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

Friday, March 13, 2009

Remaking America by George Shollenberger, Idea XXXIV (The science of Gottfried Leibniz, Part XIII)

On page 116 of ‘Leibniz: Philosophical Writings’ by G. H. R. Parkinson, Leibniz says that matter alone is passive and that a mechanical universe would merely be a collection or accumulation of ‘parts’ ad infinitum. Such parts, he says, can be real only if they are made of true unities that come from elsewhere. (The word elsewhere means God.)

Since the true unities he sought are different from geometrical points, he sought animated points that consist of a force such as a feeling or appetite. But, like our soul that cannot explain the economy of our bodies, the animated points cannot explain the whole universe. Thus, these animated points are not like passive physical atoms that today’s physicists are seeking to explain the whole universe.

In the ancient period, Aristotle called such animated points ‘entelechies.’ Leibniz decided to call them primitive forces because they are an original activity. Eventually, Leibniz calls them 'monads.' In my book, ‘The First Scientific Proof of God,’ I call them spiritual atoms.

Today, Leibniz’s monads challenge the evolutionary theory, which is taught in U.S. public schools. Like our minds, the primitive forces are indivisible, can begin and end only by God.

Of interest is the challenge of evolutionary theory by Michael Behe in his popular book, ‘Darwin’s Black Box.’ On page 39, Behe quotes Darwin as follows:

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modification, my theory would absolutely break down."

On the same page, Behe asks, "What type of biological system could not be formed by ‘numerous, successive, slight modification?" Behe’s answer is as follows:

"Well, for starters, a system that is irreducibly complex. By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."

I conclude that Behe’s irreducible complexes are God made-wholes that have an uncountable number of parts, as I discuss in my 11/18/08 blog. I also conclude that irreducible complexes are Leibniz’s primitive forces, which are equivalent to my spiritual atoms.

In this blog, it is now very clear that evolutionary theory is false. Further, the atheistic idea that apes slowly change to humans is shown to be not possible.

6 Comments:

  • At 10:08 PM, Blogger Jorgon Gorgon said…

    Rather hilarious, especially considering that all of Behe's examples of "irreducible complexity" have been shown to be quite reducible, after all. Thanks for a laugh.

     
  • At 11:01 AM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    response to Jorgon Gorgon,
    don't laugh before you answer ther question,
    "Are you implying that all cerlls, including stem cells, are refucible?'

     
  • At 5:48 PM, Blogger Quantum_Flux said…

    You are making a leap here between the biological definition of irreducible complexity and your own definition of what you call "spiritual atoms". You think that the smallest unit of matter is irreducibly complex and thereby that refutes Darwin. I find that to be an interesting assertion if taken on a continuum scale of what constitutes life and what does not constitute life. i.e. whether a virus or even an atom or molecule constitutes a living entity. As far as I know, the electron is irreducible because it has never been smashed, and thereby you use that to say that you have found something that is irreducibly complex.

    Now, in the context of biology I believe that it is entirely possible to construct a life form from physical atoms though, and since that is true then it is entirely possible for nature to have done this from simple organic molecules as well. The leap from apes to humans, I believe, is also within the realm of biological engineering. It is possible, I hypothesize, to start with an ape sperm and modify the chromosomes and gene transfers so that it will produce something that resembles the intelligence of a human being.

     
  • At 10:08 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    response to Q_F,

    Q_F: You are making a leap here between the biological definition of irreducible complexity and your own definition of what you call "spiritual atoms". You think that the smallest unit of matter is irreducibly complex and thereby that refutes Darwin. I find that to be an interesting assertion if taken on a continuum scale of what constitutes life and what does not constitute life. i.e. whether a virus or even an atom or molecule constitutes a living entity. As far as I know, the electron is irreducible because it has never been smashed, and thereby you use that to say that you have found something that is irreducibly complex.

    George: My spiritual atoms are identical to Leibniz/s monads and earlier Leibniz’s atoms of substances. All three uses are irreducible things of God and must deny the godless theory of evolution. I changed Leibniz’s monads to spiritual atoms in my book to make sure that people will not view them as physical things. Not all spiritual atoms are living things because the perception of active non living things is confused. The electron will not have parts if it is irreducible. Smashing the electron is possible if it has parts.

    Q_F: Now, in the context of biology I believe that it is entirely possible to construct a life form from physical atoms though, and since that is true then it is entirely possible for nature to have done this from simple organic molecules as well. The leap from apes to humans, I believe, is also within the realm of biological engineering. It is possible, I hypothesize, to start with an ape sperm and modify the chromosomes and gene transfers so that it will produce something that resembles the intelligence of a human being

    George: Leibniz’s New System is very different, so different that it defeated Newton’s Universe long before Einstein did. I suggest that you get Parkinson’s book. The ape and the human have different indivisible spiritual atoms. So, no one will ever be able to make an ape look similar to a human. Similarity research and development in the early decades of the 20th century failed.

     
  • At 7:07 PM, Blogger Quantum_Flux said…

    George: Leibniz’s New System is very different, so different that it defeated Newton’s Universe long before Einstein did. I suggest that you get Parkinson’s book. The ape and the human have different indivisible spiritual atoms. So, no one will ever be able to make an ape look similar to a human. Similarity research and development in the early decades of the 20th century failed.

    QF: Now you are just talking crazy talk.

     
  • At 9:44 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    response to Q_F,

    I am not talking crazy talk. The New System of Leibniz is different than the rejected Newtonian Universe, which atheists are trying to recover with spacetime.

    I will be back on tomorrow with more on Leibniz. You will see the difference clearer and cleasrer as I move forward.

     

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home