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

Sunday, March 02, 2008

Debating With Atheists, Evolutionists, or Sam Harris


If you are a parent of school children or a religious leader and will be involved in a debate with atheists, evolutionists, or Sam Harris, you must be prepared because they are well prepared to pull the wool over your eyes and the eyes of the audience. Your oppositions have six common beliefs as follows:

1. That God does not exist.
2. That everything came from an exploding physical particle.
3. That the universe ends.
4. That mind represents differing images of sensations.
5. That life came from nonliving physical matter.
6. That all living things evolved from an ancestor.

None of these beliefs have ever been proven scientifically, have not been falsified, and will never be proven.

A believer requires only two beliefs in order to be successful in a debate with atheists, evolutionists, and Sam Harris. These two beliefs are as follows:

1. That the USA is a nation under God.
2. That God exists.

However, your two beliefs can be proven scientifically. For instance, the belief that the USA is a nation under God is proven in the first two paragraphs of the US Declaration of Independence and in the Preamble of the US Constitution. The two paragraphs in the Declaration of Independence say,

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —— That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —— Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."

The Preamble of the US Constitution says,

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, ..."

The words "to form a more perfect Union" can be measured scientifically only with a "perfection standard." The only perfection standard is God, who is the only perfect thing that man has identified scientifically.

The belief that God exists is proven on page 6 of my book, The First Scientific Proof of God. The statement of proof on this page says, "all finite things are originated by an infinite thing." The only finite thing that man has found is in the universe and the only infinite thing that man has found is God.

22 Comments:

  • At 2:33 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    You wrote: "None of these beliefs (...) have not been falsified." I know you have difficulties expressing yourself, but still: what do you mean by that sentence?

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

    response to anonymous,

    Falsibility means that the absence of contradictory evidence becomes corroboration of a theory.
    (read a summary of Karl Popper)

    My proof of God on page 6 of my book is evidence that all beliefs in the first list (1-6) are contradictory and are false.

    George

     
  • At 8:59 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    1. The proper term is 'falsifiability', not 'falsibility'

    2. A better definition of the term is: 'the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment'.

    3. Your initial statement ('None of these beliefs (...) have not been falsified') contained a double negative. Did you mean to say that 'all of these beliefs have been falsified'?

     
  • At 12:49 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    response to anonymous,

    Publishing my writings are troublesom at times because I have the bad habit of not reviewing my writings. So, thanks.

    No, I mean that 'all of these beliefs have not been falsified by opposing theories.

    george

     
  • At 1:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "No, I mean that all of these beliefs have not been falsified by opposing theories."

    But in that case you don't even understand what falsification means. If an idea, for example the belief that God does not exist, has not been falsified, it means that the belief is still valid. But that is not what you wanted to say, is it?

    In short, to falsify an idea or a theory is to prove it unsound.

     
  • At 3:07 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    response to anonymous,

    If that is what it means then I am wrong.

    But to prove that a theory is false does not mean that it is false because the method of proof could be false.

    When I proved that God is the origin of all finite things, I falsified my proof by identifying a different theory that could falsified my theory.

    So, who is right, you or me?.

     
  • At 3:48 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "If that is what it means then I am wrong."

    That is what it means, believe me.

    "But to prove that a theory is false does not mean that it is false because the method of proof could be false."

    That is a truism.

    "When I proved that God is the origin of all finite things, I falsified my proof by identifying a different theory that could falsified my theory."

    If you really falsified your proof, you showed that your proof is not valid. Again, I don't think that is what you mean to say

    "So, who is right, you or me?"

    Obviously, I am right and you are wrong. You don't understand the meaning of Popperian term 'falsification'.

    I have seen you showing a similar lack of understanding of the fundamental philosophical term 'non sequitur'. Even though you are just an amateur, you should try to grasp the true meaning of basic terms before using them.

    Regards,

    Jack Wainwright

     
  • At 6:45 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    response to Jack Wainwright,

    Well Jack, you finally got the guts to identify who you are.

    I was also waiting for you to bring that ugly concept, non sequitur, into our dialogue. Now your friends can pat you on your back because you could call me an ametuer and do not grasp basic terms.

    I am 78 year old, my young fellow. You are thus the amatuer, not me. You are a person who does not understand the rmost basic term --- God.

    Finding an opposing theory to the theory of God is not found in any of the six theories. My friend, the the opposing theory must be 'real.' None of these six theoies are real because their believers can't be prove any of them.

    I know what Popper was trying to teach. You do not recognize his work on the development of the two-ste scientific method of the Renaissance. Most scients have never heard of the two-step method because it is not taight to them.

    With respect to non sequiturs, it is the most misused concept today by logicians and scientists.

    George.

     
  • At 6:43 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "I was also waiting for you to bring that ugly concept, non sequitur, into our dialogue. Now your friends can pat you on your back because you could call me an ametuer and do not grasp basic terms."

