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

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Again, more on 'The Obama Health Law Reaches the Supreme Court"

Today, the Supreme Court is seeking answers to the question, 'What happens to the law of health care if the Supreme Court strikes down the provision that requires the uninsured to buy insurance. ( Below, I use the symbol 'part' to have the same meaning as the symbol 'provision.'

The Supreme Court cannot answer any provision of a law unless the lawmakers have clear understandings of God and the Intelligent Design. This is why justices never agree fully.

But to answer any provision of a law, the law must have come from God through all of the People.

I have a clear understanding of God and His Intelligent Design.  So, I know that God makes things with an infinite number of parts, which cannot be counted by man.  I also know that man can make things, but only with a countable number of parts.

Thus, when the Supreme Court asks man 'what has been made by self-government, ' the answer is that the health care law is a 'whole with a number of countable parts.'  Since, 'all U.S. citizens' are countable, the health care law is a 'whole with a number of countable U.S. citizens. 

A law from God is always a pure whole, which is a whole that can be expressed as 'one and infinite.'  When God displays one of His 'many laws of nature' or one of  His 'many laws of nature's God,' our minds must reduce this law God  so that we can transform His law into a whole that has a countable number of parts. This is why we must learn how to count everything we make. So the provision above can't be destroyed because the whole law is destroyed.

It is not possible for the Supreme Court to answer exact questions on something that 'God makes.'

11 Comments:

  • At 2:43 PM, Anonymous David S. Wilkinson said…

    So if it's approved you'll claim that the justices must be reading your blog and if it's struck down you'll say they must be atheists or they don't have your "special" understanding of God and His Intelligent Design.

     
  • At 3:19 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    REsponse to David,

    Tomorrow, I will likely charge the Supreme Court with atheism.

    George

     
  • At 9:28 AM, Anonymous David S. Wilkinson said…

    You can accuse them of your definition of atheism. You can say they shouldn't be on the court. You can accuse them of judicial activism. That appears to be your stock in trade. They will decide the case, that is what they do.

     
  • At 3:37 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    Response to David,

    If that is what they do, it is time to replace them. NO ONE IS PERFECT.

    George

     
  • At 7:52 AM, Anonymous David S. Wilkinson said…

    So you want nine PERFECT people to sit on the court ? The beauty of the Constitution is that it recognizes human fallibility and knowing that men would be in charge of making laws they put in place the Supreme Court to interpret the laws to determine if they followed the Constitution. They also put in place the structures to amend the Constitution when circumstances warrented it.
    The system has served the country well. I'm sorry it doesn't fit your perfect template but what you want does not exist.

     
  • At 9:50 AM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    yey Dave,

    I do not want perfect people because only God is perfect. I want nine justices who think as best as they can. To be as best as they can, nine justices must always update themselves.

    Lawyers do not update themselves. They are alway outdated because they do not keep themselves us with the advances of science, the field of science, which is the onlt field of truths.

    George.

     
  • At 11:16 AM, Anonymous David S. Wilkinson said…

    Once again George you are trying to fit things into your little box of how things should be. These judges chose to pursue law degrees and to continually update their knowledge of the law, there was no time left over for them to pursue a scientific field. Science deals with absolutes while the law is open to interpretation. These ustices have elevated themselves to the point where they have been appointed to interpret the most contentious questions of law confronting the country. You should give then their due.

     
  • At 3:07 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    Hi Dave,

    I do not determine how things should be. As a scientist, I determine how things must be. Science does not deal woth absolutes. Ansolutes will be found only in God, who we cannot know.

    If some scientists were added to the Supreme Court, the other justices woul learn the basics about science. A Supreme Court, based only on lawyers, willl produce many wrong decisions.

    The Orthodox Christian Church produced wrong teachings when they threw the Gnostics (scientists) out in the second century. The political leaders are doing the same thing to the Supreme Court.

    Your mind is taking you down the wrong path of God's Intelligent Design.

    George

     
  • At 11:20 AM, Anonymous David S. Wilkinson said…

    Scientists generally do not study law and thus would not qualify to sit on the court or any court for that matter. Having a scientist on the court would probably not sway the justices anyway.
    Sorry George but your wishful thinking and myopic viewpoint will not make things magically happen.

     
  • At 5:35 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    Dave,

    All good scientists only study, or seek, laws. The Laws of Nature and the Laws of Nature's God (in the Declaration of Independence) are the only laws that all humans, and all justices, should address. The fact that justices are makin unnatural or arbitruary laws is the current problem.

    You are giving justices too much credit.

    George

     
  • At 3:26 PM, Anonymous David S. Wilkinson said…

    You're absolutely right that judges should only interpret the laws. The legislative should write the law, The judiciary enforces the law, the executive oversees the laws. When one branch influences or intercedes in the affairs of the other that is when problems ensue, so Obama is blatantly crossing the line when he challenges the justices to find in his favor. Obama should be impeached if the court rules against the Health Care Bill as he knowingly pushed legislation and his Democratic allies passed legislation they knew could be found unConstitutional and they swore an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution.

     

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home