One Opposition to the Standard Social Science Model (SSSM) and a New Understanding of My Scientific Proof of God

One opposition to the SSSM is a belief that a culture, from generation to generation, develops and maintains knowledge through a learning and organized process. Today, this organization is known as socialization. This socialization is saying that all cultures and their learning process are not the result of Nature and a process of evolution. Thus, this opposition says, for instance that a criminal is made by cultures and is not born. In 1988, when I was still at the National Institute of Justice, I made an assertion that criminals are produced by the flawed symbolic languages of a culture. So, let me show that evolutionists and other life scientists are wrong if they accept the SSSM.

In the 15th century, Nicholas of Cusa asked, "How much knowledge man can man produce? To answer this question Nicholas sought the true meaning of the symbol ‘maximum.’ Since a maximum thing cannot be less than it is, he found that the maximum in this thing must also be minimum. Thus he found that the greatest thing is both maximum and minimum and is this absolute. However, if things can be ‘more or less’ than they are, some things can be known only relativistically. So, if one’s mind can see an absolute thing and a relativistic thing, then that person can say that two different forms of knowledge are possible. One of these forms is ‘absolute knowledge.’ The other form is ‘relativistic knowledge.’

Evolutionists and other life scientific do not consider the findings of Cusa because they have never studied his work. So, they only consider ’relativistic knowledge.’ Thus, they believe that all living things in the universe have ancestors and that a human and a chimpanzee, for instance, have a common ancestor. But, the evolutionists and life scientists cannot prove that all living things have ancestors and that all ancestors originate in a single nonliving thing. Some astrophysicists say that this origin is an exploding physical particle. Without proofs of the ancestors and without proofs of the exploding physical particle, the limitation of knowledge to ‘relativistic knowledge’ must be rejected by every human being.

Evolutionists, life scientists, and astrophysicists do not believe that ‘absolute knowledge’ is a reality. I say that they have this belief because they are not big readers of the ‘big thinkers.’ Read any books of these thinkers, for instance, Steven Pinker on ‘Language Instinct,’ and you will not read any important words made by any ‘big thinker.’ To these writers, big readers do not exist because man does not think at all. These believers say that man merely learns only from Nature. However, they do not realize that their errors create more and more criminals. This growth of this caused crime in the USA is noticed in the news every evening.

I think and learn from my culture. In my book, The scientific Proof of God, I sought a thing in which absolute knowledge will be found. I found this thing with scientific methods of thought. First, I use a universal symbol that all good scientists recognize and apply to all things found in the universe. This universal scientific symbol is ‘finite.’ Then, I use Plato’s negative. This negative allows me to negate all finite things found in the universe so that I can search for their origin. To seek their origin and using Plato’s negative, I conceive a new scientific symbol named ‘not-finite.’ On p. 6 of my book, I say ‘all finite things are originated by an infinite thing.’ So, I say that an infinite thing, whose knowledge is absolute knowledge coexists with the relativistic knowledge man develops about all finite things.

Making the connection of all things in the universe to a single infinite thing is not like connecting all humans to a single ancestor because connecting all humans to a single ancestor only connect particular finite things to some other finite thing. Where does this connection process stop other than in a free exploding physical particle of the astrophysicists? This process stops by reducing all finite things in the universe to a single exploding physical particle. But, the Yang/Mills theory tells us that all physical particles follow an ‘asymptotic freedom,’ never become absolutely free, and never becomes structureless. Connecting all things in the universe to their origin by me is not a reduction process. Instead, my connection is to a higher being, which can only be God.

The Standard Social Science Model

The Standard Social Science Model (SSSM), which is used commonly by evolutionary psychologists, was introduced widely in 1992. (click) This introduction was one year before I experienced brain/language damage due to a carotid artery blockage. But, this introduction was only two years before I would recover the brain damage and retire from the National Institute of Justice at the US Department of Justice. However, by 1992, I had mastered the thoughts of Nicholas of Cusa and many other believers in God and had concluded, bu 1988,that the criminal mind is caused by flawed symbolic languages. So, in 1992, the SSSM was not of interest to me because I was convinced that a scientific proof of God was possible. This proof became actual in my 2006 book.

Today’s arguments against the SSSM are rational and are supported by my scientific proof of God. (click) On the other hand, the arguments for the SSSM and its improvement are the supporters of Darwin’s evolutionary theory and the atheists. But, such an improvement is not possible if my scientific proof of God is true. However, evolutionists and atheists have never shown that my scientific proof of God is false. Instead, the evolutionists and atheists seem to be attacking the scientific method of proof. But, this attack would mean that the laws of physics and chemistry are illusions.

Since the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation are spending lots of money on SSSM projects, isn’t it time for these US government agencies to determine whether God exists or does not exist? Since a science under God is very different compared to a godless science, these agencies should at least ask, ‘Which science is the true science?" A self-government that allows its colleges and universities to teach false sciences can only expect a national disaster.

The Origin of Locke’s Social Contract

Locke’s social contract was installed in the USA in 1776. This social contract developed in England as a result of the Glorious Revolution in 1688. The Revolution resulted in the deposition of James II and the accession of his daughter Mary II and her husband, William III.

