Theological Science, Spiritual Atoms, and Mind
Yesterday, I showed that God unfolds spiritual atoms prior to unfolding organized wh
oles (or things). Since every spiritual atom perceives, every spiritual atom is ‘mind.’ But as Gottfried Leibniz says in his Monadology, the perceptions of some spiritual atoms are confused and are unable to think because they lack the organs needed to think. Confused spiritual atoms thus form all non living (or non thinking) things. The non living things function as the infrastructure of life in the universe.
If an unconfused spiritual atom can think, then it has thinking organs in the brain. Such a spiritual atom organizes a human. If an unconfused spiritual atom cannot think, but can learn, then it has learning organs in the brain. Such a spiritual atom organizes an animal. And if an unconfused spiritual atom cannot think or learn, but can memorize, then it has memory organs in the brain. Such a spiritual atom organizes a plant.
My use of spiritual atoms in my book is not a new idea. They were found in the 17th century by Gottfried Leibniz, who also discovered the infinitesimal calculus (e.g., dy/dx). Obviously, Leibniz found that it is natural for the perceiving spiritual atom of a human to use the infinitesimal calculus to think.
My use of spiritual atoms is not liked by evolutionists and naturalists because they promote Darwin’s evolutionary theory. They also say that the human mind is an epiphenomenon of the brain and that we learn but do not think. This is why they are atheists. But, it was reported recently that a 115-year-old lady in the Netherlands was able to think as if she was only 60 years old. This is evidence that the brain, but not the mind, degenerates with age. So, this lady was healthy.
oles (or things). Since every spiritual atom perceives, every spiritual atom is ‘mind.’ But as Gottfried Leibniz says in his Monadology, the perceptions of some spiritual atoms are confused and are unable to think because they lack the organs needed to think. Confused spiritual atoms thus form all non living (or non thinking) things. The non living things function as the infrastructure of life in the universe.If an unconfused spiritual atom can think, then it has thinking organs in the brain. Such a spiritual atom organizes a human. If an unconfused spiritual atom cannot think, but can learn, then it has learning organs in the brain. Such a spiritual atom organizes an animal. And if an unconfused spiritual atom cannot think or learn, but can memorize, then it has memory organs in the brain. Such a spiritual atom organizes a plant.
My use of spiritual atoms in my book is not a new idea. They were found in the 17th century by Gottfried Leibniz, who also discovered the infinitesimal calculus (e.g., dy/dx). Obviously, Leibniz found that it is natural for the perceiving spiritual atom of a human to use the infinitesimal calculus to think.
My use of spiritual atoms is not liked by evolutionists and naturalists because they promote Darwin’s evolutionary theory. They also say that the human mind is an epiphenomenon of the brain and that we learn but do not think. This is why they are atheists. But, it was reported recently that a 115-year-old lady in the Netherlands was able to think as if she was only 60 years old. This is evidence that the brain, but not the mind, degenerates with age. So, this lady was healthy.
posted by George Shollenberger @ 9:54 AM
24 Comments:
At 1:16 AM,
Anonymous said…
I know that telomeres (the biological clock of cell reproduction), free radicals (cationic cell oxidizing agents in the blood system), and the density of caloric intake play a significant part in the aging process in cells.
At 8:52 AM,
Anonymous said…
"the perceptions of some spiritual atoms are confused and are unable to think"
So the perceptions are unable to think? Or do you mean to say that the atoms are unable to think? Really, when writing down convoluted nonsense at least try to express yourself with a minimum of clarity.
"If an unconfused spiritual atom can think, then it has thinking organs in the brain."
So your beloved spiritual atoms actually have brains and organs in those brains? Pray tell, what do those brains and organs consist of?
At 9:04 AM,
Anonymous said…
There is a new comment on Mr. Bask's review of your book at amazon:
"The book sounded interesting to me but, after reading this review (and all the others), I am going to pass on it. But what really dissauded me from reading this book were the comments by the author and his inability to address any of the weaknesses pointed out by the reviewers. Also, to be blunt, he makes himself sound like a total crackpot. He would do better to just let the negative reviews stand. His "defense" of his book allow everyone to see the paucity of his ideas without spending a dime. At least I can be thankful for that."
At 9:12 AM,
George Shollenberger said…
response to quantum_flux,
Thanks. What do you know about drug us and the continued use by medical patients those mechanical pills produced by the pharmceutical companies?