    My friends patting me on the back because I do not grasp basic terms? Why would they want to do that? I guess you wanted to say that my friends pat be on the back because I told you that YOU don't understand the meaning of basic terms, but that is no what you wrote. You really should be more critical of what you write.

    "I am 78 year old, my young fellow. You are thus the amatuer, not me. You are a person who does not understand the rmost basic term --- God."

    Ironically, you managed to churn out yet another non sequitur. All I have done is tell you that you don't understand the meaning of the Popperian term 'falsification'. To conclude from that remark that I am "a person who does not understand the rmost basic term --- God" is a sad display of faulty logic.
    By the way, being an amateur is not a question of age but of intellectual immaturity.

    "Finding an opposing theory to the theory of God is not found in any of the six theories. My friend, the the opposing theory must be 'real.' "

    Totally irrelevant to the question at hand: your poor understanding of what 'to falsify' means. You are attempting to shift the attention. Nice try, but no cigar, Mister Shollenberger.

    "None of these six theoies are real because their believers can't be prove any of them."

    You also wrote: " all of these beliefs have not been falsified by opposing theories". Don't you see that these two statements of yours contradict each other? For the tenth time: if a belief or a theory has not been falsified, it means that it is still considered valid, or 'real' as you put it.

    "I know what Popper was trying to teach. You do not recognize his work on the development of the two-ste scientific method of the Renaissance. Most scients have never heard of the two-step method because it is not taight to them."

    Again, totally irrelevant. We were talking about your poor understanding of what 'to falsify' means, not about the 'two-step method'. And how can you say that you know what Popper was trying to teach when you don't even understand the true meaning of his most elementary contribution to the philosophy of science: his falsification theory?

    Show this conversation we are having to any scholar, Christian or atheist, and they will all tell you that indeed you don't understand what Popper's falsification theory boils down to. Learn from that, Mr. Shollenberger, and show some modesty.




    Regards,

    Jack Wainwright

     
  • At 10:02 AM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    respoinse to Jack Wainwrigh,

    Like most of today's logicians, whose ideas about the world are screwed up and beyound repair, you grab hold of a single idea, blow it up in hopes of destroying me or assasinating my characeter. You will fail.

    Only the laws of physics are true. All other thoughts are opinions. I interpret Popper's 'opinions' the way I chose. You are free to interpret Popper the way you chose.

    You seem to cast opinions into concrete when they seem to be true. Open your mind and enjoy the long, beautiful, and never ending path of truths.

    The only person who was on the right path to develop a science of philosopny was Friedrich Hegel.

    So, I have no more to say to you.

    George

     
  • At 10:42 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Together with my pupils (all between the ages of 16 and 18) I have been following this conversation between you and Mr. Wainwright. I can't begin to tell you how dissapointed we all are by your last response. Instead of having the courtesy to admit that you don't understand the falsifiability concept, which he made abundantly clear to any reader of your blog, you accuse him of trying to destroy your character.

    And no, Mister Shollenberger, this is not a matter of interpretation, as you cowardly try to have us believe. To falsify a theory doesn't mean to corroborate a theory, as you seem to think based, but to prove a theory unsound.

    You are being dishonest and you know it. Intellectual dishonesty is a sin. You should be ashamed of yourself.

    Patty Mortimer,
    Jefferson High School
    Boston MA

     
  • At 2:23 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    response to Patty Mortimer,

    I am sorry to here that you are teaching your children hat I am dishonest and that dishonesty is a sin.

    First, I am not ashamed. I have been a scientist for over 50 years. In that period, I only sought truths. So to claim that I am dishonest is a very unusual charge for a person who never talked to me.

    Saying that dishonesty is a sin indicates that you belong to some church,temple, or mosque. I am a Christian but do not belong to such an institution because they seek power by teaching falsities. Should one say that these institutions are sinful and dishonest?

    Stay with logic and US logicians and you will continue to teach the ugliness of the English language to your students. Dishonosty is something a non believer does. A believer is merely ignorant of something known.

    You misunderstood my statement I do not orroborate any theory of mine. When I falsify my theory, I search for an 'opposing' theory that, if peoved, will reject my theory.

    If you scan my website, assassinating my character was a common activity of the US logicians for over a year and half.

    Casting me as a amatuer is a character assassination.

    George

     
  • At 4:49 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "Stay with logic and US logicians and you will continue to teach the ugliness of the English language to your students."

    If you think the English language is so ugly, why don't you choose another language for your writings?

    "Casting me as a amatuer is a character assassination"

    I fail to see why you think it is offensive to be called an amateur. An amateur is simply someone who engages in an activity that is not his or her profession. Doesn't that description apply to you? I am sure there are many retired people like you who have taken up a similar hobby. In my honest opinion, that is nothing to be ashamed of.

