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

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

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.

22 Comments:

  • At 12:59 AM, Anonymous edward gordon said…

    It sounds like you might have an original argument for the existence of God here. But I'm not sure what you're trying to explain.

     
  • At 9:30 AM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    response to edward gordan,

    I am a scientist and explain what I say using scientific methods of thought.

    I am also a follower of Jesus Christ. Since many of the teachings of Jesus Christ are scientific, they are not taught in many churches. So, I am teaching the scientific teachings of Jesus Christ to those Christians who want to learn them.

    George

     
  • At 10:39 AM, Anonymous Chris said…

    George: "I am a scientist and explain what I say using scientific methods of thought."

    Can you describe what field of science you work in and what sort of research you are involved with? Can you clarify what you mean by the (to me) vague term "parts"?

    "I am also a follower of Jesus Christ. Since many of the teachings of Jesus Christ are scientific, they are not taught in many churches. So, I am teaching the scientific teachings of Jesus Christ to those Christians who want to learn them."

    Can you give some examples of the scientific teachings of Jesus, and explain why you consider them to be "scientific"?

     
  • At 2:43 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    response to chris,

    I am from Johns Hopkins University and will be 79 years old in June. I began research in the 1950s and retired in 1994.

    My career research was in both hard and soft sciences. Hard research was electronics on the space program. Soft research was on crime research for the US Departent of Justice.

    I began research on theology and philosophy in 1979 and expanded this research after retiring.

    I use 'to me' to distinguish me from 'others.'

    A few examples of scientific statements of Jesus Christ are as follows: living water, within. Holy Ghost, The Father and I are one, and trinity. Many examples will be found on this website and in my book.

    A scientific statement of Jesus Christ can be proven to be true.

    Thanks for your visit.

    George

     
  • At 6:54 AM, Anonymous Chris said…

    george: "A few examples of scientific statements of Jesus Christ are as follows: living water, within. Holy Ghost, The Father and I are one, and trinity. Many examples will be found on this website and in my book."

    I thank you for your reply, but I'm afraid I don't quite understand exactly how the statements you briefly mention are "scientific". Could you elaborate a bit, please?

     
  • At 6:55 AM, Anonymous Ann said…

    George,

    "A scientific statement of Jesus Christ can be proven to be true."

    Let's have it.

     
  • At 8:20 AM, Anonymous Ann said…

    I remember you now. You are the one that deleted all your posts at a Amazon string. What was up with that?

     
  • At 9:38 AM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    response to chris,

    The scientific method of proof, which was developed during the Renaissance has two steps. Step one is 'discovery' and the second is 'demonstration.' Discovery deals with sensual data. Our sensual apparatus is the tool for discovery. Demonstration explains the rationally behind the sensual data. Our reasoning is the tool for demonstration and one expects to identify a natural oe moral law.

    Two major kinds of laws can be found. The first are laws of nature. These laws are produced by science. The second are moral laws and are produced by moralists. Common sense might be added to these two major laws. These two major laws are found in the Declaration of Indeendence as "Laws of Nature and Nature's God."

    So when I conducted research on the sayings of Jesus Christ, I was able to divide the sayings of Jesus Christ into scientific and moralin statements. I identify some of these statements in my book.

    Som examples: living water means an 'expanding well of human IDEAS'; within means 'our MIND; Holy Ghost means 'the comfort a scientist or moralist feels when a RELATIONSHIP is discovered;' and trinity means 'the CAUSE of the many different and related things we find in the creation.'

    Hopw these will explain the way i am conducting my theological work.

    George

     
  • At 10:00 AM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    response to ann,

    My book identifies many sayings of Jesus Christ that are scientific and can be proven using the scientific method of proof.

    For instance, look at Mark 7:15-23and verse 23. I say that the within thing is our mind. In my book, p. 160 to 165, I show that Jersus Chriist teaches the cause of crime. Christians must inform criminalogists about this teaching.

    Before I conductd research on the sayings of Jesus Christ, I worked at the National Institute of Justice, US Department of Justice.
    In 1988 I asserted that the cause of crime will be found only in a flawed criminal mind. Most of these flaws will be found in flaws formed by poor symbolic languages.

