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

Saturday, May 31, 2008

A New Christian Trinity Leads to Many Proofs of God

The New Christian Trinity, which was developed by Nicholas of Cusa, is new because it is a scientific statement. This statement says that "God is one, equality, and union." I say that this statement originated the scientific revolution (or modern science). This statement indicates that Cusa is thus the first modern scientist. His development of this statement begins in Ch. 7 of his first book, "On Learned Ignorance." In Ch. 8, Cusa shows us that this statement is generated eternally.

With this scientific statement about God, I use logic to relate God, which is "one-equality-union," to the universe, which I identify as "many-different-relation." Then, when I examined the phenomena of God in the universe, as suggested by Paul at Rom. 1:20, I concluded that all things in the universe are finite. Base on this conclusion, I distinguish all finite things in the universe from God’s infinity and make the scientific statement "all finite things are originated by an infinite thing." With this statement, I began to write my book and titled it as "The First Scientific Proof of God." So, when other universal phenomena are found in the universe, the second, third, fourth, ... etc. proofs of God will be identified. Since ‘all’ of God’s phenomena will never be found, all proofs of God, and the absolute of of God will never be found. This is why it is clear that the universe has no end and also had no beginning. Thus, God’s creation will never be destroyed as many religions and scientists teach.

Since God does not destroy the universe and the universe cannot destroy itself, the infrastructure of life and life itself has a significantly different meaning than taught by many politicians, many physical and life scientists, many school teachers, many religious teachers, many economists, many parents, many medical doctors, etc. Brotherly love, resurrection/reincarnation, sharing natural resource, personal and social responsibilities, and many different developments are only a few ideas that must be considered and implemented worldwide. Obviously, the hopes and behavior of todays humans can be expected to change radically, but only if they act to refom their government.

Friday, May 30, 2008

A New Christian Trinity

Since I believe that some religious teachings are false and cause the evils and wars we experience, my book and this website have a single purpose --- to seek true religious teaching. In this blog, I seek new truths about the Christian Trinity.

The Christian Trinity is popularized as "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." In my book, I apply the scientific version of the Trinity as described by Nicholas of Cusa. Cusa describes the scientific version as "One, Equality, and Union." Our mind thus views God as a ‘thing’ that has three attributes. I use the scientific version so that I can connect God to the universe logically. This logical relation distinguishes an infinite God from the finite things to be created. Our mind thus views the universe as ‘things.’ Every thing in the universe thus has three basic concepts — "many, difference and related." So all things in the universe (1) are numbered, (2) are qualitatively different, and (3) are related to each other and thus form a single universe that has no end.

Since I show in my book that neither God nor the universe end, the religious teaching that God destroys the universe in order to create a Heaven only for believers is irrational witrh respect to an infinite God and is thus false.

A more consistent religious teaching could (1) relate God’s thingness to the thingness of every created thing logically. This relation exists if all created things are images of God. A second more consistent religious teaching could (2) relate the Son of God to the Son of Man logically. This relation exists if all humans are created equal. And a third more consistent religious teaching could (3) relate the Holy Spirit to the Holy Ghost logically. This relation exists if all humans are created with wisdom abilities. In my book, I show that all three ‘if’ statements are true.

These new teachings align to a universe that has no end and resurrects and reincarnates all created things. The continuous teaching of a god who destroys his own intelligent design and creation is not consistent with the wisdom abilities that God gave man.

Thursday, May 29, 2008

Reading My Reviews of Books Sold by

The blogs on this website are primarily for scientific and theological students. My blogging efforts discuss my book, "The First Scientific Proof of God." To write and teach my book, I had to purchase many research books. I review and submit my thoughts about these other books to the Internet book store "" So, reading my book reviews will expand a student’s understanding of my book. (Click to see my book reviews) However, a reader of my book review of atheistic books and my book, which rejects atheism, must recognize that atheists do not read my book or any book reviews. In the book store, atheists only 'vote' against a book or a book reviewre. This is why young atheists are voters rather than real thinkers.

Recently, I discovered that modern theology emerged in the 15th century through Bishop Nicholas of Cusa. In recent book reviews, I show that this modern theology caused the development of modern science. Thus, the many scientists of today who have rejected God have also rejected the own origin of their own thoughts. Obviously, today’s atheists are not very interested in the history of man.

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

A Challenge to Nancy Murphy’s Contributions to the 1998 Book, "What Happened to the Soul?"

The 1998 book has nine contributors. Four are from Fuller Theological Seminary at Pasadena, California. One purpose of Fuller’s Christian evangelical institution is to reform the anti-intellectual and anti social behaviors of the fundamental religions. One of Fuller’s contributors is Nancy Murphy. She rejects God’s intelligent design!!! But, she accepts evolution!!! However, Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, says that not all thinkers at Fuller reject intelligent design and accept evolution, (click)

Although Murphy is saving the soul, her rejection of intelligent design and the acceptance of evolution are inconsistent with her effort to save the soul. If, Murphy had studied the works of Nicholas of Cusa, in 1998 she would have not rejected God’s intelligent design and would not have accepted Darwin’s biological evolution. Further, if she read my 2006 book and its scientific proof of God, she would have learned that the 15th century work of Cusa has been expanded considerably and that Christians are not developing as Jesus Christ teaches. Apparently, today’s Christians are not being informed properly. Just as scientists have found modern science, there is also a modern theology. Don’t Christian theologians know this fact?

Murphy’s thoughts on the soul are great. But, her thoughts on philosophy and theology can be challenged.

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Some More on ‘Whatever Happened to the Soul?'

Yesterday, I listed one way that rejects the existence of the soul and three ways that accept the existence of the soul. Below, I repeat and distinguish them and discuss them in more detail below.

