Help Remaking America by George Shollenberger, Idea 100 + XXII (Intelligent Design, Xc)
In this blog, I discuss the ‘atoms of substance’ of Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716). All scientists believe that atoms form visible ‘matter,’ which reveals all things found in the universe. To a believer, these atoms are thought to be the first things to appear in the universe as a result of God’s act to unfold his orderly Intelligent Design of the universe.
Because many physicists became atheists by the 1970s, Leibniz’s atoms of substance have left the scene of science in favor of physical atoms that John Locke identified. Initially, modern physicists assumed that Locke’s atoms were those found on the Periodic Chart that was hanging on the wall of every chemistry room. But scientists eventually found that the chemist’s atoms were divisible and could be smashed into many parts. Today, physical scientists are still seeking any kind of physical atom.
Leibniz’ atoms are true atoms, which are irreducible, immortal, and never change. His atoms are not passive as a physical atom would be. The true atom is active (or passive) and perceptive. It is thus in the true atom we find what is called the soul. A soul is thus found in every thing in the universe.
Since the true atom is active, Leibniz equates his atoms to the entelechies of the Greeks and calls his true atom a ‘monad.’ A monad is ‘one’ and has an infinite number of indivisible parts as Galileo would say. The monad is thus an image of God. They are images of God because God is a pure whole that has no parts. The monads are thus the souls that religions have not defined.
Because I view the universe as an organization of finite things, I call Leibniz’s true atoms as ‘spiritual atoms.’ I made this change so that I can refer to them, the finite things they form, and God as spiritual things. By viewing God and his creations as an organization of spiritual things, all of my saying about God, the universe, and life become very clear, distinct, and consistent.
It is with Leibniz’s atoms that I distinguish myself from all atheists and atheistic cosmological theories such as the Big Bang theory.
Because many physicists became atheists by the 1970s, Leibniz’s atoms of substance have left the scene of science in favor of physical atoms that John Locke identified. Initially, modern physicists assumed that Locke’s atoms were those found on the Periodic Chart that was hanging on the wall of every chemistry room. But scientists eventually found that the chemist’s atoms were divisible and could be smashed into many parts. Today, physical scientists are still seeking any kind of physical atom.
Leibniz’ atoms are true atoms, which are irreducible, immortal, and never change. His atoms are not passive as a physical atom would be. The true atom is active (or passive) and perceptive. It is thus in the true atom we find what is called the soul. A soul is thus found in every thing in the universe.
Since the true atom is active, Leibniz equates his atoms to the entelechies of the Greeks and calls his true atom a ‘monad.’ A monad is ‘one’ and has an infinite number of indivisible parts as Galileo would say. The monad is thus an image of God. They are images of God because God is a pure whole that has no parts. The monads are thus the souls that religions have not defined.
Because I view the universe as an organization of finite things, I call Leibniz’s true atoms as ‘spiritual atoms.’ I made this change so that I can refer to them, the finite things they form, and God as spiritual things. By viewing God and his creations as an organization of spiritual things, all of my saying about God, the universe, and life become very clear, distinct, and consistent.
It is with Leibniz’s atoms that I distinguish myself from all atheists and atheistic cosmological theories such as the Big Bang theory.
posted by George Shollenberger @ 3:55 PM
2 Comments:
At 7:55 AM,
Aaron Whinehouse, Boston MA said…
As a 93 years old who has more than 65 years of research under his belt in the social and physical sciences (PhD's in both, leading research teams of over 30 people for most of my career), I can tell you that your thinking is wrong. Before engaging in any scientific or philosophical adventure you should first try to become familar with some basic philosophical terms like 'non sequitur', which your blog clearly shows you don't yet understand. Best of luck!
At 9:53 AM,
George Shollenberger said…
Response to Aaron Whitehouse.
My dictionary says, 'a non sequitur is a statement that does not follows logically from anything prerviously or from a pre mise.'
Can you pleaser giive me an example of my wtrong thinking?
Hope life is good to you. I became 80 in June.
Post a Comment
<< Home