Going Beyond Popper

I published 'The First Scientific Proof of God' in June of  2006.  Immediately, five U.S. atheists attacked it saying that my book is filled with  non sequiturs. (click) In 2009, Dr. Stephen Smith of the University of California read my book.  He rejected the reviews of the atheists.

In his review of my book, Smith says,

Shollenberger rightly concludes that the many finite expressions of plurality are connected to the infinite, and this is his proof of God.

This is a philosophic proof, but is it a scientific proof? Science has drifted into philosophy, and it finds itself unable to stay as a pure activity as Popper demanded. And so Shollenberger`s proof can be seen as scientific in that all evidence must make sense within the unifying presence, and because science necessarily drifts into philosophy for big questions about what is beyond caricature (infinite). When science is limited to empiricism and existentialism, science can only test theories that permit predictions (that necessarily make a caricature of their subject). The caricature-giver is beyond Popper`s science.(meaning of caricature)

When I say that God is active, I say that God made things for the universe. Thus, God made one world. This single world has a higher world and a lower world. The higher world is God and has no parts.  The lower world has an infinite number things, which cannot be counted. The parts of each thing are infinite in number and cannot also be counted. This world thus had no beginning and has no end. Since, my scientific thoughts cannot be completed, I am going beyond Popper, as Smith noticed.