George
At 9:43 AM,
George Shollenberger said…
response to cathy hennessy,
In this blog, my current thoughts on spiritual atom are going beyond the writings of Leibniz. So my steps beyond Leibniz can be imperfect. To clarify, I say “the perceptions of some spiritual atoms are confused and are unable to think when they form an organized thing."
Since you are convinced that spiritual atoms are beloved rather necessary, I see that physical science is dominating your mind and that you will not understand theological science with ease.
Please give a scientist a chance to go beyond Leibniz. You are pushing unfriendly.
Perhaps, you should know first that the spiritual atom is a thing-in-itself and that all organs in the brain are also things-in-themselves. At this time, I am unable to say anything else about the brain.
George
At 10:43 AM,
George Shollenberger said…
respond to pat jacobs,
Thanks for the information. Bur, many people will disagree with you.
For your information, the reviews of my book on Amazon are reviews by logicians who want to speak only about logical reasoning and atheism. Science is much more than logical reasoning. And my science, which is theological science, rejects atheism.
These book reviewers didn't even read my book. Their interest was only to stop the propagation of my book.
Apparently, you have not reviewed this website, which teaches my book.
George
At 11:01 AM,
Anonymous said…
Well, it depends on the drug. You always have to look at the purity (and impurities) of the drug, the concentration of the active agent, the solubility of the compound, the side effects, etc. In general, the body has the ability to produce the necessary neurological agents on it's own if it is given the proper dietary nutrition in the right proportions (which is different for everybody), and then you consider that the soil that our crops grow on require those nutrients to begin with (such firtilizers are more expensive). I think that most of our medical/health related problems come from improper and malnourished diets. Most farmers only apply a firtilizer that contains some amount of pounds per million pounds of nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium because that is the minimum requirement ($$$) for healthy and disease resistant plants and for keeping a firtile conditioned soil.
In effect, I think the vast medical industry thrives on giving people the synthetic chemicals that their bodies are incapable of producing because of malnourishment and/or because of some other sort of neurochemical/hormonal imbalance due to lack of excercise and other physical activities.
Watching TV is a big waste of time, and in my opinion, so is religion. I see religion as being an inhibitor to the mental curiosity. If people censor information that they have evolved to utilize, then they are not getting the full experiences of their life. This can lead to psychological issues later in life. The same goes for communism. People in communist China are highly paranoid of the government and are willing to accept any conspiracy theory as a result. I once met a chinese person in underground bible study who believed that the USA didn't really land on the moon even though he was a laser scientist as an occupation. I would hate to think he was told his whole life that the USA didn't really land on the moon when we really did, that's like telling children that we came from Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden when all evidence points otherwise.
At 3:30 PM,
Anonymous said…
Well, I'm confused. Actually, I'm not, which kind of worries me.
Where do you get the revelation of spiritual atoms? Are you a prophet?
At 4:42 PM,
George Shollenberger said…
response to quantum_plus,
Your discussion in the first and second paragraphs tell me that my interest in developing a science on things-in-themselves will help guide people on food intake and help them on the safe use of pills.
Like you, I do not belong to any religion because I do not want my website to be viewed as biased. But I was born and raised as a Lutheran. I see many human problems in limiting one's thoughts to scriptures. Thus, I see many religious leaders as power seekers.
You are closely aligned to my thoughts. Quantum mechanics is important to me and theological science because probability theory will always be a powerful tool of thought in a never ending world.
Why can't quantum mechanics be applied to solve tough human problems such as hurricanes, tornados, and flodding? Its use by physical science only for the field of physics to prove that the universe has an end is ungodly and should ne be funded by the US governmnet.
I am telling the US Congress that the projects of many US scientists are unconstitutional.
George
At 5:18 PM,
George Shollenberger said…
response to edward gordon,
Hi edward,
I found the spiritual atom when I studied the work of Gottfried Leibniz. The spiritual atom is the true atom of a created universe. The true atom was develooped first by Gottfried Leibniz in the 1700s. He calls them 'monads.' The Greeks called them 'entelechies' I call them spiritual atoms in order to distinguish them from physical atoms such as the chemical atoms, quarks, and, more recently, the super strings. Search on 'monadology' id you want to read Leibniz's work on monads.