The Revolution was caused by the accession of James II in 1685. His Roman Catholicism upset the people of England in 1687 when he issued a Declaration of Indulgence. In April 1688, James ordered that the Declaration be read every Sunday indefinitely. When bishops petitioned him against this, they were prosecuted. Then, William of Orange was invited to come over with an army to solve the people’s grievances. He accepted their invitation, landed at Brixham on Tor Bay, and advanced to London. When the support for James fell, he fled to France.

William and Mary were offered the Crown. Then, a convention turned itself into Parliament. The convention created a Bill of Rights. It also barred Roman Catholics from the throne and abolished the Crown's power on laws. This settlement was a triumph for Whig views. Since no kingship could be unconditional, this exclusionist solution gave support to John Locke's contention that a social contract exists between the King and people, who can be represented in Parliament.

As seen in Locke's writings, Locke’s social contract consists of a ‘Society’ and a ‘Government.’ In the USA, Locke’s contract is thus between Society and the group of people who function as Government. Unless Society is active, the US social contract will not work as conceived by Locke.

I believe that Government has become dysfunctional and no longer serves the people of the USA. This dysfunction is amplified by the two-party political system. For instance, Republican party members usually express conservative views. On the other hand, Democratic party members usually express liberal views. Since these two views cannot express the common views of the people, the two-party political system destroys the social contract that the US founders installed. Instead of representing the common interests of people, the two-party system represents only conservative or liberal interests. This problem can be corrected if the terms of the representatives in all parties are limited to single terms.

Another suggestion was made by Edmund B. Spaeth, Jr. for the Supreme Court. See his paper in The Judges Journal, Summer 1985, on the subject, Where Is the High Court Heading? At the end of the paper Spaeth says, "The role of the courts, I believe, is to conduct a dialogue with Society --- a Socratic dialogue, if you will, in which by examining the foundations of our beliefs, our traditions, and our dreams, we arrive at a deeper understanding of ourselves and others." Why can’t all agencies of Government have such dialogues with the people. Isn’t this better that dialoguing silently only with lobbyists?

Sovereignty in a Free Nation

In a any nation, sovereignty means the supreme power over a body politic. In the USA, in which John Locke’s social contract theory applies, the supreme power is the Lockean Society. The Lockean Society is a Union or ‘one people.’ The Lockean Society was created by the Representatives of the United States of America when the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776. On the same day, the Continental Congress was created as the Lockean Government.

To form a more perfect Union and strengthen the national government, the Lockean Government was changed in 1787 when the US Constitution was made to improve it. The Constitution opens with this statement:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The Lockean Government has three branches. The power of each branch is ‘equal.’ Scientifically, the powers of these branches are not absolute. Thus, their powers must be ‘equal and relative.’ Scientifically, their powers are thus functional. This means that the three branches must work together in rational ways.

I do not believe that members of the national Government are aware of the Lockean social contract. The national government is not working properly. Since the national government is dysfunctional, manyUS citizens are losing their freedom and security. Accordingly, I say that the national government is not operated correctly. For instance, why is the national government using a laissez-faire economy when the prices of energy and food are rising continually" A laissez-faire economy is not and cannot respond to such price rises. The national government should be using the American System of economy found by Henry C, Carey. The prices for everything decrease continually with the American System of economics.

It is clear that the national government is not working properly for the benefits of all US citizens..

The US Government Has Turned the United States Away From God

Two social responsibilities are identified in the founding documents of the USA. One social responsibility is identified in the US Declaration of Independence as the "Laws of Nature and Nature’s God." A second social responsibility is identified in the US Constitution as "to form a more perfect Union." Clearly, these two social responsibilities are necessary human behaviors in the USA because the founders had authorized "a nation under God."

Were these two social responsibilities implemented by ‘the people’ and the US government? I can find no implementation of either responsibility. After the Lincoln assassination, the US government has allowed a laissez-faire economy to take hold in the USA. By allowing this form of economy to take hold, the USA began to lose its God. Today, one can conclude that the 1776 US experiment in freedom and self-governing have failed and that the USA is slowly becoming a totalitarian nation.

One sign of this change is the appearance of a permanent top 1% economic class, which is attached to a 9% middle class and a 90% poor class. These three economic classes are ungodly and irrational. Other signs of this change is the permanent appearance of ungodly laissez-faire management sciences and services, the permanent appearance of ungodly company Chief Executive Officer (CEO), the permanent class of ungodly liberal thinkers, the permanent ungodly me generation, and the permanent ungodly development of drug, criminal, polygamist, .... etc. cultures. People who judge these changes as morally right usually say that this is the way the USA works.

However, this is not the way God works. I say that unless the US government turns the US around, I expect nothing good in the future for most US citizens. Isn't it time for 'the people' to investigate the US government?

US Citizen Personal and Social Responsibilities and a Discussion of the US Economy

In my last blog, I compare a world of mechanisms (as proposed by atheistic scientists, naturalists, and logicians) with a world of things. While no responsibilities of any kind apply to people who believe in a world of mechanisms, people who believe in a world of things must accept personal and social responsibilities. In this blog; I discuss the personal and social responsibilities for those economists who accept God, who creates a world of things.

