicians do not understand my arguments on non sequiturs because I use dialectical thinking. They understand either/or logic but do not understand both/and logic. So, beware of teaching only either/or logic to our children.

To defend my book, the blog dated August 2, 2007 on atheism was sent to President Bush, Chief Justice Roberts, and my three representatives in Washington. This blog was followed by two more blogs, dated 10/11/07 and 10/17/07.

My book is very, very different. For instance, tomorrow I will continue to defend my book by blogging a disagreement I have with the New Thought movement.

The contents of my book and my writings are friendly and represent the way I have acted and discussed scientific and theological material for over 50 years.

Please reconsider you current conclusion about me.

George Shollenberger, Author
At 11:07 AM, Anonymous said…

Mister Shollenberger,

During our board meeting yesterday we discussed using your book. Several board members reported on the amazon.com discussions it has given rise to, and we also considered your reply to my questions and remarks.

Mister Shollenberger, while most of our students are Christians, we emphasize the importance of logic in scientific, philosophical and theological discussions. We also expect them to answer the specific questions that our teachers ask them in class.

Unfortunately, you seem to fall short of both requirements. To our utter amazement, during a discussion on the term "non-sequitur" you called it the "illusions of a logician" and you wrote that "it must be a relative new concept", when the truth is that the term has been in use for hundreds of years. How could you say that?

We haven't yet read your book, but we think it could prove very interesting for our curriculum. However, we want to make sure that the authors of the books we use are serious scholars and know exactly what they are talking about.

You have yet to convince us that you meet these conditions. So here is our request: please describe what a non-sequitur is and give a clear example of this logical fallacy.

Regards,
Stephen Black
At 1:59 PM, George Shollenberger said…

Response to Stephen Black,

Thanks for giving me a chance to explain myself.

The following words of G.Klouster on my book was more evidence that none of the book reviewers read my book or even understand theology.

"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."

On p. 6 of my book, I say "God's existence can be expressed with the following statement:" all finite things are ogiginated by an infinite thing.'

This is a logical statement that uses the excluded middle opposites, finite and infinite. This statement is also a proof. My proof of God is not a non sequitur. So, how can anything said by klouster be accepted?

Look at my blog today. There I, and others, say that a monitheistic God unifies all opposites. In my book, God unifies all opposites including the opposites, infinite and finite. The infinite thing in my statement on p.6 is about God.

God thus exists in a world that unifies all logical concepts. My book deals with God and his created things. To say that my book is filled with non sequitirs, without reading it, is nonsense. From atheists, I heard charge upon charge about using non sequiturs. These charges came from logicans who are also atheists. That is why I made the statement I made about non sequiturs. Atheists do not believe in God and do not push the mind to higher levels of thought.

Non believing atheists stop with the collection of empirical phenomena. Since God is invisible and cannot see God, they negate all thoughts about God. I use the eye of my mind to see God. They do not understand this 'eye' because they do not expand their lines of reasoning Thus, they stop with facts based only on logical reasoning Believers must go higher.

When Kant tried to go higher, he used Aristotle's categories nad logic reasoning. Kant failed.

To go higher thoughts, a person must follow Plato's dialectical thinking. Nicholas of Cusa did, So did many more such as Leibniz, Hegel and Cantor. So do I.

The words sequitur and non sequitur will not be found in my book. But you will find the words logic and reasoning often in my book. You will also find the word 'consistency' in my book because I search for consistencies with God.

As I said in my bolg today on Fillmore and me, I search for logical relations between God and all created things. What is found in our world to be true must be denied in God's world and what is found to be true in God's world mus be denied in our world. Fillmore dis not use logical reasoning to distinguish God and his created world. So we differ on this point.

I believe that my book is the most advanced book available today on the unification of Science and Theology.

I hope my words above answer your doubts.

George Shollenberger
At 11:45 AM, Anonymous said…

Mister Shollenberger,

Thanks for your lengthy reply.

