I am George Shollenberger and the author of The First Scientific Proof of God. The Muslims also have offered a recent scientific proof of God using the spiritual light of God and physical photons. So, proofs of God, beyond scriptures. are appearing. Since my scientificult proof of God uses a general version of the scientific method, I teach this difficult proof on the Internet at http://georgeshollenberger.blogspot.com/
I checked out your site, George. It is disjointed, meandering, and replete with unsupported pronouncements of your beliefs presented as fact. Basically, you have proved nothing and read like a garden variety street corner religious nut
Look, George... There is no such thing as a SCIENTIFIC PROOF of "God".
There can be faith propositions for the existence of God; but no scientific proof.
Your claim serves as evidence of a common assumptive error, which excludes your "proof" from the realm of Scientific Methodology.
Specifically, it is just this. All elements in Science which are expressed, must have specific definition in terms.
As God is ceded to be INFINITE, he is both beyond both MEASURE and a limiting definition.
For the same reason, philosphical writings by Atheists who are also scientists, and attempting to offer a proof that God does not exist, fail for the identical reason.
Notably, propositions such as yours always flourish in the absence of any meaningful definition as to what GOD is. In the absence of such a specific definition, there is no Science evident.
Because it is nieither Logical, nor evidence of Science, to set about to PROVE something which is only vaguely DEFINED, and thereafter go about vainly boasting that the conclusions and results consist of precise MEASUREMENTS and PROOFS for a specific IDENTITY.
Propositions such as this always disintegrate in either the PREMISE or the CONCLUSION. Another way of writing it would be to indicate that there are massive flaws in either the HYPOTHESIS or the RESULTS.
Either the HYPOTHESIS disregards the critical necessity of PRECISELY DEFINING what exactly IT is that is being proven; or alternatively, the CONCLUSION is vaguely worded, such that it is not actually rationally derived from the Hypothesis.
It is rather like coming up with a PROOF for "XYZ". I may have a PROOF for something; but I cannot objectively indicate what exactly "XYZ" is. If I reverse the action, using XYZ as either CONSTANTS or VARIABLES in my experiment, there is no certitude, according to the 18 or so known natural laws, that I am going to arrive at the identitical PROOF.
The philosopher Goedel, who was a personal friend of Albert Eiinstein, has a rational proof that is valid; but again, a Proof by reason, and a Proof by Science, are not precisely the same. Besides, Goedel's proof is so abstract, that very few people can even begin to understand it, but it is a valid proof.
A proof by logic, though entirely rational, is NOT a proof by science. Proofs by REASON are PHILOSOPHICAL PROOFS, rather than SCIENTIFIC Proofs. There are distinctly different criteria evident in either system.
Generalized knowledge such as this seems to be the sort of thing that people are generally least familiar with.
"What have we here Laddy? Mysterious couplets? A secret code? Poems no less! Poems everybody! The Laddy reckons himself a poet!" [Classroom laughter] ------------from the video "THE WALL" by Pink Floyd
/ Which is as much to indicate, Dear Deanna, that I have not been educated as to any prohibitive as to why I ought not to employ a few of my own conventions. I am not merely....."another brick in the wall."
/ The selective useage of CAPITALS distinguish certain terms as to their importance in contrast to less important terms. The caps are intended to emphasize and OVER-EMPHASISE certain core propositions. Were it possible to employ boldface type in these forums, I might employ that convention, but there is no such option. I regret that you find it a difficulty.
The use of arbitrary SLASH MARKS, allow me to acquire the useage of SPACE
/to spread the essential issues out SPATIALLY, so that people will not be intimidated by tightly packed and lengthy passages. This I hope, will encourage ordinary people to take the time to read through several senteces, and patiently sort out the essential concepts.
/The intention being, that nobody addressing an important idea, should confuse MINOR PROPOSITIONS, which lack importance, with MAJOR PROPOSITIONS, which are critical to grasping an idea.
Beyond this Deanna, I also acess information mentally, in a different context than is suggested in published media.
Sometimes I see words, sentences, and paragraphs, VISUALLY, not as linear formats, but more like HILLS and valleys which rise and fall. I also visualize concepts in THREE DIMENSIONALITY. Also, for some reason that I cannot explain, I learn differently. I learn better, visualizing words about ten to twenty times larger, VISUALLY, than is commonly seen on printed pages. In other words, in my mind, when I see an important concept such as SCIENTIFIC PROOF, I see it in about 36 point type, or even double that. As a result, many words in my mind, which are ordinary conjuctions, verbs, and adjectives, are often ordinary as 12 to 14 point type. But often, critical words leap to obtain an enormous visual proportion in relation to other words.
As a result, when I wish to work with important ideas, I create strong visual imagery out of all ordinary context. I might write in cursive, something like:
Aristotle's THREE LAWS, and the words THREE LAWS might be written in very thick black letters, nearly half an inch high.
This methodology is very unconventional, but I am a highly VISUAL learner, and I suppose I must admit to trying to TEACH this methodology. Knowledge, in this sense, is not separate from ART.
WORDS, for me, identify significant REALITIES. WORDS have not only size, but COLOR, TEXTURE, and SHAPE in THREE DIMENSIONS.
The idea Deanna, is that you might try learning some things this way.
Do you enjoy buying Clothes? What is your favorite fabric? What feels good? Silk? How about seeing the word SILK, made out of a kind of drapery made of bunches of SILK in your favorite COLOR?
