Theological Science, the Only True Science, II
Theological science, a new but ancient science, emerged when man recognized God. T
oday’s atheists want to return to an older godless science. This godless science is known today as ‘empirical science.’ In my book and on this website, I argue against this atheistic return because I conclude that theological science is the true science and must be developed with the guidance of God.
The founders of the USA also say that the people of the USA must be developed under the guidance of God. The founders made God’s guidance a law of the land and impressed it in the two founding documents --- in the first two paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence and in the Preamble clause of the Constitution, which says that government must ‘form a more perfect Union.’ So, the US government must change so that it seeks guidance from God. In my book and on this website, I show how one seeks God’s guidance.
Thus, any attempt of turning a nation away from God today must be viewed as a waste of time and money. In the USA, such an attempt would be a violation of the founding US laws.
Although the development of modern science has achieved many successes, today’s scientists tell people to believe that science will be completed and will come to an end soon. They view religions are useless institutions. However, the return to a godless science is like the return of Christianity to fundamentalism in the 19th century. (Fundamentalism emphasizes literal interpretation and absolute inerrancy of the Scriptures, the imminent and physical Second Coming of Jesus Christ, the Virgin Birth, Resurrection, and Atonement.) But, theological science also has successes. For instance, I prove scientifically that God exists. In time, I expect new religions to develop and will contribute continually to the progress of man’s search for truths.
Theological science had to develop a truth language before God or any other invisible truth could be recognized. Theological science began to develop in small social units. This truth language eventually developed and led to the growth of knowledge. The firs form of knowledge man found is about nonliving things. This knowledge led to the industrial revolution. But, knowledge of living things has never been found.
Fortunately, in the 1920s, linguistics discovered that sense data are primarily symbolic. This discovery tells us that empirical science is a pseudoscience. So, a return to empirical science by atheists will fail.
Man’s knowledge today is only about nonliving things. This limited knowledge explains the many social problems we find in the world today. Only if theological science is put to work, can knowledge about living things emerge. Theological science is the only science that can solve the many social problems we find in the world today.
oday’s atheists want to return to an older godless science. This godless science is known today as ‘empirical science.’ In my book and on this website, I argue against this atheistic return because I conclude that theological science is the true science and must be developed with the guidance of God.The founders of the USA also say that the people of the USA must be developed under the guidance of God. The founders made God’s guidance a law of the land and impressed it in the two founding documents --- in the first two paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence and in the Preamble clause of the Constitution, which says that government must ‘form a more perfect Union.’ So, the US government must change so that it seeks guidance from God. In my book and on this website, I show how one seeks God’s guidance.
Thus, any attempt of turning a nation away from God today must be viewed as a waste of time and money. In the USA, such an attempt would be a violation of the founding US laws.
Although the development of modern science has achieved many successes, today’s scientists tell people to believe that science will be completed and will come to an end soon. They view religions are useless institutions. However, the return to a godless science is like the return of Christianity to fundamentalism in the 19th century. (Fundamentalism emphasizes literal interpretation and absolute inerrancy of the Scriptures, the imminent and physical Second Coming of Jesus Christ, the Virgin Birth, Resurrection, and Atonement.) But, theological science also has successes. For instance, I prove scientifically that God exists. In time, I expect new religions to develop and will contribute continually to the progress of man’s search for truths.
Theological science had to develop a truth language before God or any other invisible truth could be recognized. Theological science began to develop in small social units. This truth language eventually developed and led to the growth of knowledge. The firs form of knowledge man found is about nonliving things. This knowledge led to the industrial revolution. But, knowledge of living things has never been found.
Fortunately, in the 1920s, linguistics discovered that sense data are primarily symbolic. This discovery tells us that empirical science is a pseudoscience. So, a return to empirical science by atheists will fail.
Man’s knowledge today is only about nonliving things. This limited knowledge explains the many social problems we find in the world today. Only if theological science is put to work, can knowledge about living things emerge. Theological science is the only science that can solve the many social problems we find in the world today.
posted by George Shollenberger @ 11:07 AM
10 Comments:
At 2:15 PM,
Quantum_Flux said…
If your God is "all things not objectively verifiable" then I guess I'm just going to have to support your Satan then. Funny how unverifiable things are often lies or half truths....maybe God is the father of lies and Satan is the father of truths? It requires no faith on my part to trust that the chair I'm sitting in will support my weight, and that is because I've seen it happen many times.
Anyhow, The Devil is in the Details and the details are non-existant when it comes to theology.
At 9:31 PM,
George Shollenberger said…
response to quantum_flux,
QF: If your God is "all things not objectively verifiable" then I guess I'm just going to have to support your Satan then.
George: God is the infinite God, who is the origin of all finite things that are verified scientifically. This origin will never be verfied by the field of physics. Further, there are no Satans, Devils, demons, or angels in a world crated by God.
QF:Funny how unverifiable things are often lies or half truths....maybe God is the father of lies and Satan is the father of truths?
George:My research proves that only the field of physics is promoting half-truths.
QF It requires no faith on my part to trust that the chair I'm sitting in will support my weight, and that is because I've seen it happen many times.
George: If it loses your support, maybe you will learn that chairs cab break.
QT: Anyhow, The Devil is in the Details and the details are non-existant when it comes to theology.