Soul Rejection

1. Eliminated/Reductive Materialism: A person that has no soul and it thus a purely physical thing that can be explained only by physical laws.
(This view of atheism rejects God, accepts the Big Bang theory, accepts Darwin’s biological evolutionary theory, and expects the universe to destroy itself.)

Soul Acceptances

1. Radical Dualism: A person is a free spiritual thing, which if united with a physical thing, adds spiritual aspects to this physical thing.
(This view of Western world religions is generated from scriptural words. God is expected to destroy the universe. Simultaneously, God is expected to create Heaven, a place in which rewarded humans will be resurrected to live with God forever.)

2. Holistic Dualism: A person is a whole that has a soul part and body parts. These different parts are naturally harmonious, are infinite in number, and allow for incarnation, resurrection and reincarnation
(This view, which is described in my book, was developed because science found that a creator God must be infinite. Thus, the kingdom made by an infinite God has unified finite things. All finite things are ‘finite infinities,’which are numbered transfinitely. God thus creates a universe that is one, always changing, and eternal. Nonliving things produce infrastructures for life. Nonliving things also embody the souls of all living things. Human souls are embodied specially so that human life becomes a life of self-knowledge. Souls are re-embodied as seeds at death for the resurrection and reincarnation processes.)

3. Nonreductive Physicialism: A person is a physical organism whose complex functioning, both in society and in relation to God, gives rise to ‘higher’ human capacities such as morality and spirituality.
(This view, which is found in the 1998 book discussed in yesterday’s blog, is close to my view.)

Since the USA was founded as a nation under God and the atheists have not disproved God and have not disproved my scientific proof of God for almost two years, it is time for the US government to fund firmly the development of the Holistic Dualism and Nonreductive Physicialism views of the universe above. It is time for the US government to stop the massive waste of taxpayer funds on atheistic projects.

Monday, May 26, 2008

More on ‘Whatever Happened to the Soul?’

In yesterday’s blog, I show that the ‘Decade of the Brain,’ designated by the US government in 1989, failed. This failure shows that all scientific proofs of God must be considered.

Accordingly, the 1998 book mentioned in yesterday’s blog and my book should be considered by the US government as a point of departure for a new basic research project in the USA. This project would be a joint effort of the fields of theology and science. This effort will be successful and will unify many religions worldwide and the fields of theology and science.

Guided by Chapter 1 of the 1998 book, I identify ways that humans are currently defining the nature of a human 'thing.' Such a thing is also known as a ‘person.’ These different ways are as follows:

1. Eliminated/Reductive Materialism: A person that has no soul and it thus a purely physical thing that can be explained only by physical laws. (The way of atheism.)
2. Radical Dualism: A person is a free spiritual thing, which if united with a physical thing, adds spiritual aspects to this physical thing. (The way of many religions)
3. Holistic Dualism: A person is a whole that has a soul part and body parts. These different parts are naturally harmonious, are infinite in number, and allow for incarnation, resurrection and reincarnation (The way proposed in my book)
4. Nonreductive Physicialism: A person is a physical organism whose complex functioning, both in society and in relation to God, gives rise to ‘higher’ human capacities such as morality and spirituality. (The way proposed in the 1998 book)

It is clear to me that scientific and theological decisions and many other decisions of the US government have been very poor over the last forty years. The US government must change radically if the USA is to be saved from a civil war.

Sunday, May 25, 2008

Whatever Happened to the Soul?

People who believe in God and are interested in unifying modern theology and modern science should add the 1998 book "Whatever Happened to the Soul"(Fortress Press) to their library. (click) This book, which is edited by Warren S. Brown, Nancy Murphy, and H. Newton Malony, was supported by the John Templeton Foundation, an organization that recently published the newspaper, "Science & Theology News’ until 2006.

This book came out in the final years of the ‘Decade of the Brain,’ a special decade designated by the US Congress on March 8, 1989. Because of the discovery of the DNA structure, the hope of our atheistic US government was high. It expected the physical scientists to solve new crimes and solve many old brain problems such as Alzheimer’s disease. One of the discoverers, Francis Crick, said, " The idea that man has a disembodied soul is as unnecessary as the old idea that there was a Life Force." Today, DNA sent innocent people to jail and is not curing brain diseases.

This book provides considerable evidence that the mind and body do not form a thing that can be reduced to a physical thing. My book and my teaching on this website align to the thoughts of evidence of Brown et al. However, Brown et al do not seem to be aware of the emerging modern theology in the 15th century through Nicholas of Cusa. My writings recognize the 15th century emergence of modern theology. My writings also recognize the mind and body as two different things-in-themselves.

Friday, May 23, 2008

Modern Theology Is Not Understood by Religions

The modern theology of Nicholas of Cusa, which is described in his book "On Learned Ignorance," is not a simple book to read and understand by non theologians and non scientists. Accordingly, many religious leaders do not know that a wide ‘thinking gap’ exists between ancient thinking and modern thinking about God, God’s design of his creation, and the things he created.

Early man had only unaided senses to build knowledge. Later, man aided the senses with simple lines of reasoning, such as logic and counting. Today, the senses are aided by complex mathematics, new sciences and technologies, new telescopes, new microscopes, etc. Thus, a thinking gap exists between modern science and theology and the ancient scriptures taught by today’s religions and religious leaders.

For instance, God does not exist among the seemingly unmoving stars or even beyond a nonexistence celestial sphere. God exists in a world that our finite minds cannot comprehend. We don’t even know whether God has a language and whether God communicates. Further, modern theology no longer accepts scriptures produced by God through the Holy Spirit;.no longer believes that God gives land and natural resources to some nations; no longer rewards and punish people; and no longer blesses nations. Modern theology views self-knowledge as the greatest gift from God to man.