    Regards,
    Patty Mortimer

     
  • At 6:20 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "Casting me as a amatuer is a character assassination."

    To quote the great Christopher Hitchens: your character can't be assassinated -- it committed suicide a long time ago.

    Rachel Weizen

     
  • At 10:55 AM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    response to Patty Mortimer,

    I am correcting the English language not destroying it.

    The ugly English language carries many logical terms such as amatuer and professional. They exist because the English language developed by using Aristotle's mind and logic. Labor and management is another stupid pair of opposites. Don't you understand that such logical terms divide the people of a nation.

    George

     
  • At 11:06 AM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    response to Rachel Wetzen,

    The great Christphor Hitchens is not on my list of great personalities. Neither is his friend, Sam Harris et al. Both of their minds are lost in the philosophy of atheism and committed suicide long ago.

    George

     
  • At 5:32 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "I am correcting the English language not destroying it."

    You are most certainly not correcting it, Mr. Shollenberger. Your writing style is horrible and you manage to misspell nearly every other word. Just one example: you write "amatuer", which indeed is ugly, while it should be "amateur".

    "The ugly English language carries many logical terms such as amatuer and professional. They exist because the English language developed by using Aristotle's mind and logic. Labor and management is another stupid pair of opposites. Don't you understand that such logical terms divide the people of a nation."

    1. "amateur" and "professional" are just words, they are not logical terms.

    2. The German language, that you claim did NOT develop "by using Aristotle's mind and logic", carries the exact same terms (in translation, that is). How do you explain that?

    3. If you think the English language is so ugly, why don't you choose another language for your writings?

    4. I fail to see why you think it is offensive to be called an amateur. An amateur is simply someone who engages in an activity that is not his or her profession. Doesn't that description apply to you? I am sure there are many retired people like you who have taken up a similar hobby. In my honest opinion, that is nothing to be ashamed of.

    Patty Mortimer

     
  • At 9:36 AM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    response to Patty Mortimer,

    Your focus on spelling and criticism of grammar has limited the development of your own mind.

    As a teacher, you should not be stuck in the mud of the ugly languages that man has developed. Mechanics, not spirituality, is guidind you and your students. Please change your mind before you jerk out all of the good that still exists in the minds of your students.

    Obviously, you know nothing about the 1920 discovery by our linguists. They found that that empirical data are primarily symbolic. Please read Chapter 1 of the book "Philosophy in a New Key" by Susanne Langer. This discovery opens a new philosophy, the philosophy of symbolism.

    You know nothing about the failure of Kant to eliminate the gap between the minds of empiricists and the minds of rationalists with Aristotle's categories and logic. This discovery merely limits logic drastically.

    You know nothing about the sense uncertainty discovered by Friedrich Hegel. This discovery merely destroys intuition and makes philosophy a science.

    Please get out of the field of education so our children can be saved by the true teachings of Jesus Christ.

    George

     
  • At 10:02 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "Why doesn't Mr. Shollenberger answer your questions? my students asked me in great surprise.

    Indeed, Mr. Shollenberger, instead of ranting incoherently about Kant and Hegel (whom you bring up out of thin air and both of whom, incidentally, were professional philosophers and in no way amateurs), why don't you simply address my questions? Your attempts at dodging confronting questions smack of cowardice.

    1. The German language, that you claim did NOT develop "by using Aristotle's mind and logic", carries the exact same terms (in translation, that is). How do you explain that?

    2. If you think the English language is so ugly, why don't you choose another language for your writings?

    3. I fail to see why you think it is offensive to be called an amateur. An amateur is simply someone who engages in an activity that is not his or her profession. Doesn't that description apply to you? I am sure there are many retired people like you who have taken up a similar hobby. In my honest opinion, that is nothing to be ashamed of.

    Patty Mortimer

     
  • At 12:02 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    response to Patty Mortimer,

    My response to you was posted today as a blog.

    George

     
  • At 2:10 PM, Blogger Len said…

    I originally came into this blog for the purpose of offering a rebuttal to Mr. Shollenberger's "proof of God" claim. However, after reading the other responses he has received I am now compelled to defend him!

    I recall being taught in a college debate class (a long, long time ago) a technique that is to be used only as a "last resort" when it appears the argument is lost. That is: If you can't diminish the credibility of your opposition's point, try to diminish the credibility of your opposition.

    So far, this tactic is ALL that I have seen in response to Mr. Shollenberger's position. Are we really so desperate for a counter-point that this tactic needed to be employed here? Is our position so weak that we need to resort to petty semantic games and ironic grammatical attacks (considering the number of typos by his opposition). It's clear what his actual position is, regardless of how he has stated it.

    Seriously. Can anyone here devalue George's point without devaluing George?

    Len Clements
    Las Vegas, NV

     
  • At 9:09 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    Response to Len Clements,

    My response to you is on my latest blog today.

    George

     

Post a Comment

<< Home