The history of the field of economics is virtually nonexistence. If histories about economies exist, these histories will usually describe only what was produced by people who lived along particular rivers. If general histories exist about economies, they will be found only in those nations that give man his natural freedom. One can thus find general histories about economies in the Western world in nations such as the USA, Russia, France, Italy, Germany, England, etc. Thus, in this blog, I also discuss the history of the US economy.

The initial economic thoughts in the USA are found in the thoughts of Alexander Hamilton. He thought that the national government must be involved in the US economy and rejected the laissez-faire economy proposed in the Adam Smith’s book on the "Wealth of a Nation." Instead of becoming a trading nation like England, Hamilton proposed self determination for the USA and proposed the development of manufactures. Against Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson thought that the USA should become a nation of farms.

The American System of economics became a science through the thoughts of Henry C. Carey, (click) The American System is different from the British laissez-faire economy because the US economy would use trade barriers. Henry Clay supported the American System and promoted it when he was a member of Congress. Abe Lincoln was the last president to use the American System when his administration stimulated the development of manufactures in the South and stimulated the growth of population in the West with homesteading initiatives. The efforts of Abe Lincoln and John F. Kennedy to promote the American System seems to have led to their assassinations.

After Lincoln’s assassination, the American System of economics was replaced permanently by the British laissez-faire system of economics. Today, the universities of Harvard, Stanford, and Pennsylvania have become the major teachers of laissez-faire and free trade. In politics, today’s Republican Party has become the major promoter of the concepts of laissez-faire, free trade, and minimum national government.

As a believer in a world of things under God, I say that a laissez-faire economic system is false because it cannot lead the citizens of a nation into a rational future. Thus, only a nation of people, who accept personal and social responsibilities, can lead a nation into a rational future. As I say in Part IV of my book, only goal-seeking and self-governing nations can build rational futures for their people

A World of Mechanisms: The Proposal of Physical Scientists

An alternative to a world of things is a world of mechanisms. The world of mechanisms is a world proposed by physical scientists who reject God and replace the theory of God with the Big Bang. theory. The people who follow the physical scientists wrongly are many life scientists and naturalists who promote Darwin’s biological evolutionary theory. Among these followers are logicians. They want to use logic is every mental activity such as in all talking languages and in all scientific languages. This is an error of man.

Since my scientific proof of God is the basis on which a world of things can be proposed, a world of mechanisms is opposed to a world of things. So, the world of things and the world of mechanisms cannot coexist.

A world of mechanisms is a closed system and thus has an end. The energy available to the Big Bang theory is limited. This available energy is used by a world of mechanisms. Since a mechanism obeys the law of entropy, mechanisms have only one beginning point, one set of middle points, and one end point. Thus, a mechanism is not reused and thus never reincarnated.

In a world of things, people have personal and social responsibilities because they expect to live forever. Such responsibilities are unnecessary in a world of mechanisms. The different personal and social responsibilities in these two world theories distinguish the cultures that will develop in these two worlds.

Since the personal and social responsibilities in the USA are deteriorating, I conclude that the future culture of the USA will decay morally. This conclusion is based on my belief that the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God (in the Declaration of Independence) are no longer sought by the US government, colleges and universities, and many religions. So, even though the USA is a nation under God and should be developing these founding laws, US citizens and the US government are not managing the future of the USA well.

I continue to read the Bible at Chapter 24 of Matthew and wonder whether we understand properly this teaching of Jesus Christ. At this time, I conclude that we should be on the way to Mars and other planets now.

A World of Things: A Summary

Let me summarize my blogs on ‘a world of things.’ A world of things divides all scientists and mathematicians into two groups. One group accepts God and the theory of a world of things, which has no end. The second group rejects God and accepts a mechanical world of processes, which comes to an end. This division of science and mathematics leads to the development of many different theologies. This division also confuses the practices of the same theology by different religions.

The most popular theology today is the monotheistic God. The monotheistic God creates things out of nothing. I conclude that a created world of things by a monotheistic God has no end. I also conclude that each created thing by a monotheistic God is a contracted image of God. So, every thing is incarnated as a unique ‘finite infinity.’ This oxymoron is formed as a ‘bad infinity’ of indivisible spiritual atoms. Each incarnated thing has a first beginning point, first middle points, and first ending point. There is no death in a world of things. The first ending point leads to a second beginning point, second middle points, and a second ending point. Since these points never end, reincarnation is an implied reality. It also means that a human cannot become a cow or eat a grandparent. Since a person cannot determine whether he or she has lived before or will have a second, third, etc. live, forever life seems to be a faith.

However, the meaning of ‘forever life’ differs among religions. One meaning says that ‘forever life’ is ‘earned’ by each person in the first life on earth. The second meaning says that forever life is God’s gift of reincarnation. My general research on God concludes that ‘forever life’ is the gift of reincarnation from God. And, my research on the sayings of Jesus Christ shows that God’s Intelligent Design includes the gift of reincarnation to us from the Father.