I sent it to our fourteen board members, and ALL of them mailed me something to the effect of: 'But Mister Shollenberger doesn't meet your request!'

I am afraid they are right. As I wrote you, we want to make sure that the authors of the books we use are serious scholars and know exactly what they are talking about.

However, your discussion with Mr. Klouster made us doubt whether you know what the concept 'non-sequitur' exactly means, especially because you called it the "illusions of a logician" and a "relative new concept".

That is why I asked you to clear our doubts in describing the concept and giving a clear example of this logical fallacy. So please don't refer to your book in meeting this twofold request; this is solely about your comprehension of this logical and philosophical concept.

Back to your book. You wrote: "The following words of G.Klouster on my book was more evidence that none of the book reviewers read my book or even understand theology."

We fail to understand how the words of one reviewer can be evidence that the other reviewers haven't read your book. Could you please explain the logic of this conclusion? (I can't stress it enough: we want our students to develop their sense of logic and their reasoning abilities.)

Also, one of the board members sent me a link to a discussion between you and a Mr. Bask where he asked why his slightly altered version of your example of Plato's negative is not valid. To our astonishment you failed to answer his question and told him quite rudely that his "mind requires further development".

Again, that runs counter to everything we cherish and try to teach our students. Never evade a question, we tell them, and never be rude in a debate.

I am looking forwards to your answers.

Regards,

Stephen Black
At 4:57 PM, George Shollenberger said…

response to Stephen Black,

Your inquiry seems to be shifting away from my book and is now focused on the subject of
logical reasoning and non sequiturs.

As an scientist in electrical engineering I have used many forms of reasoning throughout my over 50 years of research. However, when I expanded my research into theology, I had to expand my ways of thinking considerably because I was dealing with God, who is the unity of all opposites. Such opposites includes the unity of contradictions.

When thinking about God, one must think one way. And, when thinking about the universe that God created, one must think a different way. When I think about God, I use negative thinking. And when I think about the universe, I used negative thinking and scientific thinking. On p. 66 of my book, I describe the scientific ways I think.

"In the universe, we observe that things change continually and change by degrees rather than by leaps. Such changes are called variables. For instance, a person can change from life to death. Things that change by degrees change because a reason can be found to explain the change. Changes in things can be explained two ways: (1) by the law of sufficient reason, which explains changes by degrees, or (2) by the law of contradiction, which explains logical changes. The law of sufficient reason deals with included middle opposites, whereas the law of contradiction deals with excluded middle opposites. In Figure I.2, I use the pair of opposites, cold and hot, to model a pair of excluded middle opposites. Then, in Figure I.3, I use the same pair of opposites to model a pair of included middle opposites. As seen, there is no middle region of temperatures in the excluded middle model."

I tried to teach negative thinking to logicians (Bask, et al) But, they seemed to be closed-minded and atheistic. As time passed, I concluded that they would require new training before they would be able to use negative thinking and understand my book.

Since a book on Science and Theology must deal with God, universe, and life, the author of such a book must deal with both nonliving and living things. Since a monotheistic God cannot be exhausted, a person will conclude that a created universe, and its changes, have no end. Thus, logical reasoning might have limits in every created thing. Thus, illusions in a world that we do not know fully can be expected. For example, the ancients viewed cold and hot as a logical relation. Today both are non sequiturs

When an author thinks about God and finds new consistencies with God, the author is not using the consistency as a non sequitur. Consistency is a powerful tool for thoughts about God. God and his creatures form a living structure, not a logical structure. Klouster does not seem to understand living structures that have been created by God.

I conclude that the Amazon.com book reviews were really reviews of my website teaching, not my book.

If the new students of the USA use logical reasoning to unify God and the Universe and Science and Theology, I believe that they will never understand God or the Universe.