The thinking gap between modern theology and the teachings of today’s ancient scriptures is causing more and more difficulties in the current political contest for the US President.

Thursday, May 22, 2008

Sales of My Book

As I approach age 79, sales of my book are approaching the hundreds. This low level of sales was expected by me because the book is difficult, but also brings the reader a new way to view the world and the really intelligent design of God and a modern creation.

Since twenty-five years passed to collect the data needed for my book, I concluded that considerable time would be needed by readers to cope merely with a summary of this twenty-five years of research. To allow this twenty-five years to sink into your mind, I concluded that I had to create a teaching website. My blogging on this website is thus a teaching of my twenty-five years of research.

To protect the time for people to decide to open and read my book, I recently extended the availability of my book through my self-publishing firm ( for three more years. To protect readers beyond this time, I have recorded my blogs on WordPerfect and also asked my children and grandchildren to unite with Google to reprint my book and website blogs after I pass on. So, as time passes, please give me a chance to present my alternative to atheism, the ancient thoughts of man, and the modern thoughts of man.

American Idol: A TV Program That is Unable to Find the True Nature of Humans

My interest in educating aesthetically the ‘me generation’ of the USA lured me to the American Idol TV program three years ago. That year, Carrie Underwood, a general music singer, became the American Idol. Her unbelievable success has been wide and recently won a major country music award. Two years ago, Taylor Hicks, a country music singer, became the American Idol. But, he has achieved only subpar success. Last year, Jordin Sparks, a general music singer, became the American Idol and is developing success. This year David Cook, a rock music singer, became the American Idol over David Archuleta, a 17-year-old singer of ballads.

Since the lyrics of some country music and rock music tend to be immoral, can build negatives in the minds of people, can cause increased use of in alcohol and drugs, and can mislead people with respect to God and the development modern theologies and religions, I hope that American singers correct the current aesthetic educational problems generated by country and rock music. I also hope that the singing of David Archuleta is brought to the music market because he has a unique ability to communicate his strong feelings among people.

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

The US Economy: The Same Old Economy vs. A New Economy

The atheists are hanging onto their last thread of success. At first, atheists hung only onto the logic of Aristotle but had to disconnect this thread after Galileo weakened the Aristotelian-based Roman Church. Then, the atheists would hang onto empiricism, that is, until reason began to develop with the two-step scientific method of proof. Then, in the 18th century the atheists began to hang onto Darwin’s evolutionary theory. But, this thread is being cut by God’s intelligent design and scientific proofs of God. By 1967, the atheists made a last thread by winning the US Supreme Court ruling on praying while they simultaneously hang onto the godless field of physics.

If the Republicans return to the White House this Fall, the atheists will gain some breathing air because the US economy will not change. However, if the Democrats return to the White House, I believe that the US economy will change.

Economic change is possible because today’s economists know that capitalism has two ‘either/or’ divisions. One extreme division is ‘laissez-faire capitalism’ and is being applied, for instance, by England and the USA. The other extreme division is ‘social capitalism’ and is applied by nations such as Russia.

However, I believe that depleting resources and oil prices will begin to change the current either/or capitalism above to a functional form of capitalism. This means that free trade and economic speculators must be eliminated if the new economic ideas are to be aligned to God rather than atheism.

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

A Special Messages to All Americans

Today, the people of the USA learned that Senator Ted Kennedy was diagnosed as a cancer patient. The cancer is very active. This cancer is known as ‘glioblastoma.’ In early October 1998, my late wife, Evelyn, became such a cancer patient. She was told by a neurologist to ‘clear her matters.’ She lived until March 15, 1999.

Evelyn and I did not know what to do about her cancer. So, we made an inquiry at a radiation laboratory associated with a hospital. We were given hopes and started this therapy. At places we sought help, doctors usually told me us that the glioblastoma cannot be defeated. But, some doctors told us that the glioblastoma was defeated, but only in foreign nations where new cancer therapies are authorized.

While Evelyn was taking radiation therapy, the Burzynski Clinic in Houston, TX was brought to our attention. But, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) told us that we cannot apply other possible therapies to defeat Evelyn’s cancer for two months so that scientists can determine the effects of the radiation therapy on her.

A cancer patient cannot wait for scientific analyses. When we went to the Burzynski Clinic, we were told that her life expediency was only two weeks and could not participate in the FDA trial at the Clinic. In other words, the scientific analysis of radiation had supreme power over Evelyn’s choice to participate in an alternative cancer therapy. Obviously, the US government does not understand its true human function.

After her death, I debated with the FDA with little success. Later, Congress made a law that allows cancer patients to use promising therapies that were not FDA-approved. Perhaps, my long debates with the FDA had some legal effects.

In his remaining life, I hope that Ted uses some of his remaining God-living life to persuade the leaders of the US government and sciences that ‘they are wrong.

Comparing Galileo’s Continuum With the Continuums for Mechanics and Spacetime

Galileo’s continuum for one, two, or three dimensional objects has an infinite number of indivisible parts, which are not countable. However, in the continuums for mechanics and spacetime, as described below, have a finite number of divisible parts, which are countable. Who is defining the continuum correctly, Galileo or the physical scientists?

The Continuum for Mechanics: Described in Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia (click)
Materials, such as solids, liquids and gases, are composed by molecules separated by empty space. Additionally, in a macroscopic scale, materials have cracks and discontinuities. However, certain physical phenomena can be modeled assuming materials as a continuum, i.e. the matter in the body is uniformly and continuously distributed filling all the region of space it occupies. A continuum is a body that can be continually sub-divided into infinitesimal small elements with properties being those of the bulk material.