Whether one earns ‘forever life’ or accepts the gift of reincarnation, I believe that the behavior of all humans during life must be guided by common sense. For this reason, a major world research program is needed to define a common sense, which is worldwide.

A World of Things: As Expressed by Georg Cantor (1845-1918)

In yesterday’s blog, I discussed how God creates a world of things out of nothing. There, I show that God creates things from nothing by creating spiritual atoms first. These spiritual atoms form the ‘matter’ that the ancient atomists and our modern physicists have sought continuously, but never found.

The matter that underlies all things in the universe was never found because the ‘true matter’ is ‘spiritual’ not ‘physical.’ The ancient atomists did not find the ‘true matter’ because they sought physical explanations. The earliest explanation was four basic atoms known as earth, water, air, and fire. However, the true matter of the universe was never found by the early modern scientists because they also sought physical atoms and did not study the works of Nicholas of Cusa. The more recent modern scientists (1970s and beyond) did not find the true matter of the universe because they decided to reject God. However, with my scientific proof of God’s existence, man can now return to the path on which God wants us to be.

To extend Leibniz’s work on monadology and begin to develop new knowledge on the spiritual atoms, scientists need help from the transfinite numbers found by Georg Cantor. But, just like my character was assassinated and my book was devalued by today’s logicians, the logicians of Cantor’s time also assassinated his character and devalued his work. Yet, mathematicians eventually said that Cantor’s discovery of the transfinite numbers is one of those great discoveries in the field of mathematics. However, the field of mathematics is not developing Cantor’s new numbers because they have also rejected God. So, the current high rejection rate of God in the USA could be a sign of its fall.

In Part IV of my book, I summarize Cantor’s work. In general, the transfinite numbers define and count the things that God made for us. With the transfinite numbers, man begins to mathematicize the irreducible things that God made. The pic above is the first transfinite number.

More on a World of Things: As Expressed by Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716)

This blog is a continuation of yesterday’s blog. Here, I want to discuss the monad in more detail so that the reader can distinguish a spiritual atom from the physical atoms proposed by physicists, chemists, and the ancient atomists, such as Democritus and Epicurus. Leibniz’s monads are not atoms that can be added to the list of chemical atoms such as hydrogen, helium, and oxygen. Nor is the monad a physical atom, as were proposed by John Locke. Leibniz thus had a sound reason why he wanted to debate Locke.

In my book, I call Leibniz’s monads ‘spiritual atoms’ so I can distinguish the monads from all physical atoms. Physical atoms do not exist because a physical atom is finite and is thus divisible. Physicists tried to overcome this problem of divisibility by developing string theories. However, these string theories merely reduce the atom to a one-dimensional space thing. The Big Bang also reduces the universe to a one-dimensional energy thing. By avoiding the problem of divisibility, the physicists are building a one-sided world (purely physical) and a one-sided mind (empiricism).

Monads (or spiritual atoms) are indivisible things that are able to form divisible things. This pair of opposites overcomes the one-sided worlds of our physicists. Further, in my proof of God’s existence, I say "all finite things originate in an infinite thing." This expression of God’s existence also applies the opposites, indivisible and divisible. By using monads, I can thus say that "all divisible things originate in an indivisible thing." This indivisible thing is a monotheistic God who unifies all opposites.

When the monads combine to form divisible things, each monad is in other monads. So, the universe is very complex. Since all monads are perceiving, each monad is a mirror of the whole universe. Obviously, our perceptions are limited. But, the perception of an infinite God is not limited. So, God always knows what He created.

A World of Things: As Expressed by Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716)

In the early 1770s, Gottfried Leibniz, the founder of the infinitesimal calculus, prepared for a debate with England’s John Locke on the subject of rationalism and empiricism. At the same time, Leibniz prepared for a debate with England’s Isaac Newton on the nature of the universe. Leibniz would defend rationalism against the empiricism of Locke and defend spiritualism against Newton’s mechanical universe. However, Locke died in 1704. Since Newton feared Leibniz, Samuel Clark acted as a spokesman for Newton. Clark was neither a scientist nor a philosopher. These debates became failures. After Leibniz died, Leibniz’s thoughts were propagated by his student, Christian Wolff (1679-1754).

It is clear that Leibniz’s thoughts were known by Ben Franklin and other key founders of the USA. However, today’s Americans do not know the connection between Leibniz and the founding of the USA. Without knowledge of this connection, today’s US believers do not recognize that an infinite God creates only finite things, as my scientific proof of God in my book says in Part I, Ch. 1. (click).

Many people who believe in God also do not know the scientific nature of a monotheistic God and how God creates ‘things.’ Since this kind of information is either unclear or not available in scriptural material, I provide such information in my book. In my book, I also teach Leibniz’s thoughts on how God creates ‘a world of things’ out of spiritual atoms. He called these atoms ‘monads.’ Since books on Leibniz are hard to find, I discussed Leibniz’s Monadology in detail in Part IV of my book. The idea of a world of things is new to American scientists.

Unfortunately, Americans lost Leibniz when Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) went against Leibniz’s universe and accepted Newton’s Universe. But, Newton’s Universe was false as Albert Einstein would learn in the 20th century. So, with Kant’s negation of Leibniz’s ‘world of things,’ thinking Americans lost a great thinker.