On Bask's mind, when I say that his mind requires development, I am not speaking of fixing a mind, as a doctor does. The development of the mind means that a new school course or a new training program is necessary. Like many Americans, Bask was merely not trained in dialectical reasoning.
At 6:17 AM, Anonymous said…

Mister Shollenberger,

In our comprehensive network of national colleges we teach our students, among other things, how to respond effectively to philosophical questions. They learn to be succinct and to focus only on the questions at hand.

So far you have failed to act likewise. I have asked you three times to define the term non-sequitur and to give a clear example of this logical fallacy, but you keep going off topic, in spite of my insisting very strongly not to refer to your book in meeting this twofold request.

Your only remark that seemed to touch on the subject of non-sequiturs was "(...) ancients viewed cold and hot as a logical relation. Today both are non sequiturs." According to Chandler Rice, our associate professor of history and philosophy of science, that doesn't make sense: "That is a nonsensical statement. Hot and cold are just words, adjectives, not non-sequiturs."

As to Mr. Bask: you can't just dismiss his question by telling him his mind requires further development. That is entirely at odds with the culture of open discussion we stimulate in our colleges. For your information, we don't condone the belligerent tone of Mr. Bask's question, but we do feel it is relevant enough to deserve a serious answer.

I'll be honest with you. Due to your evasive attitude the race is now between your book and a book on the trouble with modern day physics, whose author has been much more to the point than you in answering our critical questions.

So for the last time, Mister Shollenberger, please reply to the following questions:

1. What is a non-sequitur? What would be a good example of a non-sequitur?

2. Why is Mr. Bask's slightly altered version of your example of Plato's negative not valid? In other words: how could replacing two nouns by two other nouns render your example invalid?

Regards,

Stephen Black
At 2:47 PM, George Shollenberger said…

response to Stephen Black,

My responses might be disturbing to you because my work is penetrating deeply into the unknown. To me, the unknown is a place where one must think clearly and walk as if one is walking on thin ice.

I know that a non sequitur is a statement that does not follow from a prior supposition or proof. For instance, God is not caused logically by phenomena we find in the universe. Nor do these phenomena follow logically from the explosion of a single physical particle.

I presented the symbols, cold and hot as examples of a pair of logical opposites that were spoken in the ancient world before other symbols such as cool, warm, and tepid emerged and modern science emerged with functions. Lots of my research has been on the successes and failures of logical reasoning. I have a tendency to protect all ‘talk languages’ and all ‘scientific languages’ from the past failures in logical reasoning.

On my Amazon.com Profile, I removed all of my comments to Mr bask, et al because I did not want my comments to confuse the potential readers. I took control of my work by changing my website to a teaching effort.

As I remember, Mr. Bask did not follow Plato's teaching on negation, which begins with something positive. Once the positive is identified, the mind uses the symbol 'not' to move the mind to a new and different thought. For instance, begin with the symbol 'finite.' When the mind negates finite, the mind will move to the symbol 'not finite.' Today, the negation of finite is spoken of, and written as, 'infinite.' Referring to the popular song, Mr. Bask accentuated the positive. But, he did not eliminate the negative.

Today's scientists use a ‘bad infinity.' The bad infinity is an uncompleted or indeterminate infinity. I use a completed or determinate infinity. This infinity is God..

Part I and Part III of my book discuss the failures of physical scientists to penetrate into the infinitely small (atomic region) and the infinitely large (cosmology). So, my book is suggesting new opportunities for the physical scientists. I expect them to overcome some of their recent failures quickly. Since I distinguish the life and physical sciences, my book makes many other suggestions.

George Shollenberger
At 2:43 PM, Anonymous said…

Mr. Shollenberger,

I am sure you realise by now that we only buy large quantities of books for our students after a process of thorough scrutiny. It won't surprise you then that we still have a couple of questions.

You wrote: "On my Amazon.com Profile, I removed all of my comments to Mr bask, et al because I did not want my comments to confuse the potential readers."

