Making My First Scientific Proof of God Clearer, I
I have come to the conclusion that my scientific proof of God is not clear. Part of this problem is my engineering style of writing and my distrust with the Aristotelian-based English language. And another problem is that a new science will develop from my book. Further, when I started work at the U.S. Department of Justice as an electrical engineer, the justice language was new to me and had to be learned. I also had to read the books of Nicholas of Cusa several times. So, understanding my proof might require a little patience.
In order to develop a scientific proof of God, I sought universal attributes of things in the universe as taught by Paul at Rom. 1:20. Then, by using negative thinking, I connect each universal attribute of the universe logically to the attributes of God because only some attributes of God will participate in God's intelligent design of the universe. I identify four pairs of coexisting opposites as follows: finite/Infinite, many/One, inequality/Equality, and relation/Union. The capitalized words are attributes of God whereas the others are not capitalized because they are effects and are found only in the universe. Since all coexisting opposites can prove that God must exist, I placed the coexisting opposites, finite/Infinite, on page 6,7 and called it the 'first scientific ' and placed the other coexisting opposites in Part IIb, Ch. 1 where I wanted introduce a scientific Trinity to the reader.
I refer to Nicholas of Cusa as the first modern scientist because he allowed me to help him become a modern scientist. He was unable to do it himself because the meaning of the word 'infinite' was vague and the word 'relation' did not even exist yet. Relations appear with Galileo, Leibniz, and the early appearances of functional relations. Further, scientific proofs did not exist in the 15th century. So, my long study of Nicholas of Cusa allowed me to bring new proofs to science.
So there is no question that man has a god. In my book, the proof of God is offered in four different ways. The atheists and logicians reject God because their minds cannot cope with coexisting opposites.
In order to develop a scientific proof of God, I sought universal attributes of things in the universe as taught by Paul at Rom. 1:20. Then, by using negative thinking, I connect each universal attribute of the universe logically to the attributes of God because only some attributes of God will participate in God's intelligent design of the universe. I identify four pairs of coexisting opposites as follows: finite/Infinite, many/One, inequality/Equality, and relation/Union. The capitalized words are attributes of God whereas the others are not capitalized because they are effects and are found only in the universe. Since all coexisting opposites can prove that God must exist, I placed the coexisting opposites, finite/Infinite, on page 6,7 and called it the 'first scientific ' and placed the other coexisting opposites in Part IIb, Ch. 1 where I wanted introduce a scientific Trinity to the reader.
I refer to Nicholas of Cusa as the first modern scientist because he allowed me to help him become a modern scientist. He was unable to do it himself because the meaning of the word 'infinite' was vague and the word 'relation' did not even exist yet. Relations appear with Galileo, Leibniz, and the early appearances of functional relations. Further, scientific proofs did not exist in the 15th century. So, my long study of Nicholas of Cusa allowed me to bring new proofs to science.
So there is no question that man has a god. In my book, the proof of God is offered in four different ways. The atheists and logicians reject God because their minds cannot cope with coexisting opposites.
posted by George Shollenberger @ 12:46 PM
4 Comments:
At 4:03 AM,
Anonymous said…
“I identify four pairs of coexisting opposites as follows: finite/Infinite, many/One, inequality/Equality, and relation/Union.”
These four pairs of coexisting opposites may be able to be sumed up in this one quote.
If there were no imperfection in creation nothing would distinguish it from the creator. Sophia Perennis/Frithjof Schuon
You could also state imperfecton/perfection but maybe inequality/equality is what you mean by imperfection/perfection. Also unawareness/awareness, etc.
They all to me at least refect the reality that oneness or infinite can only express its dynamic potential; is to create what appears to be this opposite effect in its creation.
Because there is something in universal law or god’s law or principle that souls evolve; this opposites effect is in my mind dualistic thinking. Creation is not about dualism but variation (many) and this variation (relative world) gives one the impression of dualism. We live in a relative world not a dualistic world. It appears dualistic but appearances are very deceptive as jesus stated.
Every soul unique is not about opposites but variation. Not just hot and cold but variation of degrees. Hope this makes sense.
From my point of view Nicholas of Cusa was on the verge of discovering the relationship of creation, manifestation, innocence, ignorance, and suffering.
I have only read some of his writings and need to read more. These comments are not meant to be critical of cusa. I have not done enough research as yet on his writings.
Your writings George are very profound and few will understand your words very few.
Actually they are very simple to state but very very difficult to understand. It sometimes appears the easier to state a truth the more difficult to understand. Interesting paradox or irony??????
“The atheists and logicians reject God because their minds cannot cope with coexisting opposites.”
This is an interesting statement and my first impression was to reject it outright. But when I reject something outright that is an internal clue to give it more thought. Ie lifes lessons. :-)
Have you noticed how we humans and I am sure souls reject some statement outright without even giving it any thought. If it does not fit into our paradigm or cherished beliefs it is rejected in an instant.
The atheists appear to have a god and their god is their intellect. Notice how they believe they are the only ones that have reasoning abilities. Ie the reason project folks. Last time I looked everyone on the board is of the same mind set. And they call that reasoning and logical research.
They don’t have a clue they are anything but reasoning or logical in their research. I.e. all like minds will reach all like conclusions and congrad’s them selves for their great and impressive reseach.
We humans are an interesting species.
At 1:08 PM,
George Shollenberger said…
Response to Anonymous,
I agree about relations in the universe. When Cusa found that the absolute maximum is also the absolute minimum, he concluded that the difference between two related concepts can never become maximum. So, the 'beginning-middle-end' are abundant variables you speak about.
But I believe that the closed minds of atheists and logicians can be pulled out of their cultural boxes if they recognize that the universe is not a container.
See Jesus Christ's words at John 14:19. These words mean that 'each thing is in each thing. Cusa found that these words were known in 500 B.C. in the Greek writings of Anaxagoras. (On Learned Ignorance, Bk,II, Ch. 5)
The real meaning of these words were not known until functional relations were discivered by modern scientists. So, I am moving forward assuming that each thing in the universe and God are functionally related.
George
At 7:30 PM,
Anonymous said…
“But I believe that the closed minds of atheists and logicians can be pulled out of their cultural boxes if they recognize that the universe is not a container.”
I believe at this time that it takes a significant emotional event in our lives to make the necessary shift in our lives from materialist to spiritual.
Example on the reason project an engineer had experienced sitting around a table with other student engineers and one engineer suggested they put their hands on the table to see if it would lift off the floor. He probably has seen such a phenomenon on TV called table lifting. Well they put their hands on the table and lo and behold in time it started to lift off the floor.
Another engineering student came into the room later and he laughed at them when they told him what had occurred. So they sit him on a chair on the table and tried again and lo and behold they lifted the table and the student off the floor with just their hands on top of the table.
Now we have at least two engineering students and engineers tend to be very materialistic in their beliefs that are a bit more open to the paranormal. That experience at table lifting was a significant emotional event for this person blogging on the reason project. The others on that blog of course had all kinds of excuses as to why that occurred.
The materialist lives on a very slippery slope. One unexplained event that occurs that cannot be explained in materialistic terms and their whole materialistic paradigm is shattered. Destroyed. And this causes much mental pain and embarrassment in our lives.
Without realizing it embarrassment is one of our best teachers in life but it sure is mentality painful as it often gives us feelings of humiliation and shame.
“So, I am moving forward assuming that each thing in the universe and God are functionally related.”
George I think the materialists will have a field day with the word “assuming” in this sentence.
At 1:36 PM,
George Shollenberger said…
Rewsponse to Anonymous.
I get the point and will correct it with more appropriate words.
Post a Comment
<< Home