Remaking America by George Shollenberger, Idea XX (Remaking America is possible with long term goals, which are consistent with God)
Although God, and the world in which he exists, are incomprehensible, the act of God, to create us and the world in which we exist, can reveal the thoughts of God by developing knowledge about the things he created. This idea is no different from the way a human being reveals thoughts to us when they act. This idea was also taught by St. Paul in the Bible at Rom. 1:20. Thus, Democrats and Republicans reveal their thoughts when they speak about, or vote on, a new possible law.I notice that the members of the three branches of the U.S. government never speak of a new possible moral law and its consistency with God’s thoughts. And I notice that our scientists also never speak of a new ‘law of nature’ and its consistency with God’s thoughts. I notice the same kind of behavior on TV and in books, newspapers, and Email. When I noticed these ugly behaviors of these citizens, I concluded that the ‘Laws of Nature and Nature’s God ‘ in the Declaration of Independence are never read or used by our national Government, many scientists, and many other people.
So, when I hear a failure of an economy, a science, a marriage, a family, a business, a religion, etc., I know immediately what produced this failure, the absence of God in the thoughts of the involved people.
With my excellent view of God ever since 2006, I conclude that the Democratic and Republican parties will fail because they say that political rights and wrongs exist. Such rights are arbitrary because they originate in humans rather than the ‘Laws of Nature’s God,’ which the founders mandated in the Declaration of Independence.
These two political parties can be expected to fail because the U.S. government is not securing the people. The rights that U/S. Citizens gave to the national government is a failure. Further, I believe that the Republican party will fail first because its increasing monetary greed reduces the security of most U.S. citizens.
posted by George Shollenberger @ 2:54 PM
7 Comments:
At 1:48 AM,
Quantum_Flux said…
(1) What makes you conclude that the human mind is not mechanistic and do you also conclude, by that same logic, that chimps and apes and dolphins are not mechanistic?
(2) Perhaps you missinterpret natural selection as being a mechanistic phenominon, when in all actuality is exhibits a non-linear behaviorism which can be linearly localized but not globally approximated.
(3) What makes you think that human behavior can not be predicted by using a theoretical framework, in particular derived from study of other close species in the animal kingdom (apes and chimps)?
(4) Do you reject the proposition that there are intrinsic levels of morals and intelligence in all species? Why, in your mind, do you view the human as being more moral than the loyal dog, or that a dog's behavior is any more mechanistic?
At 5:45 PM,
George Shollenberger said…
Response to Q-F,
Q_F(1) What makes you conclude that the human mind is not mechanistic and do you also conclude, by that same logic, that chimps and apes and dolphins are not mechanistic?
George: To me, two kinds of wholes exist. One is man-made and the other if God-made. The man-made whole has a countable number of parts. But the God-made whole has an uncountable (or infinite) number of parts. See my 11/18/08 blog. For example, these different view of a whole distinguish the ‘discrete’ contest of Zeno and the ‘continuum’ of geometry. So mechanics and geometry are always leading to fights.
The mind of man is a geometrical whole and the body of man is also geometrical whole. The same is true for chimps and apes and dolphins. Only the mind-body relations change from specie to specie.
Q_F( 2) Perhaps you misinterpret natural selection as being a mechanistic phenomenon, when in all actuality is exhibits a non-linear behaviorism which can be linearly localized but not globally approximated.
George: I believe in God and the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God, as mandated in the Declaration of Independence. I thus believe that God made Nature, which is the world in which we will always live. So, I believe that an intelligent design exists. To me, there is a natural order in Nature, not a selection. Nature is thus a whole that has an uncountable number of parts. I believe that linear and non linear are methods of thought and can be used to understand Nature better and better. But, we cannot know completely any whole that has an uncountable number of parts.
Q_F (3) What makes you think that human behavior can not be predicted by using a theoretical framework, in particular derived from study of other close species in the animal kingdom (apes and chimps)?
George: Because our minds develop symbolic languages. These symbols have imprecise meanings and become improved only as one ages. So predicting human behavior, one would have to have the changing meanings of all symbols used by all people, at all times. Predictions are not possible.
Also, because one must solve the discrete/continuum relation first. Ordering species into a continuum was thought by Nicholas of Cusa (On Learned Ignorance, Bk III, Ch.1).
Q_F(4) Do you reject the proposition that there are intrinsic levels of morals and intelligence in all species? Why, in your mind, do you view the human as being more moral than the loyal dog, or that a dog's behavior is any more mechanistic?
George: At this time I don’t reject that proposition. I only distinguish humans from the lower animals at this time because my lines of reasoning must explain the function of phenomena and must also be consistent with God.
At 7:06 PM,
Quantum_Flux said…
Well, they're interesting thoughts, I'll give you that:
(1,2) The mind and body being separate geometrical wholes, as opposed to being made up of a finite amount of discrete finites (say, made up of continuous subatomic resonances of infinite possible states as opposed to discrete particles of finite possible states). Now, I take it that you mean that the infinite possible states that make up the geometrical whole gives leeway to a belief in a god, well, perhaps except to say that a god would be much more complex entity to explain the existance of (not that I believe it couldn't be done scientifically, just that it perhaps hasn't been done so. I think that more people would be convinced of the existance of god if he took a much more detectable role though, say if people could metaphysically float by bending their minds over that of matter like Looney Tunes).