In our view Mr. Bask made some very valuable remarks concerning certain aspects of your book. We feel you should give potential buyers and readers of your book the opportunity to read those remarks in the context of your discussion. That is why we find it highly objectionable that you removed your own comments. Moreover, how could your own comments confuse the readers of your book? You are the author!

Regarding Plato's negative you wrote: "As I remember, Mr. Bask did not follow Plato's teaching on negation."

That is not true, Mr. Shollenberger. Here is your own example:

"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."

And this is one of Mr. Bask's examples:

"Take the phrase 'to be a homosexual'. Plato's negative gives us 'not to be a homosexual'. Now I change 'not to be a homosexual' into something positive. Let me choose this positive thing: 'to be a US citizen'. With this choice a relationship has been established between the phrase 'to be a homosexual' and 'to be a US citizen', a relationship that humans created because of their freedom."

As you can see, Mr. Bask meticulously followed all the steps of your own example. It is simply not true, as you claim, that he "did not eliminate the negative". He changed 'not to be a homosexual' into something positive, just like you changed 'not to be a Christian' into something positive.

So again we ask you why his example isn't valid and yours is. Much of our appreciation of your book and of you as an author hinges on your answer to this particular question.

And by the way, you still owe us an example of a non-sequitur.

Finally, I would like to forward to you a question by Deborah Geller, who teaches our students inter alia about ethics. She happened to read your yesterday blog post and was quite shocked by your assertion that "negative thoughts about God and the created things in the universe are the origin of cancer." Her question is: "Mister Shollenberger, could you please state your sources for this extraordinary claim? I haven't been able to find any corroborating evidence in our databases."

Regards,
Stephen Black
At 12:25 AM, George Shollenberger said…

response to Stephen Black,

Again, my book is a very different book. It is very different because it incorporates the complex negative theology of Bishop Nicholas of Cusa. It took over five hundred years for his work to reach the USA with sound translations. In 1979, I was one of the first US students of Cusa's work. After I mastered his work, I had to conduct research to link Cusa's work to many other thinkers. And I had to identify those thoughts in science and theology that no longer fit. This research required more than 25 years.

I assumed that a book would shorten the time for US students to master my research. This is why I wrote "The First Scientific Proof of God."

Instead of studying the book,Mr. Bask focused only on the proof of God, which is only one of many subjects in the book. I tried to teach Cusa's negative theology on Amazon Profile. This teaching was too new and different. So, I decided to teach the tough subjects on my website. This is why I removed my Amazon Profile dialogues with the atheists (Bask, et al).

You and Bask are not moving your minds as Plato says. Plato uses negation to seeks higher ideas. The purpose of his work was to turn the negative thoughts of Socrates into positive thoughts.

Plato's negation moves the human mind. His words say that our thougts can move from a 'that' thing to 'that-which-is-not.' The 'that' thing is a positive thing and 'that-which-is-not'is also a positive thing. The 'that-which-is-not' is attained with a negation process. The negation process reveals a new and different positive thing, not a contrary thing. This teaching of Plato is found in the Sophisr (in 257). I don't believe that Bask even studied Plato's words.

Further, Karl Marx, Friedrich Hegel, and I also use the negation of negation (or the double negation).

I gave you two examples of non sequiturs in the 2nd paragraph of my last response. Need more?

Ms Geller should read my blog on Mind_Body today. I agree with the founders of the USA that negative human thoughts on natural and moral philosophies are unhealthy.

My wife died with brain cancer. Not until after her death did I learn in her writings that she developed false thoughts about God.

George Shollenberger
At 5:24 AM, Anonymous said…

Mister Shollenberger,

You wrote: "Instead of studying the book, Mr. Bask focused only on the proof of God, which is only one of many subjects in the book."

That remark puzzles us. Why give your book the title "The First Scientific Proof of God" if this proof is only one of the many subjects in the book? We get the impression that it lies at the core of your book and that Mr. Bask was therefore right in critically addressing it.