    George

     
  • At 10:04 AM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    response to ann again,

    I deleted my teachings because these atheists were only trying to assassinate my character and devalue my book.

    George

     
  • At 12:13 PM, Anonymous Chris said…

    George: "The scientific method of proof, which was developed during the Renaissance has two steps. Step one is 'discovery' and the second is 'demonstration.'"

    The scientific method involves making hypotheses based on observations, and testing them by experiment. I feel you may be unintentionally misleading readers by using the term "science" to describe whatever random philosophical thought enters your head.

    "Hopw these will explain the way i am conducting my theological work."

    I think I get the general idea. However, if you have anything further to say that you feel would persuade me to re-evaluate my position and begin to take you seriously, I encourage you to share it.

     
  • At 3:17 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    response to chis,

    I teach the two step scientific method that developed during the Renaissance. (See, Randall, John Herman, The Development of Scientific Method in the School of Padua. Found in the Journal of the History of Ideas, Inc., College of the City of New York, (Volume I, 1940), p’s 177-206.)

    Atheists do not like me for teaching this method because they don't accept metaphysics and God.

    Discovery and demonstration accepts metaphysics and God.
    Observations make a 'discovery' about what God created. And ke hypotheses make a 'hypothesis' about how God created what He created. A demonstration requires a person to lift his or her mind upwardly with reason. It is through both steps that one rises towards God's wisdom. This is the self-knowledge taught by Jesus Christ. In Part IIc of my book, I show that this scientific methos is how God communicates information to us.

    Your way of giving meaning to science is more how atheists want to speak of science.

    George

     
  • At 4:13 PM, Anonymous Chris said…

    george: "I teach the two step scientific method that developed during the Renaissance...Atheists do not like me for teaching this method because they don't accept metaphysics and God."

    Or maybe because they don't care for a "scientific method" that has no mechanism for separating fact from delusion.

    "Your way of giving meaning to science is more how atheists want to speak of science."

    No, it's how scientists want to speak of science. You want to just imagine stuff about god and call it science so people will take you seriously. I'm afraid it doesn't work like that.

     
  • At 8:12 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    response to chris,

    Facts will lead to delusions, but only if the wrong scientific method of proof is used. The purpose of using the two-step scientific method is to find 'laws' not 'facts' The laws of physics are not empirical facts.

    If a person cannot distingish facts from delusionss, that person should not work in science.

    I sense that you might agree with those scientists who say that scientific proofs do not exist.

    George:"Your way of giving meaning to science is more how atheists want to speak of science."

    Chris: No, it's how scientists want to speak of science. You want to just imagine stuff about god and call it science so people will take you seriously. I'm afraid it doesn't work like that.

    George: The scientists you are following are failing today. They are failinf because they are trying to build a one-sided universe, that is, without metaphysics and without God. Since many scientist are atheists today, their scientific method, which you agree with, is not science at all. Are you an atheist?

    How can you make negative statements about a person's thoughts when you do not prove that this person's thougths are false? I do not develop imaginations about God. Only religions and atheists do that.

    The two-step scientific method is the correct method. I expect the two-step method to be used first by godly scientists. But, I learned how to wait for anything good.

    George

     
  • At 12:51 AM, Anonymous edward gordon said…

    Hey George,

    I ordered a copy of your book, The First Scientific Proof of God: : Reveals God's Intelligent Design and a Modern Creation Theory

    I look forward to reading it.

     
  • At 9:10 AM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    response to edward gordan,

    With my book, your past continuous returns to Jesus Christ will now be expanded greatly.

    But, remember that I am viewing Jesus through the eyes of a modern scientist. Because on my scientific view of the world, I am blogging to teach my book.

    When you start Part II, you might want to have the book by Nicholas of Cusa "On Learned Ignorance" by your side. You can copy this book out at http://cla.umn.edu/sites/jhopkins/

    George

     
  • At 9:51 AM, Anonymous chris said…

    george: "If a person cannot distingish facts from delusionss, that person should not work in science."

    I whole-heartedly agree.

    I wish you all the best, George, and I hope you'll forgive me if I choose not to get entangled in a fruitless discussion with you.

     
  • At 12:14 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    response to chris,

    Forgiveness is important to me. So, I understand and forgive. My thoughts are very different and complex and thus do not fit everyone.