The concept of continuum is a macroscopic physical model, and its validity depends on the type of problem and the scale of the physical phenomena under consideration. A material may be assumed as a continuum when the distance between the real physical particles is very small compared to the dimension of the problem. Such is the case when analyzing the deformation behavior of soil deposits, i.e. settlement under a foundation, in soil mechanics. A given volume of soil is generally formed by discrete solid particles (grains) of minerals which are packed in a certain manner leaving voids between them, i.e. granular media. In this sense, soils defeat the definition of a continuum. However, in order to simplify the deformation analysis of the soil, the volume of soil can be assumed as a continuum knowing that the dimensions of particular grain particles are very small compared with the scale of the problem, i.e. the size of the foundation and the volume of the soil mass that is influenced by the foundation load (meters) is greater than the particular soil particles (millimeters).

The validity of the continuum assumption needs to be verified with experimental testing and measurements on the real material under consideration and under similar loading conditions

The Continuum for Spacetime: Described in Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia (click)
In physics, spacetime is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single construct called the spacetime continuum. Spacetime is usually interpreted with space being three-dimensional and time playing the role of the fourth dimension. According to Euclidean space perception, the universe has three dimensions of space, and one dimension of time. By combining space and time into a single manifold, physicists have significantly simplified a large amount of physical theories, as well as described in a more uniform way the workings of the universe at both the supergalactic and subatomic levels.

In classical mechanics, the use of Euclidean space instead of spacetime is appropriate, as time is treated as universal and constant, being independent of the state of motion of an observer. In relativistic contexts, however, time cannot be separated from the three dimensions of space because the rate at which time passes depends on an object's velocity relative to the speed of light, and also the strength of intense gravitational fields which can slow the passage of time, and as such is dependant on the state of motion of the observer and is therefore not universal.

Monday, May 19, 2008

Galileo’s Continuum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, one finds many different kinds of continuums and continua. (click) There, the "continuum theory" is anything that goes through a gradual transition from one condition, to a different condition, without any abrupt changes or discontinuities. I believe that this theory must change as I show below.

Galileo’s continuum in geometry, surfaces, and solids is also found in Chapter 6 of Raymond J. Seeger’s book on "Galileo Galilei, His Life and His Works," which I mention in my last blog. When extending a geometrical line, Galileo concludes that a geometrical line cannot be divided into finite parts that are countable. Instead, he says that a line can be cut into parts only with an infinite number of indivisible parts. In geometrical lines, he refers to indivisibles are ‘empty spaces.’ When dealing with solids, Galileo also uses indivisibles. In solids, he calls them ‘atoms.’ I believe that the concept of indivisible and Galileo’s use of indivisibles originate in the modern theology of Nicholas of Cusa as ‘spirits’ or ‘souls.’

In the modern theology of Nicholas of Cusa, all created things are constructed from God’s ‘essential stuff’ or Essence. So, the essential stuff of every created thing in the universe comes from God by participating in the Essence of God. An example of God’s Essence in geometry is God’s infinite geometrical line. Every natural geometrical line found in the universe is thus finite and originates in God’s infinite line. Since no two created things exist in the universe, each finite line in the universe participates unequally in God’s infinite line. Here, one sees one aspect of the intelligent design of God.

Thus, Galileo was correct to say that all parts in all lines are indivisible and infinite in number. The same is true for all solids. This is why I say in my book that the atoms of the universe must exist and that they must be spiritual atoms rather than physical atoms. Obviously, physical scientists are wrong to view wholes as 'a sum of its parts.' The parts of created things in the universe are not countable. Only the parts of things made by man can be counted.

It is becoming very clear to me that modern theology revealed a new science beyond the science developed by the ancients and some of the scriptures. But, the new science is not at all like the sciences used by many of today’s modern scientists.

Saturday, May 17, 2008

Galileo, the Founder of Modern Physics, Is Not the Founder of Modern Science (the Scientific Revolution)

In my book, I give Nicholas of Cusa credit for finding a negative theology that will eventually transform all ancient theologies into a single modern field of theology. In my book, I also say that Nicholas of Cusa became the first modern scientist. I say this because the modern theology of Nicholas causes the emergence of modern science. Thus, I conclude that Nicholas is the first modern theologian and first modern scientist. With his double interest, Nicholas was able to unify the fields of theology and science.

I hope that a US historian finds an interest in confirming (or denying) my sayings above because the fields of theology and science are currently separated in the USA. If my sayings are confirmed, the future of the USA will be great. But, I see lots of problems if my sayings are rejected without historical research.

The events of the history of interest will be found in the 15th and 17th centuries. The great 15th century work of Cusa was not propagated because his work is modern compared to the ancient teachings and Inquisition of the Roman Church. To maintain its power many new thoughts were treated by the Church as heresies. Galileo became a victim of the Inquisition by agreeing with Copernicus that the earth in not the center of the universe.

Today, Galileo is seen as the founder of modern physics. Since the physical sciences have gained control of the life sciences, most US scientists view Galileo as the founder of modern science. I disagree with this new view of Galileo because I conclude that Galileo was a student of the writings of Nicholas of Cusa. Nicholas was educated at the University of Padua University. This university became very popular university in Europe during the 15th and 16th centuries. During his time, Galileo also became a professor at Padua. Although Padua Universe is common to Galileo and Nicholas, Galileo might have also studied the works of Nicholas.

For instance, in 1966, Raymond J. Seeger published the book, "Galileo Galilei, His Life and His Works." Chapter 6 discusses the subject "Continua _ Mathematical and Physical.’‘There, Galileo seems to be teaching the difficult writings of Nicholas on divisibles and indivisibles found in Bk. I, Ch. 16, 17, and 18 of Nicholas’ "On Learned Ignorance."(click) Only believers in God, such as Nicholas, Galileo, and I, would be interested in an incomprehensible infinite thing (God), incomprehensible indivisible things , and comprehensible divisible things.