Three of our senior professors are deeply familiar with Cusa's work and have been studying it since the 1960's, when they started their careers. Well aware of the importance of Cusa's ideas they taught themselves German to read his writings in the original version. Why did you wait until the translation was published?

The question whether Mr. Bask did or did not study Plato's words is irrelevant to the validity of his example. Again, Mr. Shollenberger, we teach our students how to react to critical remarks, which are the fuel that fires the engine of science, and we expect the authors of the books we use to display a similar openness to criticism. You failed and keep failing to specifically address the question why his example of Plato's negative is invalid and yours is valid.

As I told you, your answer to this question is crucial to our final decision about the purchase of your book, since it is also crucial to the validity of your proof. For your convenience I broke down both your and Mr. Bask's example into three different steps:

1. Shollenberger: change "to be a Christian" into "not to be a Christian"
1. Bask: change "to be a homosexual" into "not to be a homosexual"

2. Shollenberger: change "not to be a Christian" into something positive: "to be a US citizen"
2. Bask: change "not to be a homosexual" into something positive: "to be a US citizen"

3. Shollenberger: the phrase "to be a Christian" and the phrase "to be a US citizen" become a relationship that humans created because of their freedom
3. Bask: the phrase "to be a homosexual" and "to be a US citizen" become a relationship that humans created because of their freedom

Please specify in which step he goes wrong and why you didn't go wrong there.

Now to the non sequiturs. Here is what our philosophy professor Chandler Rice wrote about your examples (God is not caused logically by phenomena we find in the universe. Nor do these phenomena follow logically from the explosion of a single physical particle): "Hi Stephen, it is no surprise you didn't recognize these examples to be non sequiturs, because they aren't. A non-sequitur typically consists of a premise and a conclusion. Where are the premises and where are the conclusions in Mr. Shollenberger's examples?"

As to your remark about cancer being caused by "negative thoughts about God": Ms. Geller read your blog but didn't find any reference to sound medical sources like The Lancet. She always urges her students to refer to reliable sources when making extraordinary claims, and it is only natural that she should expect a similar attitude from the authors of the books we use.

Regards,
Stephen Black
At 8:41 PM, George Shollenberger said…

response to Stephen Black,

A scientific proof of God will change the ways Christians will think about God. A monotheistic God proven by science is not the same as a proof that the Bible offers. A scientific proof of God is like a new invention that opens many new thoughts about God , the universe, and life. This is why I wrote a book rather than have it reviewed by a peer group. The field of science is too wide to depend on peer groups.

The book was 'too new' for an atheist such as Mr. Bask. The eyes of the young Christians will be opened widely with this new book. Bask does not understand negation and the 'not' word. The process of negation removes something from the universe and reveals its cause.

Look at these ststements. I do not remember saying them
1. Shollenberger: change "to be a Christian" into "not to be a Christian"
1. Bask: change "to be a homosexual" into "not to be a homosexual"

2. Shollenberger: change "not to be a Christian" into something positive: "to be a US citizen"
2. Bask: change "not to be a homosexual" into something positive: "to be a US citizen"

3. Shollenberger: the phrase "to be a Christian" and the phrase "to be a US citizen" become a relationship that humans created because of their freedom
3. Bask: the phrase "to be a homosexual" and "to be a US citizen" become a relationship that humans created because of their freedom.

These statements seem to discuss the concept of 'difference.' They have nothing to do with the process of negation.

The statement "God is said to be caused by phenomena" is an ancient non sequitur. Don't many non sequiturs exist in every life science today? Some physicists believe in the Big Bang theory and say that all phenomena follow from a premise, the explosion of a single physical particle. This is a non sequitur because this premise has not been proven. Other physicists want this premise to be proven.