    George

     
  • At 3:05 AM, Anonymous edward gordon said…

    Hey George,

    You said: With my book, your past continuous returns to Jesus Christ will now be expanded greatly.

    Edward: That sounds great.

     
  • At 8:36 AM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    response to edward gordan,

    Once you get going with my book and you take a look at the book, On Learned Ignorance, by Nicholas of Cusa, your mind will grow with new ideas (living water) as Jesus says at John 4:14.

    George

     
  • At 3:45 AM, Anonymous Chris #2 said…

    I'll admit now I am an atheist. As you are clearly an educated man I expect you will not disregard my comments simply due to my choice of lifestyle.

    [In response to the discussion between yourself and Chris #1.]
    As a student of linguistics and mathematics I must agree you are potentially misleading readers with your use of 'science'. As far as semantics go, I think we can agree the majority of English speakers take the linguistic meaning of science to be more concrete. It is clear you are taking the definition to be more closely related to metaphysics which--as most philosophies--is often considered 'philosophy', not 'science' (although technically it is). If you disagree please expand.

    [My own thoughts. I implore you to read and respond with your own thoughts.]
    I also disagree with your statement that science must fail. I see nothing but success in every field. Pure mathematics that once seemed to have little use now proves to be very powerful when used in computer science (see category theory<->type theory, geometry<->cryptography, rigorous proof methods<->correctness, etc.). Computer science is making great leaps in all areas: cryptography (lattice based systems), type theory (proof construction/semantic analysis), AI (machine learning, genetic programming, image recognition), computational geometry (ai, control systems, personal aids/disabilities), etc.
    In medicine we have promising research in limb regrowth (from study of non-humans), replacements for anesthetics from studying the brain (mainly due to the roll of physics and chemistry in the advancement of medicine), life extension by hours of dying individuals (via replacement of blood, resulting in impermanent medically defined death) etc.
    The computers we so enjoy come directly from physics' emphasis on discrete particle level study and is currently showing (concretely) that we will enjoy further improvements to computers via modern quantum mechanics.
    I do not see how theology could better such fields. Again you clearly disagree so please give reasons why you disagree. I am always happy to learn and listen to what others think.

     
  • At 1:27 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    response to chris #2,

    Chris # 2: I'll admit now I am an atheist. As you are clearly an educated man I expect you will not disregard my comments simply due to my choice of lifestyle.

    George: Science returned me to God in 1979 after I had concluded, during my teens, that religions teach too many false mysteries. In my early life I was a member of the Lutheran Church. Your comments are welcome because I might help you return to God. Too many comments of atheists are aimed as character assassination.. They don’t discuss science.

    To me, science is a field of thought that seeks truths, that is, absolute and relative truths. I accept one absolute truth. This truth is God’s existence. All relative truths are found among created things and their phenomena. My search for truth involves metaphysics and phenomena. Phenomena are the effects and metaphysical reasons are the causes. One must identify effects and causes to identify all scientific laws. Before I found the existence of God, physical laws were the only scientific laws that man had found. With my finding about God, I found the scientific law: “all finite things originate in an infinite thing.” This law expresses a cause- effect relation.

    A science developed without God will fail because the world created by God is a world of things, not a world of mechanisms. I explain the differences between these two worlds in my recent blogs. Although all created things are images of God, all created things are finite infinities and are thus ‘uncompleted ‘ or ‘bad’ infinities. Atheists guess too often..

    Technologies can improve as long as sciences improve. But, you are guessing if you treat a human being as a mechanism governed by laws of physics. Many chemicals are killing patients because all things in the world are ‘things within things (holistic) ’ and are not mechanisms.

    I see theology as the study of God. Since God is the absolute truth in all ways, the field of theology is a science because it searches for absolute truths. So, I say that man will find truths about God beyond the truth of God’s existence.

    You ought to learn about the 1920s discovery by linguists that ‘sensual data are primarily symbolic.’ Thus, empirical data can not be expressed properly without exact meanings of the concepts used in an empirical statement. Symbols must define each other in a scientific law.
    For instance, in my scientific law of God’s existence. the concepts, infinite and finite, are given their exact meaning.

    George

     

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home