I don't accept the religious meaning of 'prophet.' But, I do accept St. Paul's meaning in Col. 5:20. Paul views prophesying as a human act of producing new ideas. So, any person who is producing new ideas was called a prophet in the ancient perion. In the modern period,the word prophet is used only by the field of religion. The rest of the peopls speak of prophets as theorists, big thinkers, inventors, discoverers, Noble Prize winners, etc.
George
At 7:53 PM,
Anonymous said…
George: Why can't quantum mechanics be applied to solve tough human problems such as hurricanes, tornados, and flodding?
Quantum_Flux: Quantum mechanics is a well established field of science and its framework encompasses nuclear physics, chemistry, optics, nanotechnology, quantum computation, and brain research. Probability theory, which is the mathematical framework of QM is also used in predicting weather patterns.
George: I am telling the US Congress that the projects of many US scientists are unconstitutional.
Quantum_Flux: Yeah, good luck with that. I don't think our US forefathers ever thought scientific endeavors are unconstitutional. Then again, our congress is full of morons that don't represent the opinions of the people they're supposed to represent so you might be successful in that.
At 9:40 PM,
Anonymous said…
George: Quantum Mechanics use by physical science only for the field of physics to prove that the universe has an end is ungodly and should not be funded by the US governmnent.
QF: I believe that the universe ending in a state of high entropy is already a well established fact from astrophysics though, as surely as people die and stars go nova. Scientific research should be funded because it leads to discovery and technological development. Richard Feynman was discussing quantum computation back in the 1960s. I believe that Roger Penrose so far has the best theory of the laws of the physical universe, it's called Twister Theory and it's much more elegant than Superstrings. I think Roger Penrose is also developing theories about how matter can give rise to the mind, in line with what Alan Turing's work. As far as monads go, though, I think that Kant's Philosophies were merely just an 18th century parlor trick. Of course all things exist, duh!
At 5:04 AM,
George Shollenberger said…
response to quantum_flux,
Quantum_Flux: Yeah, good luck with that. I don't think our US forefathers ever thought scientific endeavors are unconstitutional. Then again, our congress is full of morons that don't represent the opinions of the people they're supposed to represent so you might be successful in that.
George: You are right about the founders because they knew the importance of science to the USA.
However, my argument is not against science in general. My argument is against our lawyers who say that the first two paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence are included as the authority to declaration war against England.
Against our lawyers, I say that the first two paragraphs authorizes and defines the USA as ‘a Union under God.’ So, I say that atheism cannot be practiced in any field of thought in the USA.
My work to develop a ‘theological science’ and my scientific proof of God is my personal response to the Declaration of Independence. I could say that the practice of any atheistic science in the USA is undeclarational. I can also say that any atheistic science is unconstitutional because the Preamble clause in the Constitution --- to form a more perfect Union --- can be measured only with a perfection standard. Only God is this perfection standard.
George
At 5:59 AM,
George Shollenberger said…
response to quantum_flux
QF: I believe that the universe ending in a state of high entropy is already a well established fact from astrophysics though, as surely as people die and stars go nova. Scientific research should be funded because it leads to discovery and technological development. Richard Feynman was discussing quantum computation back in the 1960s. I believe that Roger Penrose so far has the best theory of the laws of the physical universe, it's called Twister Theory and it's much more elegant than Superstrings. I think Roger Penrose is also developing theories about how matter can give rise to the mind, in line with what Alan Turing's work. As far as monads go, though, I think that Kant's Philosophies were merely just an 18th century parlor trick. Of course all things exist, duh!
George: Of course, I would not propose a funding limit in all schools of physical science. I only disagree with some projects in these schools because I prove the existence of God scientifically and have falsified it on this website with the Yang-Mills theory. In this theory, free particles must be found by the particle physicists.
If a person wants to prove that God does not exist, this person should not be funded by the US government. For instance, the Big Bang theory should not be funded by the government. I did not seek government funds for my work that led to my proof of the existence of God. As long as the USA is a nation under God, why should the taxpayers pay for projects that would try to prove that God does not exist. I believe that government should pay for the falsification that I identified for my proof of God.
When the chemical atoms were smashed, many physicists of that time proposed that the fundamental stuff is organization. My theological science is in full agreement with this proposal. I conclude that an end to the universe is only a toy for the world’s pure mathematicians. Penrose, et al need to be told that scientific proofs of God now exist.
George
At 7:58 AM,
Anonymous said…
So, George, what do you think of faith and the working of miracles?