Defeating Cancer and Other Human Diseases: A Message to Those Biologists Who Believe in God

In yesterday’s blog, I discussed the breakthrough made by John Kanzius on the cancer problem. While his breakthrough is currently limited to tumorous cancers, I believe that its electromagnetic cancer destroying agency can also be used to destroy other forms of cancer. However, biologists must accept the belief that God exists and created the universe.

For almost two years, I have been teaching that the existence of God is scientifically proven in my book. This proof says that an infinite thing, which is God, is the origin of all finite things found in the universe. So, I believe in ‘a world of things.’ However, one must answer the question, what is a thing? This question can be answered two ways.

Atheists argue that a thing is a whole that has a finite number of distinguished parts. An example of this atheistic whole is an automobile, which is assembled from the parts found on a production line in a factory. Since the number of parts is finite, this whole is mechanical and is man-made. This whole is often spoken of as ‘the sum of its parts.’

On the other hand, when God creates any thing, that created thing is an image of God. Since God is infinite, every created thing has an infinite number of distinguished parts. A created thing is often spoken of as a whole that is ‘more than the sum of its parts.
’
Man has been searching for a clear definition of a created thing. Jesus Christ generalized the definition of things in John 14:20 - "At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you." This strange definition was understood by Anaxagoras (500-428 BC) as each thing is in each thing. In Bk. II, Ch. 5, of Nicholas of Cusa’s book, On Learned Ignorance. Nicholas speaks of things as ''all is in all' and 'each is in each.'

With Immanuel Kant, Friedrich Hegel, and Karl Marx, a created thing becomes known as a thing-in-itself. For instance, in the ‘Preface to Second Edition’ of his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant speaks of a thing as 'a self-subsistent unity, in which, as in an organised body, every member exists for every other and all for the sake of each, so that no principle can safely be taken in any one relation, unless it has been investigated in the entirety of its relations to the whole employment of pure reason.'

As seen, a created thing is complex because each part of a thing is just another thing. Perhaps, Shakespeare’s ‘play within a play’ is saying that a ‘social thing’ also exists. Obviously, developing science without a belief in God can end only in complete failures in every science. Thus, the theory of atheism can only lead to the death of more and more cancer patients. The real solutions to health care problems come only with a belief in God. This is what the US founders were saying in the founding documents.

Man’s future must become a serious topic. For instance, man must ‘bite the bullet’ with respect to health care. I thus recommend that biologists expand greatly their electron-microscope research on human cells. Since no two cells in a created human body are identical, new biological research must determine the functional relations between as many parts as possible in each human cell. To generalize health care is to accept the early death of many diseased patients.

A World of Things Make a Solution to Cancer a Reality

As an electrical engineer, in my book (click) I say that God is a "thing." I also say that God creates a world of "things" in His image. To me, all humans, stones, trees, planets, suns, etc. are thus things and are images of God. Opposed to my view are atheists and those atheistic physicists and chemists, who reject God, accept a dying universe, and promote evolutionary and Big Bang theories. Instead of seeing the world as a system of things, these atheists see the universe as a world as a system of processes. The view of these atheists explains why the US government is a highly confused organization today and why the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has never found a cure for cancer and other health problems. I have advised the US government and NIH of this wrong view of the world. Since the NIH and government act like atheists, they have no interest in the view that only ‘things" are to be found in the world.

Today, US cancer patients are treated with surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy. All of these treatments destroy healthy cells as well as cancer cells. If a cancer patient has lots of money, the patient can seek help in other nations where life might be extended a bit. But, in general, most cancer patients can be expected to die soon. Since many children are now getting cancer, cancer has become a major US human problem.

On CBS’s 60 Minutes last evening, a complete solution to cancer might be just around the corner. (click) This potential cure of cancer is coming from, John Kanzius, an electrical engineer who lives in Erie, PA. Knowing that the broadcast signal from a radio station will pass through our bodies without harm, Kanzius found how to control the flow of electrical energy from the broadcast station so that only cancer cells are destroyed. The continuous flow of this electrical energy through a cancer patient will eventually destroy all cancer cells without destroying any healthy cells. Radiation and chemotherapy cannot do this. Further, cutting cancer tumors out of one’s brain is virtually impossible. So, this electrical engineering feat is a major breakthrough. But, this breakthrough would not be possible if cancer cells were not "things" and were not different than the "things" we call ‘ healthy cells.’

Knowing that some industrial companies and stock holders will be hurt by this breakthrough, I believe that Kanzius and his friends will need our support to make sure that this project is funded and scheduled properly. A communication to our government representatives on this kind of project is critical to help the many cancer patients we now have. Don’t let industry and NIH determine the funding and schedule of this breakthrough.

God Unifies All Opposites

Western World historians agree that the works of Nicholas of Cusa ended the Middle Ages. However, these historians did not recognize that Nicholas was the first modern scientist and the first modern theologian. To Nicholas, the fields of theology and science form a single field of thought. The task of this single field is to find truths about God and the universe. Today, the separation of theology and science is a sign of the poor level of thoughts that are flowing among the people who live on this planet.