Thursday, May 15, 2008

Information for Western World Religions, Other Religions, and All Sciences

In the Western world, in 1401, Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464) his first book (On Learned Ignorance) for the Roman Church. In Book II, Ch. 11 Cusa opened a new theology when he said that the earth is not the center of the universe and the sphere of fixed stars do not form the circumference of the universe. With these new words, Cusa started the field of modern theologies.

The famous astronomer, Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), became aware of Cusa’s works and was also interested in Cusa’s use of curved and straight lines to distinguish God and man. Kepler mentions this interest in Chapter II of his book, "Mysterium Cosmographicum" (The Secret of the Universe). Thus, neither Copernicus (1473-1543) nor Galileo (1564-1642) opened the field of modern science, as today’s scientists say. I say that the ‘me generation’ in the USA is separating the modern sciences from the modern theologies. Yet, Cusa, Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo and many other modern scientists and modern theologians have never separated their scientific work and their faiths.

The cause of the separation between modern theology and modern science will be found in those religions that cast scriptures into concrete and in those sciences that reject God. However, since modern theologies are telling us that God and the universe have no end, all sciences and all theologies can be improved forever. However, this separation has a deeper and common cause. This deeper cause is (1) the scientific belief that man is just another animal and (2) the religious belief that man is just another animal who is not divine or is not a ‘little creator’ of God. Yet, Jesus Christ teaches the scriptural improvements made already by Jews and the new improvements that will be made in the future by Christians. Further, Mohammed was rightly a follower of these teachings of Jesus.

All theological and scientific productions by man are significant thoughts of man. These thoughts should never be lost. Recording man’s thoughts are material for scriptures and libraries. Burning books are thus as evil as burning people at the stake or burning people with an electric chair. Every human can and must produce new knowledge. And every person must listen to what others are saying or writing. Thus, brotherly love, not riches, is the true nature of divine man.

It seems to be the right time to change the National Academy of Science in Washington to the National Academy of Theology and Science.

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

The Final Blog on the Horrible Dogmatic Partnership of the Physical Sciences, Life Scientists, and Medical Doctors

The 2007 book by Victor J. Stenger, "God: The Failed Hypothesis," was issued in paperback by Prometheus Books in April 2008. The paperback includes words from the atheist, Christopher Hitchens, who is a British-American author, journalist, literary critic, and a columnist at Vanity Fair, The Atlantic, World Affairs, The Nation, Slate, and Free Inquiry.

In this final blog on Stenger’s book, I show that Stenger recognizes the emergence of modern science but does not recognize the emergence of a modern theology, which opens the possibility of creating modern religions. Thus, Stenger speaks only about a positive theology and experiences. But, he knows nothing about the negative theology and reasoning. The negative and new ways of reasoning were found by Nicholas of Cusa in the 15th century. In my book, "The First Scientific Proof of God," I expand on the modern theology developed by Cusa.

In my expansion of a modern theology, the true infinity of God is applied. Thus, no telephones will be found that allow communications between an infinite God and any finite man. But, I show that an infinite God and finite man can exchange information. Stenger is thus highly confused with respect to God/man relations.

In Part IIc of my book, I say that information from God to man occurs when God creates things and when man seeks knowledge of these things. Paul demands this human activity at Rom. 1:20. A modern believer in God is thus a person who develops self-knowledge. But, only man can develop self-knowledge.

New knowledge of man was initially expressed in scriptures as prophesies. But, modern scientists and theologians use the symbol ‘prediction’ instead of ‘prophesy.’ Since man is not perfect, some prophesies (or predictions) can be better than others. Some prophesies are false. No scripture can thus be cast in concrete. This is why people must guard against false statements and false gods.

Jesus Christ tries to teach some of the best predictions found in the Old Testament. He also makes predictions in the New Testament. For instance, in Matthew, Ch. 24, Jesus predicts the darkening of the sun. This prediction was not confirmed until modern science emerged. In Mark 8:15-23, Jesus also predicts crime and its rise. He says that the mind, which is the thing ‘within’ us, causes crime. Obviously, criminologists are not guided by this prediction. And Jesus predicts ‘holism’ in John 14:20. Holism is being confirmed today by alternative medicine. Today, many scientists still view created things as ‘mechanisms.’ Stenger is confused here again by thinking that God changes the laws of his intelligent design. If such an intervention was possible, God did not create the best universe. Any intervention in the universe can occur only through the self-knowledge of man. As Jesus says, man will do greater work than he does. (See John 14:12).

The book by Stenger is thus just another book that has the purpose of transforming the USA from a nation under God, as authorized by the Declaration of Independence, to a godless nation.

Monday, May 12, 2008

The Sixth Blog on the Horrible Dogmatic Partnership of the Physical Sciences, Life Scientists, and Medical Doctors

After reading five chapters of "God: The Failed Hypothesis" by Victor J. Stenger, I conclude that Stenger did not read my book and thus knows little about modern proofs of God. He is also unaware of the modern ideas that have emerged after alternatives to the ancient views of a monotheistic God were found by new theologians such as me. So, Stenger’s first five chapters only show that some past hypotheses of God are weak. Weak ancient hypotheses, in scriptures and man’s conclusions about God, are normal in a created and endless universe that is a ‘best, rather than perfect, world of all worlds.’

Many nations agreed on physical measures such as meter for length, new ton for force, kilogram for mass, joule for energy, coulumb for charge, ampere for current, ohm for electrical resistence, etc. These measures were carefully defined in terms of either some natural phenomena (e.g., the period of the rotation of the earth about the sun), some standard object (e.g., the length of a specific rod in Paris), or some other unit (kilogram per second squared).

Out of these standards came the following measures:

1. Six primary measures (charge, temperature, mass, length, time duration, and angle).
2. Secondary measures (e; g., laws of nature, such as density equals mass divided by volume)
3. Constants.