I rest with my own research on the cause of my wife's brain cancer. I will be writing about my conclusion on cancer in this website eventually. I have awful data on the negative thoughts expressed by her cancer doctors. Who is running the medical show on cancer in the USA, the doctors, the cancer centers, or the insurance companies?

If your affilates studied Cusa in the 1960s, they used an early version that is seen as a very bad translation. They should contact the American Cusanus Society for the latest interpretation of Cusa. The new translations are by Dr. Jasper Hopkins (University of Minnesota), et al. The new translations is a major Christian breakthrough in sciente and theiologyl on the teachings of Jesus Christ. The young students of the USA will have their eyes opened with my book.

Note. I make errors, as all human do. But, I do not say lies.

George Shollenberger
At 7:16 AM, Anonymous said…

Mr. Shollenberger,

I won't beat about the bush: we are very dissapointed with your reply, which in addition to being sloppy reveals what we only can interpret as intentional dishonesty.

1. Plato's negative

To our utter amazement you wrote that you don't remember saying the statements that I copied from your example of Plato's negative. First of all, we have been discussing your example for almost a week, and now all of a sudden you start denying having written them? For your information, your example of Plato's negative was included in your blog To Be, Or Not to Be, — That Is the Question, dated May 27, 2007.

Second, you wrote: "These statements seem to discuss the concept of 'difference.' They have nothing to do with the process of negation." Look it up, Mr. Shollenberger, the entire blog I mentioned was devoted to Plato's negative, which revolves around NEGATION. Why are you denying the obvious?

So my challenge still stands: explain why Mr. Bask's example isn't valid and yours is. In your answer please refer to the three steps I mentioned in my previous message.

2. Non sequiturs

You wrote: "Some physicists believe in the Big Bang theory and say that all phenomena follow from a premise, the explosion of a single physical particle. This is a non sequitur because this premise has not been proven."

This only confirms Mr. Rice's suspicions (and mine as well, for that matter): you still don't understand what a non sequitur is. For a statement to be considered a non sequitur it is completely irrelevant whether or not the premise has been proven. Relevant is whether the conclusion follows logically from the premise, be this premise proven or not. Your ignorance in this respect is really shocking, as this is one of the basic concepts of common logic. And we ask ourselves: if you aren't able to recognize a non sequitur, how then can we be sure your book isn't full of it, as the reviewers of your book claim it is?

Although we all adhere to the Christian belief system, we are highly indignant at your dismissing the arguments of the reviewers of your book by simply calling them atheists. That is not the way to enter into an argument with someone and certainly not what we teach our students.

In my entire professional career I have never before encountered an author who was so evasive and careless in answering my questions. Tomorrow during our board meeting we will decide on using your book for our science and religion classes. Most other chains of colleges follow our advice when it comes to ordering books for their curricula, so I urge you to make the best of this last opportunity we are offering you.

Regards,
Stephen Black
At 12:23 PM, George Shollenberger said…

response to Stephen Black,

On Plato's negative.

My words to Mr. Bash were for his benefit. But I do not remember our dialogue. Certainly I might have made these sayings because the concept 'difference,' as used in the universe, can never become absolutely maximum. This is a new teaching. I might have been teaching the limit of differences because 'difference' is in Plato's teaching of the negative in the Sophist at257.

Mr. Black, there are no dishonesties involved in my life or writings. Errors 'yes' and new opinions 'yes.' But, dishonesties 'no.' Aren't you making a false charge arbitrarily?

On non sequiturs

I know what a non sequitur is. My Collegiate dictionary defines it clearly. Are you saying that I reject the definition of non sequitur given in the dictionaries? I expect logicians to refine the current definition after they find what is found in my book.

On infinities

The bad infinities found in the universe by scientists limit each other. So, a completed infinity will never be found in the universe. This is why only one completed infinity will be found by us. This completed infinity will be found only in a higher world. This higher world is the world of God.