Nicholas became a theologian and a scientist when he found that knowledge has a maximum (Bk. I, Ch. 4, On Learned Ignorance) and that the Christian Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) can be transformed into scientific concepts --- One, Equality, and Union --- (Bk. I, Ch. 8, On Learned Ignorance). (click)

In my book, (click) I use Nicholas’ scientific trinity to connect God logically to the created universe. By using logic, I connect Nicholas’ three concepts of the scientific trinity to identify the three highest concepts of the universe. When I connect God to the universe, my mind views God as a One, Equality, and Union thing and my mind views the created universe as many different and related things.

Since the many different and related things are finite, in my book, I also used the thought process of negation to prove scientifically that God exists. When I use negation, I say that ‘all finite things’ originate in a not-finite thing. This positive not-finite thing means that a not-finite thing is a real ‘infinite’ thing. This proof also says that the opposing concepts, infinite and finite, coexist and that God unified them.

In my book, I also use negation to find the origin of the three universal concepts above, that is, many, different and, related. Thus, we learn first that ‘many things’ originate in a not-many thing. This positive not-many thing means a ‘One’ thing. Second, we learn that "all different things’ originate in a not-different thing. This positive not-different thing means a ‘Equality’ thing. This proof says that the opposing concepts, difference and equality, coexist and that God unifies them. Third, we learn that "all related things’ originate in a not-related thing. This positive not-related thing means a ‘Union’ thing. This proof says that the opposing concepts, union and relation, coexist and that God unifies them.

The discussion above tells us that God unifies all real opposing concepts. To my knowledge, the truths about opposites above are not taught in any science, religion, or school.

The Only Field of Truth

Modern science found that it is the only field of truth after it found the scientific method of proof during the Renaissance. This method has two steps, discovery and demonstration. A discovery is made when a phenomenon is found with our senses. On the other hand, a demonstration is made when a new law is found with our reason. This law explains the origin of the discovered phenomenon.

All other fields of thought can only produce opinions. One of these other fields is the field of religion. Some religions have scriptures and believe that the written words in scriptures are true. However, this belief is only an opinion because the written phenomena in these scriptures have never been ‘demonstrated,’ even though the scientific method has been available to the field of religion for more than 500 years. So, the opinions expressed by all religions on the face of the earth today can be challenged.

It is clear that ancient religious leaders did not demonstrate religious phenomena because the scientific method was unknown to them. However, the modern religious leaders have no excuse for not demonstrating their religious phenomena. Obviously, today’s religious leaders can be viewed as immoral leaders.

Recently, such immoral religious leaders have been found in a polygamic religion in Texas. Women in this religion are taught that three or more women are needed in every family for all family members to go to Heaven. Today, modern science knows that Heaven is a false teaching.

Isn’t it time for religions to modernize? Without modernizing, more and more people will be treated immorally. In other words, our justice personnel might ask whether criminals,.a Mafia, or other criminal organization are hiding under the legal field of religion.

An Alternative to the Big Bang Theory and Higgs Particle

I do not expect the Big Bang theory and the Higgs particle to be proven because these theories have problems. For instance, the exploding thing cannot be infinite. So, the exploding thing can’t be the origin of all of the finite things we are finding in the universe. Thus, the Higgs particle also has problems. For instance, some bosons are said to stick together and produce things that have both mass and energy whereas other bosons do not stick together and have energy but no mass. Thus, an important question is, "Where is the origin of the energy of the exploding thing?"

I used Plato’s negative to search for the origin of all finite things found in the universe. Plato’s negative is found in the Sophist at 257b. His negative turns the mind to something different. So, when the mind is thinking about ‘all finite things’ and the mind seeks their origin, the mind must turn to a positive thing that cannot be finite. This different positive thing is thus ‘infinite.’ One can also think about other universals, such as ‘all different things.’ When the mind seeks their origin, the mind must turn to a positive thing that cannot be different. This different positive thing is thus ‘same.’ As seen, all universals have their origin in a monotheistic God who unifies an infinite number of universals with opposing concepts. These infinite number of opposites reveal God’s essence. Universals such as mass and energy are thought the same way.

The big question about God is, "How does a monotheistic God create things for the universe? God’s creation can be understood only with the concept of ‘contraction’ and the contraction of God’s essence. All things found in the universe are thus made by God’s act of contraction.

In my book, I say that the contraction occurs through one infinite set of indivisible spiritual atoms. Each individual atom is represented by a unique and lawful infinite set of finite essentials. I recommend the use of Gottfried Leibniz’s monads to help me define the spiritual atoms. In my model of the world, the following statements apply: God and his creation are connected logically; time is man-made; space is found only in finite things; God and the universe have no beginning or end; and a monotheistic God cannot be exhausted.

The United States of America Is Failing

Every day more evidence is showing that atheists are unable to prove that God and creation do not exist. This increasing evidence shows that the US founders were right to create a nation under God and confirms that my scientific proof of God is true.

Unfortunately, following the Lincoln assassination, the US atheists and free traders began to turn the US government away from God. One important US political practice is England’s Charles Darwin theory known as evolution. In England, this practice replaces God and the Laws of Nature and Nature’ God. These laws are found in the US Declaration of Independence. Today, the theory of evolution is accepted wrongly by the US Department of Education and is taught wrongly in all public schools.