(3) Hmmmm, I think that socialism was concluded as the system that works by biologists doing extensive (perhaps or perhaps not intentionally biased) studies of chimp and ape hierarchies though. The biologists that did these studies explains why that is an equilibrium state for much of human societies on Earth which is something that I found strangely odd, but worth mentioning here since it might be of some interest to your thoughts on where the democrat/republican party in the USA and also where the Socialist parties in Europe and Asia are headed.
(4) Have you heard of Francis S. Collin's apologetic book "The Language of God" before? Now, personally, I don't necessarily see how a Christian god is consistant with evolution, but that seems to be the way that Christian apologetics are heading. I just assume be an atheist though because it makes no sense to uphold the beliefs of an ancient book when everything natural can so nicely be explained without invoking the existance of a more complex (yet unconcluded) entity such as mind over matter, reincarnation, nirvanna, heaven/hell, karma, or anything other that is "supernatural".
At 12:02 AM,
George Shollenberger said…
response to Q_F,
Q_F: Well, they're interesting thoughts, I'll give you that:
George: After more than 2 ½ years it has been impossible for me to reject God. Instead my faith continues only increases.
Q_F: (1,2) The mind and body being separate geometrical wholes, as opposed to being made up of a finite amount of discrete finites (say, made up of continuous subatomic resonances of infinite possible states as opposed to discrete particles of finite possible states)
George: Yes. Thus, a five inch line has an infinite number of points, a six inch line has an infinite number of points, etc., All things created are wholes or ‘finite infinities.’ The appearance of finite infinities raises our mind above logical reasoning and into dialectical thinking where opposites can coexist.
Q_F : Now, I take it that you mean that the infinite possible states that make up the geometrical whole gives leeway to a belief in a god, well, perhaps except to say that a god would be much more complex entity to explain the existence of (not that I believe it couldn't be done scientifically, just that it perhaps hasn't been done so. I think that more people would be convinced of the existence of god if he took a much more detectable role though, say if people could metaphysically float by bending their minds over that of matter like Looney Tunes).
George: Yes. The infinities increase our understanding of God’s act to create. We can’t use them to develop knowledge of God. But we can build knowledge of what God created. But we cannot complete this knowledge. Our knowledge thus has no end and your life continues forever after you pass on from this life, the next life, etc.. The world in which we live is the most beautiful and exciting world that I ever found. But this beauty is revealed to a person only if they can prove scientifically that God exist and cannot be known. The scientific method is important, not because it proves a physical or spiritual law. The scientific method is important because it leads one to God with ease. Non scientists must struggle to find God. I am trying to convince scientists to return to God because scientists can better the lives of non scientists. Non scientists want to follow scientists.
Q_F: (3) Hmmmm, I think that socialism was concluded as the system that works by biologists doing extensive (perhaps or perhaps not intentionally biased) studies of chimp and ape hierarchies though. The biologists that did these studies explains why that is an equilibrium state for much of human societies on Earth which is something that I found strangely odd, but worth mentioning here since it might be of some interest to your thoughts on where the democrat/republican party in the USA and also where the Socialist parties in Europe and Asia are headed.
George: I am pushing a new form of socialism. I call it ‘social democracy.’ This is not Marxism or socialism. It requires world peace and world treaties. No nation can own land or natural resources. Land is free, all resources are shared, and all ideas are shared. Once this international arrangement are made, goals must be established and achieved in all nations.
(4) Have you heard of Francis S. Collin's apologetic book "The Language of God" before? Now, personally, I don't necessarily see how a Christian god is consistent with evolution, but that seems to be the way that Christian apologetics are heading. I just assume be an atheist though because it makes no sense to uphold the beliefs of an ancient book when everything natural can so nicely be explained without invoking the existence of a more complex (yet unconcluded) entity such as mind over matter, reincarnation, nirvanna, heaven/hell, karma, or anything other that is "supernatural".
George: I only scanned Collin’s book because I reject his idea that DNA is God’s language. God’s design of our world is a contraction process, for example, from God’s‘ one and infinite essence. This contraction is a difficult subject and must use dialectical thinking, like I did to prove God, and Cantor’s transfinite numbers. I am too old for Cantor’s discovery. So I am teaching some contractions and dialectics hoping that younger scientists will become interested. I disagree with the Vatican on the consistence between God and evolution. I also do not know any scripture that was written by God. Religions are lost.
At 2:20 AM,
Quantum_Flux said…
So, am I to assume that you don't necessarily hold a dogmatic view of a particular estabolished religion, but rather a view that draws upon and finds a sort of divinity in the writings of the estabolished religions, especially within the scriptures?
At 10:37 AM,
George Shollenberger said…
response to Q_F'
Since God is incomprehensive, I say that our knowledge of God is found only in the things God created. So when scientists found physical laws, they found some of God's intelligent design.
I open my mind to scriptures only because they contain the words of our early scientists. I thus use scriptures, but only to link ancient science to modern science.
Among the ancient scientists, I conclude that the words of Abraham, Moses, Job, and Jesus Christ are powerful and that the words of Jesus Christ are the most powerful.
I have also connected the words of Jesus Christ to the earlier Greeks such as Plato, Aristotle, and Anaxagoras. I connect the words of Jesus Christ and and these Greeks to Nicholas of Cusa. in the 15th century And to Nicholas of Cusa, I connect Kepler, Galileo, Leibniz, Kant Hegel, Cantor, 19th century mathematicians, Einstein, and other modern scientists.
When I connect these lines of thought, God and our world become very clear. My book and website help other people to open their minds. This is why I do not belong to any religion.
At 5:18 PM,
Quantum_Flux said…
All very interesting then.
Post a Comment
<< Home