To say that the laws of physics come from data, as Stenger says, is not well thought out because all phenomena that physicists observe must be in some thing-in-itself. Stenger must identify the things in which phenomena exist. He must also show us the origin of each thing in the universe.

A physicist cannot publish information only about an ever changing universe. There are constants in things that change and constants in things that do not change.

History tells us that creating a science out of purely empirical data has been accepted only by atheists.

Sunday, May 11, 2008

Errors in the Text of My Book, The First Scientific Proof of God

My book is published and sold at low cost by authorhouse. (click)

When my book was published, either authorhouse's computer or an employee of authorhouse made two text errors. These errors are as follows:

1. On page 38, my words, "antinomies" and "Antinomy," were changed respectively to antibody and Antibody.
2. On pages 45, 46, and 50, my word "Krantz" was changed to Crayons.

If you find any other errors, I will post them here for others.

Saturday, May 10, 2008

A Fifth Continuation on the Horrible Dogmatic Partnership of the Physical Sciences, Life Scientists, and Medical Doctors

In my last blog, I say that God creates the universe by creating an ontological sequence of finite things–in-themselves. In my book, I say that these things are unfolded directly from God through an infinity of different spiritual atoms, which Gottfried Leibniz called monads. Although the sciences and religions do not recognize things-in-themselves, they are not new. To my knowledge, things-in-themselves were first developed first by Friedrich Hegel, who was a believer in God.

Through Hegel, Karl Marx and his followers began to speak of things-in-themselves. But, the only ‘absolute thing’ considered by the Marxists was a ‘revolution’ of the poor people against the rich people. But, I do not believe that the Communists developed any other finite things-in-themselves after the Soviet Union began to exist and develop politically. But, I heard that today’s Russian intellects are revisiting Hegel’s work.

In my book, I say that a universe must have some things that function as infrastructure for life and other things that function as a structure of life. Many of today’s physical scientists are atheists and do not see God because they do not see this duality of things. Instead, they see every thing as a purely physical thing and call all things mechanisms. Many life scientists and many medical doctors follow the typical dogma of Victor Stenger and other physical scientists.

If the people of Russian are already conducting research on things-in-themselves, I say that they could eventually make major scientific breakthroughs and become the world leader. Is this what the people of the USA want?

Friday, May 09, 2008

A Fourth Continuation on the Horrible Dogmatic Partnership of the Physical Sciences, Life Scientists, and Medical Doctors

I have concluded that Victor Stenger’s book on "God: The Failed Hypothesis" would be very helpful in discussions between believers and nonbelievers and among study groups in churches, synagogues, and mosques. Stenger’s book can also be compared with my book, "The First Scientific Proof of God, " and my responses to Stenger’s book on my blogs on this website. In this blog, I challenge Stenger’s belief in Ch. 4 that the universe is a closed system and comes to an end.

The origin of Stenger’s belief comes from the concept of ‘time’ and the opposites, beginning and ending. Most physical scientists today say the universe begins at the time, t = 0. They also say the universe end because its energy is limited. Because of this beginning and limit, they say that the entropy of the universe can become maximum and will die. Maybe Christian physicists confirm this end because Jesus Christ said that sun dies in Matthew, Ch. 24. However, these physical scientists do not study the concept known as thing-in-itself. Things-in-themselves have the property of independence and give them degrees of freedom.

I say that God does not exist in time. So, I say that God did not include a time-clock in the things-in-themselves. Time is thus created by man. Since a monotheistic God is an infinite thing-in-itself, I conclude that God creates an ontological sequence of finite ‘things–in-themselves.’ I thus say that all finite things-in-themselves are created all at once because God does not exist in time. I believe that the impulse function in mathematics applies only the acts of God.

Some religions also make this timing error when they read verse 8 in Ch. 1 of the Book of Revelations in the Bible and conclude that God’s creation has a beginning (Alpha) and an ending (Omega). Some religions also make this timing error when they read Moses’ creation and conclude that God needed six days to create the universe and that God stopped the creation on the seventh day. These days do not represent different times. These days represent different phases in the development of the universe.

God’s creation is a phased process that has no beginning or end. It is thus not a timed process that comes to an end. However, all finite things-in-themselves have a beginning, middle, and end because they strive continuously to become more and more like God. But, none these things can become perfected and become God Accordingly, the universe is always developing and is thus not a closed system.

Wednesday, May 07, 2008

A Third Continuation on the Horrible Dogmatic Partnership of the Physical Sciences, Life Scientists, and Medical Doctors

In yesterday’s blog, I discussed Victor Stenger’s book on "God: The Failed Hypothesis." Today, I discuss material on p. 59. There, Stenger says that a judge in Arkansas, William R. Overton, mirrored the ruling of Judge John E. Jones of Pennsylvania, and defined science using the five statements below.

(1) It is guided by natural law.
(2) It has to explain by reference to natural law.
(3) It is testable against the empirical world.
(4) Its conclusions are tentative, that is, are not necessarily the final word.
(5) It is falsifiable.

These judges defined science because they had to rule on the teaching of intelligent design in public schools. They ruled that intelligent design is an unconstitutional violation of church and state. Below, I show why these rulings were incorrect.

This judicial definition of science does not produce fair judgements. For instance, the origin of natural law is not defined. Every scientist knows that all natural laws might originate in God or originate in an exploding physical particle (Big Bang theory). Which origin is true? Unless the origin of natural laws are finalized, all court judgements are arbitrary.

In my book, I prove scientifically that God exists. Obviously, it is falsified automatically by the Big Bang theory. Further, since God’s acts are mirrored in intelligent design, the intelligent design produces phenomena in every thing in the universe. All of these phenomena are testable (both empirically and rationally) so that all phenomena are explained. Phenomena from God’s intelligent design do not produce the final word because neither God nor the intelligent design have any finality.

