Theological Science and Mind
The number of such people add up to be about 10 % of all people in the world. So, 90% of the people in the world reject these beliefs. Yet, the 10% ers continue to practice their beliefs in many nations, often with considerable government funds. If one wants to know the cause of today’s world problems, the causes will be found among the promotion of the beliefs of these 10% ers.
The theory that the mind is a shadow of the brain has an opposing theory. The opposing theory says that mind is a thing-in-itself and is only one of many other things-in-themselves. As a thing-in-itself himself, God created all other things-in-themselves differently in the image of himself. God created the human mind as a very special thing-in-itself because our minds have the same potential to become conscious about all other created things-in-themselves in the universe. In the Bible at Rom. 1:20, St. Paul recognized the knowledge potentials of our mind. The different potentials of our minds were also taught by Jesus Christ, who taught self-knowledge to his audiences.
While Nicholas of Cusa, Kant, et al conclude that our minds cannot develop complete knowledge about God, they conclude that we can gain good understandings about God. Hegel went further and concluded that man can develop completed thoughts in our minds about some created things-in-themselves. Further, I conclude that Georg Cantor’s transfinite numbers, which are not being developed by our mathematicians, will recognize things-in-themselves that are currently being hidden by our finite number systems. In other words, alternatives to the thing- in-itself we call ‘oil’ might be found in other forms of energetic things-in-themselves.
For some reasons, the10% ers do not seem to understand the nature of things-in-themselves. Perhaps, our scientific courses in our colleges and universities are outdated and need to be updated.
8 Comments:
At 9:45 PM, Anonymous said…
Wait, are you suggesting that the 90% are right because they're the majority? Truth doesn't reside in numbers.
At 11:38 PM, Anonymous said…
Ad populum fallacy.
At 8:23 AM, George Shollenberger said…
response to aaron,
No, I am saying that 90@ of the people believe in God in the USA.
Right and wrong and truth and false do not have the same meaning.
George
At 8:33 AM, George Shollenberger said…
response to anonymous,
You are allowed to express your opinion and so am I.
My over 50 years of reserch shows that I do not lie. Buut, many researchers, especially those who do not identify themselves, are known to lie.
George
At 1:45 PM, Anonymous said…
"You are allowed to express your opinion and so am I."
Of course, and I wouldn't have it any other way. But that also means I can point out the fallacies. Your argument in this post is transparently full of fallacious reasoning. The following use the exact same argument: 90% of Somalis think female genital excision is a good tradition so therefore it is a good thing. 90% of the ancient Greeks believed that Zeus was real and that he lived atop Mt. Olympus, therefore Zeus-belief is correct. Atheists today don't believe in Zeus, but have they been to Greece and climbed Olympus? You also leave out the fact that the "10%'ers" as you call them, also occupy the that far right portion of the Bell curve in terms of IQ.
"My over 50 years of reserch shows that I do not lie.
So you've done 50 years of research in neuroscience? I think you're being a teensy bit dishonest in using the word "research" in this instance.
-Anon from before
At 2:27 PM, George Shollenberger said…
response to erlyA cuyle,
You are speaking of human behavior in the past. I am speaking about human behavior today.
My research is well recorded by many institutions such as Lockeed Martin et al, the US Department of Justice, and my book on "The First Scientific Proof of God."
For some reason, you are not up to date.
George
At 3:23 PM, Anonymous said…
George,
I’m sure that your research over the course of your career has been distinguished and brilliant – that is not what I am crying foul about. Unless you did neuroscience and philosophy of mind during your time at those institutions, your attempts at claiming an air of authority for your other views, such as those in this post by dropping words like “research,” are non-sequitur in nature. It would be like an agricultural scientist using his credentials in biology to try and give an air of authority to his views in political science. His views on politics may be valid, but his usage of credentials gained in another area, in an attempt to establish authority, would be less than honest.
At 8:19 PM, George Shollenberger said…
response to early cuyler,
I am sorry I misspelled you name in my last comment to you. I have macular degenerator and have it bad lately..
If you read my book, you will learn that my research on mind and the mind of criminals are significant subjects on crime causality in the 1980s.
I do not accept non-sequiturs because I am developing a new science. I conclude that non sequiturs are being used wrongly today in the life sciences by logicians and other atheists.
My research is challenging every field of science except the laws of physics and chemistry. My new science, theological science, is what I am teaching ever since early June on this website. All of these blogs are identified with the sun pic.
I can challenge all fields of thought, including those fields in which I have done no research, because my research is basic to all aciences.
George
Post a Comment
<< Home