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

Thursday, July 17, 2008

Theological Science and Its New Morality

Theological science, if accepted by a nation, would change the moral standards because it will deal with God, the life sciences, and the physical sciences. God would be viewed as the origin of all things. The life sciences would deal with all living things, which include all humans, all lower animals, and all plants, which include trees. And the physical sciences would deal with all nonliving things, which include all physical things and all chemical things.

In the 1950s, most scientists and mathematicians were still considering God in their thoughts. Even in the 1960s, the astronauts still spoke of God when they circled earth and eventually landed on the moon. But, in the 1960s, the youth of the USA began to change morally. First, they built a drug culture that consists yet today. Then, they began to reject God after the US Supreme Court agreed with those atheists who want to stop school praying.

By the 1970s, the youth in the field of physics began to follow this immoral change. They increased their power over the fields of chemistry, mathematics, and the life sciences. In the 1970s, the youth of the field of entertainment and Hollywood also began to amplify this immoral change. Today, the same aging physical scientists and entertainers say that there is no God. They also say that all living things are purely physical things and that all things in the universe are only mechanisms.

If you believe that love, hate, crime, and all human behaviors are purely physical processes, you have drifted into atheism and are supporting the moral change that began in the 1970s. But, if you believe that God exists, that Darwin’s evolutionary theory is false, and that you are free, spiritual, and not mechanical, you should investigate the new moralities in new science, which I call ‘theological science.’

5 Comments:

  • At 10:47 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    It seems to me that instead of proposing a new science, instead, like many others, you are proposing that science be interpreted through a religious (preferrably your religion) filter.

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

    response to aaron,

    It is a nww science because it unifies rhe field of theology and the field of science.

    The development of theology and science is always through God and not through any religion. The developments of theology and science advance only by our increased understanding of God.


    George

     
  • At 8:32 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    George: If you believe that love, hate, crime, and all human behaviors are purely physical processes, you have drifted into atheism and are supporting the moral change that began in the 1970s. But, if you believe that God exists, that Darwin’s evolutionary theory is false, and that you are free, spiritual, and not mechanical, you should investigate the new moralities in new science, which I call ‘theological science.’

    Quantum_Flux: I believe you've just made a false dicotomy there.

    (1) I believe that love, hate, crime, and all human behaviors are come from evolutionary means. At their very core, they are the result of years of mechanical turing machines working under the mathematical framework of science.

    (2) I believe that complexity dictates freedom. An advanced society must have a way of life that comes from basic survival mechanisms such as culturally defined morality and equal rights.

    (3) How, praytell, do you suppose a highly evolved ant colony could avoid socioeconomic status though!? Didn't they evolve a social structure with worker ants being on the bottom and queen ants being on the top? If you took the royalty out of an ant colony, the whole kingdom would crumble and there would be anarchy much like what happened to the Egyptians in BCE times.

     
  • At 9:56 AM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    response to quantum_flux,

    I conclude that that our use of symbols imprecisely is causing flaws in our communications.

    Our basic difference is my belief in a spiri-caused universe and your belief in physical matter caused universe.

    I have not drifted from spiritualism into atheism. But, you seem to be drifting from physicalism into a godless form of spiritualiem.

    If the universe is purely physical, then I say that the concepts of love, hate, and crime are physical processes.

    When I use spiritual atoms, I say that these atoms form a finite infinity of things-in-themselves. But, if this oxymoro is changed to a new single symbol, we will confuse our communications for awhile.

    The sciences must become more patience to new theories. Science must also become more interested in perfecting our symbolic languages and their flaws.

    George

     
  • At 8:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    cheap zolpidem order ambien no prescription - description of ambien pill

     

Post a Comment

<< Home