A second important US political practice is England’s Adam Smith’s theory of economics. In England, this practice is known as laissez-faire. It replaced the American Economic System, an economic system found by Henry Carey. The American economy is in harmony with those other Laws of Nature and Nature’s God found in the Declaration of Independence. (Click)

As seen, the colonists won the military aspects of the Revolutionary War. But, they lost the political aspects of this war to England. The success by England informs us that many colonists died in vain. But, there was another loss to the United States This other loss is the loss of the founder’s mandate for a self government. Today, this self-government was replaced by a government operated by a two-party political system and many Washington lobbyists.

My scientific proof of God shows that the evolutionary theory and the laissez-faire economic theory are false theories. Isn’t it time to change the US government back to what it was?

The Big Bang Theory and the Higgs Boson

The Higgs boson is thought to be a physical particle in the Big Bang theory by England’s Peter Higgs and other astrophysicists. Progress is reported by The Times on April 8, 2008 by Mark Henderson, Science Editor. The tittle of the article is "At 78, scientist hopes for proof soon that he was right about the Universe." (Click) For other information, see (click), (click), (click), (click), and (click).

The Higg’s boson is today’s holy grail in the field of physics. It is the standard model of physics and is expected to give all physical things in the universe (stars, planets and people) their mass. The boson is thought to exist only at high energies in moments after the Big Bang explosion. Some bosons are sticky and make massive things while other bisons do not stick and remain as massless photons (or light particles). Higgs expect the boson to be found this year in an experiment in Illinois after the British government withdrew from a 17-mile underground atom smasher tunnel in Europe.

Since physicists have never been able to produce any living thing from physical particles, have never produced an artificial intelligent human from physical particles, and have never found any structureless physical particles, it is clear that the Big bang theory and boson particles are illusions of atheists who reject God.

In any nation under God, how can its government fund such atheistic theories? Apparently, the British government did detect this waste.

A Proposal to Reform Colleges and Universities Using the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God

In my last blog, I discussed "A problem that exists in many US colleges and universities today." This blog is the first step that US colleges and universities must take to align future students to the Declaration of Independence and the mandate of ‘one people’ to build ‘a nation under God. In this blog, I discuss the expressed words in the Declaration of Independence seen as " Laws of Nature and Nature’s God." As seen, these words entitle the ‘one people’ of any nation to a separate and equal Station.

The words ‘Laws of Nature and Nature’s God’ means that two distinct laws must be sought by the ‘one people’ of the USA, as the US Declaration of Independence mandates. In my book, I say that the Laws of Nature identify the infrastructure of life. On the other hand, I say that the Laws of Nature’s God identify the moral laws of man’s freedom. I found teaching material on these two laws in the works of Immanuel Kant, which are improved in the works of Friedrich Hegel.

Today, the US has lost its God almost completely. The last attempt to enforce the first two paragraphs of the Declaration fo Independence and the Laws of Nature and God’s Nature was Abe Lincoln. After his assassination, the nature of the ‘one people’ (or Union) of the USA began to change. After Lincoln, materialism, atheism, and immoral behaviors began to grow. After Lincoln, the US government has changed from a self-government by ‘all people’ to a dictating-government by ‘few people’ (lobbyists and the rich).

To teach the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God properly, I recommend that the human mind be viewed as a thing-in-itself, which has reason, senses, feelings, and faith and is a unity that has no contradictions.

A Problem That Exists in Many US Colleges and Universities Today

The US Supreme Court made an error by not including the first two paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence in the US body of US laws. After my scientific proof of God appeared, this error has caused a new problem for all US institutions. For instance, this new problem appeared in many US colleges and universities.

Long before my scientific proof appeared, nonsectarian colleges and universities had been advertising that they are nonsectarian. This advertisement means that a college or universe is separated completely from the field of religion. But this separation does not mean that the colleges and universities must also be separated from God. The USA is a nation under God as stated in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.

By email, I discussed this problem with William Brody, President of my university, Johns Hopkins. I told him that the symbols, theology and religion, are not distinguished properly. He recognized this linguistic problem when I told him that a theology is the "study’ of God whereas religion is the ‘practice’ of specific theologies.

So, I believe that the time is right for nonsectarian US colleges and universities to study the field of theology. It is also time for other US institutions, including the US government, to advance our theological knowledge. In 1776, the USA became a nation under God. But, for more than 200 years later, the USA is behaving as if God does not exist. It is time for US citizens to solve this problem so that God can be brought into our daily social lives

The Arbitrary Use of Non Sequiturs by Logicians

Those atheists, who used non sequiturs to express their review of my book on Amazon (click), have used logical reasoning blindly. This blindness is a joke and comes from the inability of scientists to distinguish living and nonliving things properly. This blindness has its deepest origin in the field of physical science and its theory that all things are physical. This theory is false. The debating opposition of this physical theory is the fields of philosophy, theology, and religion. However, since 2006, my scientific proof of God is changing this debate in favor of philosophy, theology, and religion.