So, the definition of science used by these judges above is incomplete and can only produce turmoil among all US citizens. Certainly, their rulings on ‘intelligent design’ are wrong.

Tuesday, May 06, 2008

More on the Horrible Dogmatic Partnership of the Physical Sciences, Life Scientists, and Medical Doctors

If you buy a book written by a physical scientist who is a member of this partnership, you will learn how horrible and dogmatic this partnership is. I came aware of this dogma when I read the book "God: The Failed Hypothesis" by Victor J. Stenger. As a professor at the University of Hawaii, he informs the reader how science shows that God does not exist. Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion supports this book. Sam Harris, the author of The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation and Mark Perakh, the author of Unintelligent Design; also support this book.

Frequently found in books published by members of this partnership are the terms (1) mechanism, (2) empirical science, and (3) statistical analysis. Such terms are used often by this partnership to show that God does not exist. But, a mechanism is only a theory, just as a thing-in-itself is only a theory. On the other hand; empirical science is not a science at all. However; statistical analysis might be useful because it lead one to path of truths. But, a statistical analysis is not a truth. So, Stenger is not always teaching truths.

Stenger tells us that Plato should not have accepted souls. He also ridicules Leibniz conclusion that God created a ‘best of all worlds.’But, Stenger says nothing about other ‘big thinkers.’ Nor does he discuss Plato’s negative and Plato’s Parmenides, which proves that God exist if God is monotheistic. Stenger knows nothing about the maximum knowledge found by Nicholas of Cusa, the true atom found by Leibniz, the transfinite numbers found by Cantor, and the things-in-themselves are found by Hegel. Things-in-themselves destroy the concept of a mechanism.

Interest is the first step to develop new knowledge. With interest, phenomena will soon appear. If a person finds hot phenomenon, that person can use Plato’s negative to assert that ‘in a hot thing, what is not-hot is the hot thing.’ With this assertion, the person is finding new knowledge because a new thing-in-itself has been identified.

Perhaps, each member of this dogmatic partnership should seek a divorce. Further, it seems clear that our colleges and universities must change their attitude about God.

Monday, May 05, 2008

The Horrible Dogmatic Partnership of the Physical Sciences, Life Scientists, and Medical Doctors

I began my career as physical scientist and worked in the field of electrical engineering from 1953 to 1970. Then, I decided to join the US Department of Justice in 1971 to conduct research on the US crime problem as a member of the National Institute of Justice. In this change, I had to open my mind to new thoughts that are held by life scientists. These new thoughts showed me that the methods of physical sciences and life sciences are very different. For instance, a physical scientist can predict future physical events precisely. Thus, a physical scientist can predict the death of a sun precisely. But, a life scientist cannot predict events of life precisely. However, a life scientist can make only probability statements about future events of life or the future death of a living thing. These differences led me to say in my book that pure physical things are nonliving things and form an infrastructure for all living things.

In the 1970s, physical scientists and life sciences became daily partners. This partnership developed when President Nixon reduced the size of the US space program. With this drastic change, unemployment grew, led to many suicides of scientists, engineers, and technologists, and destroyed many families. This unemployment did not affect electrical engineers because they were already transferring the high technologies of the space program to other fields of thought. One of these fields was the field of medicine.

In the field of medicine, by 1990 the minds of physical scientists, life scientists, and medical doctors were being filled with many common symbols. When symbols become institutionalized, a new dogma appears. Such a dogma can and did close the minds of our physical scientists, life scientists, and medical doctors.

One common symbol in this partnership is the word ‘mechanism.’ A mechanism is part of the extensive dogma of these partners. To them, a mechanism is ‘a whole, which is equal to the sum of its parts.’ Based on this partnership, only mechanisms exist in the world. So, they reject God, intelligent design, soul (spirit), holism, and alternative medicine. They also reject a whole that is more than the sum of its parts. Such a whole is structure of things-in-themselves. Since physical scientists reject God, they have accepted Darwin’s evolutionary theory.

This partnership is being held together by a weak glue known as ‘empirical science.’ But, the members of this partnership seem to be unaware of a 1920 discovery that was found by many linguists independently. This discovery found that sense data are primarily symbolic. This discovery means that sensual data must be rationalized to define the meanings of symbols. Alone, an empirical science can tell us only half of the truth.

Beginning in the 1970s, this partnership became a new scientific toy. Today, it is time for the members of this partnership to open their minds and view all things in the universe as holistic wholes.

Sunday, May 04, 2008

More on a Biologist’s Path to God

Before I read any book, I scan the Index. Since Time Magazine says that Harvard’s Steven Pinker is one of the "Hundreds Most Important People in the World Today," I scanned the Index of his 1994 book, "The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language."

In this scan, I found that Pinker does not cite history’s big thinkers, whose writings on the nature of languages are still available today. Nor does he cite Plato and Aristotle, the first big thinkers who formalized knowledge. Also, he does not cite the works of Suzanne Langer and those many 1920 linguists who found that ‘sensual data are primarily symbolic.’ Obviously, Pinker’s mind is not a thinking mind But, this implies that all evolutionists learn that the world began only when the evolutionist is born. They must also learn that the history of man is insignificant.

However, if a biologist believes in God, this biologist will eventually conclude that mind is a created thing-in-itself and that our languages create our minds. History is thus very important. To a God-loving biologist, Pinker is wrong to say that mind creates language. Pinker et al say that Nature has the power to create a mind that will produce all languages that solve mathematical problems, scientific problems, cancer problems, etc., But, if Nature has this kind of power, one should ask the question, "Why did Nature also create opposing concepts such as God?