George: As this series of blogs expands on this website, I expect that bubble of physical science will burst. This burst will open the new eye of the human mind. Spacetime will be its Satan.
At 11:48 PM,
Anonymous said…
If you feel up to it, why don't you start out by disproving these simple equations....
E=(K*Q)/R^2
V= E*dS = (d/dt)*[int(B*dA, A)]
At 8:30 AM,
George Shollenberger said…
response to quantum_flux,
I will do that if you also disprove my scientific proof of God. But, please identify the dimensional qualities of the mathematical signs.
George
At 12:13 PM,
Anonymous said…
Electric Field => Newtons/Culoumb
Voltage => Joules/Culoumb
Q=> Culoumbs
k=> Joule*Meter/Culoumb^2
R => meters
dS => infinitesmal distance
d/dt => differential time operator
Magnetic Field => Joule*Second/Meter^2
int[ ,A] => integral over area
Also...your "scientific proof of God" is really just conjecture. I don't think it is on equal footing to the scientific laws of physics. As such, I could just as easily counter your conjecture about God by saying "God doesn't exist".
At 3:29 PM,
George Shollenberger said…
response to quantum_flux,
My proof of God is a scientifically proven statement.
This proof used the two-step (discovery and demonstration) method of proof that developed during the Renaissance. The two-step method produces the scientific cause/effect relation betweeb things or processes. My proof experssess the relation between an infinite thing and all finite things. This method shows that the symbols, finite, and the symbol, infinite, are functionally related in that an infinite thing causes all finite things.
One cannot use the symbol,finite, without using the symbol, infinite (qua infinite). This is one truth you will find if you use symbols.
The laws of physics you present are at a lower level of science compared to my level of science because your laws can be apply only to finite things. Since the field of physics does not use the 'infinite qua infinite,' physicists will not undrstand my proof.
How does a physicist answer the question, 'What is the origin of Energy in the equation E = mc2 ?'
What about Kant do you not like? Perhaps I can exprss our differences clearer.
George
At 4:17 AM,
Quantum_Flux said…
I highly dislike Kant's philosophies because they are subjective. To be sure, it is exactly when people run out of limited resources that they discover that, no matter how hard they wish, they can't create any more of them because their minds are not over matter.
Think about it.... if Kant's philosophies were correct, then the person with the deepest desires for good would have been able to end world problems a long time ago, much longer ago than Kant came into existance. There would have been dinosaurs that entirely wished for survival, and they wouldn't have been wiped out by a supervolcano. In fact, Kant would say that if you just desired it enough, you could pull a finite thing out of your mind's infinite energy bag and just have the fruit of your desire at your own whim.... don't you see the problem with that philosophical lier!?
At 9:13 AM,
George Shollenberger said…
response to quantum_flux
Thanks for your opinions about Kant. Hegel, who followed Kant, seems to clarify both ‘sense certainty’ and ‘intuition.’
In my book, I only say that Kant failed to unify empiricism and rationalism. But, his dialectical thinking (antinomies) did lead to Hegel, Marx, me and many other more dialecticians who follow Plato’s ideas.
FYI, Susanne Langer’s book on ‘Philosophy in a New Key’ reports on p. 21 the discovery of many linguists ‘that sense data are primarily symbolic.’ This discovery reignited the dead school of philosophy following Kant The philosophy of symbols destroys Aristotle’s concept definition/logic. Unfortunately, the school of physics does not seem to realize the importance of the symbols a physicists applied in the early development of the laws of physics.
Kant says that logic is completed. Completeness is a dangerous idea to install in the mind of any life scientist. Today’s logicians still say that excluded middle opposites (either/or) complete logic. Fortunately, I had a double career in research – physical science and human science. Included middle opposites (both/and) are found in all forms of life. Thus, I don’t expect physics to produce life out of physical matter.
You seem to be living a very moral life. Can you explain the underlying principles? I am very interested in this subject.
George
At 6:07 PM,
Quantum_Flux said…
Morality has arisen out of the study and respect for mother nature, and a desire to be a part of the rest of society.
The concept of God on the other hand, came from the concept of earlier gods and godesses which has arisen out of humanity's ignorance of nature and drawing superstitious conclusions. If a volcano occurs and there are lights in the sky, people assumed it was demons coming from the underworld which was where hell is, happened to be fighting gods in the heavens. If there is an earthquake, people assumed giant underground snakes were angrily looking around for somebody to devour. If there was a flood or hurricane, it was always a giant sea monster or the god of the sea was angry. If somebody had diseases or was hallucinating paranoid thoughts, then they were assumed to be possessed by demons. If somebody hallucinated rainbows, dragons, leprochauns, and fairies then they started great myths about them. Lightning bolts by Zues, forest fires started by dragons, muddy waters and plagues in Egypt by yahweh...all these imaginations accumulated into what we now view as modern religion. If you did a study on it, then you'd arrive at the conclusion that gods arose from improper understanding of nature, even with the new age mumbo-jumbo, etc.
At 10:12 AM,
George Shollenberger said…
Thanks QF
As a little boy and with a close friend, I lived in Nature, in the mountains with its growth and water flows. I learned that Nature gives me things that I can usr to make things. in time, I became an electrical engineer and built many other things.
As you can see, 'things' became my latest interest.
George
Post a Comment
<< Home