Last May, logicians used the non sequitur to devalue me and my book. However, their misuse of non sequiturs does not seem to be caused by those logicians who reject God because the rejection of God is a natural human error. Thus, I believe that the general misuse of the non sequitur by logicians is related to the blind acceptance of empiricism, the rejection of the writings of Immanuel Kant on the Critique of Pure Reason, the lack of knowledge about Kant’s Critique, and the work of Friedrich Hegel. Colleges and universities have not been helpful on this problem.

Physical scientists can boil water in a pan, cup, or test tube. But, they cannot know the pan, cup, or test tube merely by sensing and measuring their phenomena. Empirical data can produce only empirical knowledge. Only synthetic knowledge or metaphysics can know things. In his thoughts on God as Not-other, Nicholas of Cusa says, "In a hot thing, what is not-hot is the hot thing." In this statement, ‘not-hot’ is the negative thing that empirical data cannot explain. On things, see my earlier blogs on a thing in itself, the Preface to Second Edition and the Introduction in Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, and Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit.

Clearly, there is a reason why physical scientists cannot find physical atoms, matter, and spacetime. In the 1920s, linguists found that ‘empirical data are primarily symbolic.’ So today, the job of the empiricist is more difficult because the meaning of an empirical symbol depends on the meanings of other empirical symbols. So, today’s logicians can no longer define concepts with Aristotle’s concept definition and logic.

Non Sequiturs As the Mechanical God of Atheism

In yesterday’s blog, Aaron Henderson of Amherst College, MA made a comment. He defends the use of the non sequiturs by those atheists who reviewed my book on Amazon.com. Beyond, this defense, he devalues me and my book without even reading and evaluating it.

Over the last 20 months, users of non sequiturs have tried to convince me to accept non sequiturs. I will not accept non sequiturs because they are used by logicians to create a mechanical god for atheism. But the use of non sequiturs will destroy the spiritual God that the US founders authorized in the fist two paragraphs of the US Declaration of Independence. If US citizens accept non sequiturs, they should realize that non sequiturs will gain control of the American mind in wrong ways. With this mind control, the USA will be transformed into a purely materialistic and atheistic nation.

The atheistic book reviewers of my book on Amazon.com did not read my book before they submitted their book reviews. Had they read my book, they would have learned that only one scientific proof will be found in my book. A few other statements that follow from this proof necessarily are also identified. However, most of the writings in my book describe the widely accepted works of many personalities. So, these atheists are saying that the works of Abraham, Moses, Aristotle, Plato, Jesus Christ, Constantine, Nicholas of Cusa. Gottfried Leibniz, Immanuel Kant, Friedrich Hegel, and Georg Cantor are wrong because my descriptions of the works of these personalities are filled with non sequiturs. So, their book reviews are wrong and dishonest.

What is an Internet book store? Is it a place where the opinions of authors can be found by Americans? Or is it a place where Americans can gain political power by devaluing authors and their books? I contacted Amazon.com after the atheistic book reviews appeared on my book. Amazon said that these reviews are not constructive and violate its book review guidelines. So, Amazon removed these atheistic book reviews immediately. But, the atheists resubmitted their book reviews, again and again, knowing that Amazon can no longer afford to police book reviews. So, book reviews in Amazon can no longer be trusted. The reviews of my book by these atheists have also devalued me and my book with the result that Amazon sales of my book were essentially stopped.

Is the comment by Aaron Henderson merely an expression of his hidden self-interests and desire for profits? Amherst College was founded by Noah Webster, the early maker of English language dictionaries. Perhaps, Henderson and Amherst oppose my rejection of non sequiturs and my talks about the "ugly English language." But, a new dictionary is needed. Otherwise, the USA can be expected to degenerate intellectually and morally and become a third-world nation.

More on Non Sequiturs

My blog of March 30, 2008 led to comments from Winston Smith on the subject ‘ non sequitur.’ Smith said, "The non sequitur is nothing more than a badly drawn conclusion." He gives an example of a premise as follows: Obama has little experience as a leader. Then, he gives an example of a non sequitur as follows: Therefore, Obama would be a bad president.

Smith tells us: One does not ‘use’ non sequiturs. A non sequitur is not an instrument or a law. A non sequitur is just a conclusion that doesn't follow from its premise. He says that we are not talking about ‘necessary statements.’

Smith also tells us: There are countless books about logic. Read them. I don't want to be rude, but it really puzzles me how someone can pretend to prove God 'scientifically' without understanding the elementary concept of a non sequitur.

Smith’s comments do not close my challenges on the non sequitur. For instance, if non sequiturs are not used, why did five atheistic logicians use non sequiturs to produce negative reviews of my book on Amazon.com? (click) Further, if non sequiturs do not produce ‘necessary statements,’ why is Smith asking me to understand the elementary concepts of non sequiturs if my scientific proof of God is constructed with necessary statements?

It seems as though Smith does not have his act together. Readers should take heed to my responses to Smith.

It is clear to me that the US logicians are becoming more and more confused by British empiricism and the ugly English language. It is also clear that the non sequitur is not the solution to the problems of British empiricism and the ugly English language.