Had Pinker studied the history of the big thinkers and the 1920 linguists, he would have found that we think and do think dialectically. He would have also learned that criminals are not born, that languages can create criminals, and that languages can be improved but not be perfected.
God-seeking biologists must reject Pinker’s work and the work of other evolutionary psychologists. Such works are diseasing our colleges, universities, and judges with Darwin’s evolutionary theory. How is this disease developing in a nation under God?

Saturday, May 03, 2008

A Biologist’s Path to God

The only path of thought for modern biologists today is through the evolutionary theory proposed by Charles Darwin’s book on the origin of the species. This theory relies on sensual facts about living things. But, unlike the development of physical laws by physical scientists, Darwin’s evolutionary theory lacks the scientific/mathematical laws and constants that physical scientists are developing.

However, an alternative exists for biologists. This alternative is based on the existence of God and can be considered by those biologists who accept God. This alternative was developed by Nicholas of Cusa in Book III, Ch 1 of his book, "On Learned Ignorance." (click) Cusa’s alternative develops a theory on God’s intelligent design. This design identifies the genera and species of all living things. The design does not form any identical living things. Also, all living things are things-in-themselves or singularities. Mathematically, these singularities are numbered. Jesus Christ teaches the importance of numbering the things that God created at Matt. 10:30. He says, ‘But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.’

An example of different things might help one understand the alternative of Cusa. For instance, if a square is inscribed in a circle, a larger square can be circumscribed outside of the same circle. Now observe how two different things (a circle and a square) can coexist and how their singularity was created by God and is maintained by God’s intelligent design. Further, circles and squares can never become maximum or minimum because God is simultaneously maximum and minimum. Genera, species, and numbers of all living things are thus unlimited and can only approach an infinite God. A nonliving or living thing cannot become God. This is why, the north/south dipoles of a magnet cannot be reduced to monopoles without destroying the thing called a magnet.

Today’s atheistic biologists will continue to create new facts about living things using symbols. But, the meaning of all symbols will remain imprecise until true scientific laws give symbols their true meanings. Perhaps, it is time to remove Darwin's evolutionary theory from our schools.

Friday, May 02, 2008

The Phenomena of God

When five atheists purchased my book and did not read it before they made their dishonest book review, they failed to learn that phenomena of God exist in the universe. Thus, like the behavior of many scientists, they cannot understand how phenomena of God can exist in the universe. In this blog, I l show that phenomena of God exist in the universe and can be sensed.
On p. 6 of my book, I prove that God that exists by showing that God, who is an infinite thing, is the origin of all finite things in the universe. In this proof, sensual data are all finite things. And God is the cause of the sensual data.

Since God is the cause of all finite things, phenomena of God must exist in the universe. To find God’s phenomena, I begin by saying that physical communications between an infinite God and any finite thing are impossible. However, because an infinite God and His creation have no end, I concluded immediately that God must inform man continually with respect to His work. Accordingly, I came to the conclusion that God and man ‘must’ exchange information continually. First, I concluded the man gives God information when man thinks. And I concluded that God gives information to man two different ways. Both ways reveal phenomena of God. So, contrary to the belief of many scientists and atheists, phenomena from God can be sensed.

I discuss the first way in Part IIc. I conclude that God, not Nature, gave man sensual and rational abilities. With these God-given abilities, all humans have scientific abilities. Thus, all humans can sense and rationalize the things that God creates out of nothing. Since all created things are phenomena of God’s work, God is informing man continually through all of the things He created. In the Bible at Rom. 1:20, Paul tells us that a human cannot be excused for avoiding this information from God.

I discuss the second way in Part IIb. The information from God this way is ‘high science’ and is not fully understood today. Only Christians have sensed this ‘high science.’ First, one must understand the scientific version of the Christian Trinity. The human mind must thus transform the early Christian Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) into the scientific version (One, Equality, and Union). With the scientific version, God forms a dual person. As a dual person, God is able create while simultaneously appearing in the universe as a creature. So, God is both a creator and a creature. This both/and logic is common logic is a world created by an eternal God. As a creature, Christians refer to this person as the Son of God. In Ch. 3, I discuss Jesus Christ as the Son of God. There, I conclude that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. I also show how man can detect the presence of the Son of God and how to defend against the appearance of false Sons of God.

So, except for the phenomena of man and other animals, God’s phenomena will be found throughout the universe. A atheists and those believers who reject science must begin to recognize God’s phenomena in the universe.

Thursday, May 01, 2008

The Misuse of Non Sequiturs

My current research on the Standard Social Science Model (SSSM) has revealed the origin of the logically opposed concepts, ‘sequitur’ and ‘non sequitur.’ Prior to this social science research, I wasn’t sure of the origin of these two concepts because I never even heard of them before US logicians were challenging my scientific proof of God. In my hard science career, I used either/or logic, for instance, to sample many instruments on rockets and spacecrafts. In my soft science career on the US crime problem, I used both/and logic. When opposed social concepts coexist, the both/and logic applies. Examples of coexisting opposites are as follows: permanence/change, one/many. absolute/relative, identical/difference, and finite/infinite.

In my discussions with US logicians, they seemed to be unfamiliar with both/and logic and were interested mostly in the identification of non sequiturs, especially in my blogs that distinguish talk languages and scientific languages. Logicians do not seem to recognize the reason why I distinguish talk and scientific languages. After I completed my research on the SSSM, I concluded that logicians assume that Nature creates talk languages and the scientific languages. The truth is that humans create both languages. To me, US logicians reject human creativity and God because they view the universe as a mechanism.

Clearly, five atheists offered book reviews on my book at only to promote atheism and the use of non sequiturs. They did not even read my book. This kind of book review activity is dishonest. More importantly, this kind activity is against the US founding documents, which say that the USA is a nation under God. How can the US government authorize and fund scientific projects that reject God?