My book accepts these two distinct infinities. These two distinct infinities will change the world radically. They will change the way believing scientists and theologians will think. Logical reasoning will also change radically.

So, my book can be held away from believers for a period. But, my book or a similar book will not be held away from believers long.

George Shollenberger
At 1:41 PM, Anonymous said…

Mr. Shollenberger,

I don't know anything about how you live your life, but I do know that you are appallingly dishonest in your writings and discussions. During the last week I have been asking you over and over again why your example of Plato's negative is valid and Mr. Bask's isn't. And you have done nothing but evading my request. In my book that is dishonest. If one of my students displayed a similar attitude, he or she would be asked to leave.

You now say you don't remember your dialogue with Mr. Bask. Let me inform you that it started on May 28, 2007 on your amazon page and that you later erased all your posts. If I was able to trace that discussion, then why weren’t you?

As to non sequiturs: you DON’T know what they are. Anyone calling a statement a non sequitur because the premise has not been proven hasn’t got a clue as to the true meaning of this logical fallacy. And I am sure the definition in your dictionary doesn’t support your absurd interpretation.

Considering the dissapointingly inferior quality of your last reply we decided already this afternoon not to use your book for our science and religion courses. We don’t want to be associated with or to expose our students to an author who is a) dishonest and b) ignorant about the most fundamental concepts of logic. Moreover, during the next annual conference of national colleges networks, which together cover the whole of the USA, I will warn my colleagues against buying your book, referring them to this discussion between you and me.

If it hadn’t been for the reviews of your book on your amazon page, which raised our first doubts about its scientific and theological quality, we could have made the big mistake of ordering up to 30.000 copies of it.

Regards,

Stephen Black
At 4:52 PM, George Shollenberger said…

response to Stephen Black,

To be dishonest in the writings of scientific material has never been considered or experienced by me or anyone I know. Apparently, you have. Too bad.

I said that negation is a removal process. As I remember, Mr. Bask changes a positive thing into a different positive thing. If he did, I saw nothing wrong with such a change. But such a change maintains Bask's mind in the universe. Negation moves the mind into a new world. That is not being dishonest. What I recognize as being dishonest is when Mr Bask resubmitted his review of my book (three times) after Amazon removed it.

Your evaluation of me is nothing more than another illegal character assassination by people in the field of logic. Further, your evaluation of my book is not an evaluation at all. Your review is similar to the awful review of my book on Amazon by atheists. No one has read the book. How can you evaluate books by not reading them? However, your reviewers were not dishonest. They are merely out dated on certain subjects.

Based on my research and my book, this dialogue with you was more evidence that the field of logic is no longer a science and is thus misinforming the people of the USA, US students, and Christianity.

Eventually, logicians will be shocked to learn that conjectures and opinions are as far as man can go in a nation under God. They will also be shocked to learn that our world is always filled with non sequiturs. So, the real truth is that you and other logicians are the ones who do not understand what a non sequitur is.

George Shollenberger
At 2:34 PM, Anonymous said…

Hello !.
You may , perhaps very interested to know how one can collect a huge starting capital .
There is no initial capital needed You may begin to get income with as small sum of money as 20-100 dollars.

AimTrust is what you thought of all the time
The company incorporates an offshore structure with advanced asset management technologies in production and delivery of pipes for oil and gas.

Its head office is in Panama with structures around the world.
Do you want to become an affluent person?
That`s your chance That`s what you desire!

I feel good, I began to get real money with the help of this company,
and I invite you to do the same. If it gets down to choose a proper partner utilizes your money in a right way - that`s it!.
I make 2G daily, and my first investment was 500 dollars only!
It`s easy to join , just click this link http://xizakona.exactpages.com/tekywid.html
and go! Let`s take our chance together to feel the smell of real money

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

Saturday, November 10, 2007

An Interim Report on Charles Fillmore’s Book on "Atom Smashing Power of Mind"

17 Comments:

About Me

Previous Posts