At 2:11 PM,
Quantum_Flux said…
Thomas Jefferson, the guy who wrote the Declaration of Independance, was an an atheist though....
"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."
"I am an Epicurean. I consider the genuine (not the imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy which Greek and Roman leave to us."
"
I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology."
"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God."
Thomas Jefferson
At 2:15 PM,
Quantum_Flux said…
So, by the way, what exactly is your scientific proof of God?
At 2:30 PM,
George Shollenberger said…
response to edward gordon,
Like love, I view faith as a varying concept. Since Cusa shows that God is the absolute maximum and the absolute minimum, any variable can neither be absolutely minimum nor absolutely maximum. So,faith vary from a very small amount to very latge amount. I believe that faith incrases to a very large amounts when a person uses self-knowledge and produces new ideas about God, the universe, or moral life.
On miracles, I assign miraclels only to God. This is why we cannot create a universe whereas God can. Some people believe that God performs miracles other than the creating the universe. I have not had time to deal with this second belief thoroughly. But, it brings forth the idea of a "personal God."
George
At 3:13 PM,
George Shollenberger said…
Response to quantum_flux
QF: Thomas Jefferson, the guy who wrote the Declaration of Independence, was an atheist though....
George: Jefferson only drafted the Declaration of Independence. John Adams and Ben Franklin made the final version because the founders did not trust Jefferson.
QF: "Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."
George: I follower these principles without fear of God or any other being..
QF: "I am an Epicurean. I consider the genuine (not the imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy which Greek and Roman leave to us."
George: The Laws of Nature and the Laws of Nature’s God are found in the Declaration of Independence is a unification of science and morality, as the Greeks conclude and as I believe.
QF: I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology."
George: God’s world is not cast into concrete whenever a scripture appears in our world. God made a changing universe because He is always the unchanging God to every creature. So, as long as God exists, the universe also exists. Physical scientists, all atheists, and many religions believe that the universe comes to an end. Since our symbolic languages give us reason, our symbols say that the end of the universe is irrational.
The human mind cannot think properly anymore if all finite things end and their origin still exist. If a person masters logical reasoning, that person with find both/and opposites as well as either/or opposites. Saying this slightly different, there are included middle opposites not only excluded middle opposites.
QF: It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God."
George: But in the long term, for instance, when you become older, your poly-god neighbors can present social problems you did not expect.
George
At 3:18 PM,
George Shollenberger said…
response to quantum_flux
QF: So, by the way, what exactly is your scientific proof of God?
George: It is found on page 6 of my book, "The First Scientific Proof of God." It says 'all finite things are originated by an infinite thing.'
George
At 4:14 PM,
Anonymous said…
Hey George,
I'm sorry to sound rude, but if you're not a Christian and you don't believe in a personal God, I'm not going to spend a lot of time answering your posts.
Because if you don't believe the truth, quite frankly, it doesn't matter what you believe. Right?
At 4:16 PM,
Quantum_Flux said…
George: It is found on page 6 of my book, "The First Scientific Proof of God." It says 'all finite things are originated by an infinite thing.'
QF: Nope, my finite computer (and probably yours too) was created by finite sweat shop kids in finite asian factories which were built by finite contractors who learned thier finite knowledge from finite textbooks which were written by finite design engineers, etc. Everything is finite tracing back to the finite origins of the universe in the infinite universe of finite things.
At 9:42 PM,
George Shollenberger said…
response to edward gordon,
I was born and raised as a Christian. I also am a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ. I say that these teachings have a divine origin. One of the teaching of Jesus Christ is self-knowledge. Thus, I do not accept the teachine of any other person.
At this time, I have not developed my self-knowledge to the point where I can even consider the concept of a personal God. Please remember that I am a scientist and approach all truth only through science..
So, if I make a post on your website and you do not respond, I will undersand your position.
Thanks for letting me know your position on a personal God.
George
At 9:55 PM,
George Shollenberger said…
response to quantum_flux,
QF: Nope, my finite computer (and probably yours too) was created by finite sweat shop kids in finite asian factories which were built by finite contractors who learned thier finite knowledge from finite textbooks which were written by finite design engineers, etc. Everything is finite tracing back to the finite origins of the universe in the infinite universe of finite things.
George: The universe is not infinite, no matter how many finite things are found in it. The concepts, finite and infinite, are excluded middle opposites.
Further, a finite thing is not the origin of all finite things in the universe. This is a contradiction.
George
Post a Comment
<< Home