Or, do you enjoy the feeling of LOVE? How about the word LOVE, made of bunches of SILK in PINK?
This all has to do with PERSONALIZING all of your information, and never employing information into your life that you have not made entirely FAMILIAR, and therefore, consistently SAFE to use?
After all, one wouldn't want to just grab any old IDEA off of life's shelf. What if the IDEA were something harmful? (That won't work). So you see, all of my IDEAS are very familiar things, very SAFE THINGS for me. I KNOW the ideas INTIMATELY, and I work with them.
But in my mind, there is INFINITE SPACE, and I like to SPREAD THE IDEAS OUT.
/ Moreover, I am sometimes accused of claiming that people write things that they did not explictly express. That is because my use of LOGIC and the CORROLLARY PROPOSITIONS derived by LOGIC go a long way to anticipate the rational outcomes of nearly any PROPOSITION.
In this sense, LOGICAL CORROLLARIES become the highly visual BRANCHES of a TREE consisting of MAJOR and MINOR propositions.
My proof- 18yrs ago when I was young I was experimenting with drugs. One night it went bad I couldnt breath or see. My heart was racing, I tried to take a deep breath n my eyes rolled back into my head n I hit the floor. I was dead. The next thing I was n pitch black, darker than u can imagine n more frightening, I was petrified! there was an evil malicious entity n the dark with me. I was so scared that its impossible to describe. Then I saw a tiny spot of light, the light got bigger n bigger, I don't know if I was going towards it or if it was coming towards me. As it got closer there were people in it, there was a destination on the other side. The people were so happy to see me n loved me, they were all familuar to me as well. It was the most wonderful exzilerating feeling, u can't even imagine. I was excited to get there. Someone on the otherside said something to the people n they started to tell me to go back, they were tryn to encourage but I was so scared they meant back to the dark. Then I was back in my body. I thought of this for years. Eventhough I was partying all the time I seemingly went to heaven. However, at the time I did still pray also I was nice n kind to other people, I did not lie, I never cheated on my boyfriend, I felt compassion for others, I did not envy others, I never wanted to hurt anybodys feelings. I think societies idea of religion is inadiquate with some meaningless ritiuals. I can't promise u everything n the bible is true but God is true, heaven n hell is true. U never have to step foot into a church or crack a bible to go to heaven. Talk to God n be a desent person n u will b embraced in the hereafter. People r dangerous with religion but that has nothing to do with God. Nobody should try to dictate another persons life. I am ProChoice n Equality for Gays, I dont want to push my beliefs on anybody. I wish God would show himself more. I wish he would just appear for all to see. The reason he doesnt is b/c he wants to rule by love not by fear. I know my experience sounds cliché but I wanted u to kno my proof. All I ask is for u to keep ur heart n mind open enough for God to give u ur proof. I share this with you respectfully. I deeply appreciate u taking time to read this. If u disbelieve my experience I will gladly take a polygraph if u live in my area. I will not b offended, in fact I will be pleased that u r giving it a chance. I hope this gives u something to think about.... God Bless
Your account is of great interest, and is anything but cliche'.
However, there are contradictions in your arguments, as indicated by the following, which account perhaps for your current dilemma.
"I wish God would show himself more. I wish he would just appear for all to see."-------------sentences 1 & 2 of paragraph 4, comment of M. Secades on Dec. 4, 2010 11:21 PM PST regarding the discussion topic, "Scientific Proofs of God" on Amazon.com
(1) I assure you my friend, there is absolutely no location in this Universe where "God" does not dwell. If we are not "seeing" more of God, then something we do or think is blocking our vision.
In addition, you wrote the following, which is significant:
"Nobody should try to dictate another persons life."--------sentence 2 of paragraph 3, comment of M. Secades on Dec. 4, 2010 11:21 PM PST regarding the discussion topic, "Scientific Proofs of God" on Amazon.com
(1) This what is blocking your vision of "God". You have an errant ( illogical ) premise. Your premise is that nobody should ever TELL another person, anything. Your assumption, that a person in possession of knowledge or wisdom, should never impart knowledge or wisdom to another, is demonntrative of an irrational approach to life, which itself will lead to further difficulties for you, and in fact, may entirely block your vision of God.
For example, it is never supposed, I would argue, that it is logical to claim that Nobody should tell you, in regard to a medication, how many pills to take so as not to harm one's self.
Neither is it supposed that nobody ever TOLD an airline pilot how to fly an airplane.
It is never supposed that nobody can tell a Medical Surgeon how to operate.
It is never supposed that nobody told an Engineer how to build something.
But for confused reasons, obviously, you operate on a premise that if "God" or anyone else TELLS a person something, some vague ethic is violated.
That is why perhaps, you endorse common POLITICALLY CORRECT notions about being PRO-CHOICE, or other confused ideas about EQUALITY FOR GAYS. The peculiar thing about these POLITICALLY CORRECT conceptions, is that:
(A) You are essentially TELLING people, that these are appropriate or ethical perspectives.
(B) These POLITICALLY CORRECT propositions are demonstrative of a kind of Self-Righteousness.
The problem is, that unless you are willing to gird your loins, and stand for something, you are at best, a sort of "Luke Warm" Deist, rather than a Theist.
Your blank dismissal of "religion" with the argument that IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GOD is absurd, because in writing that, you are engaging in the very practice which you claim to object to; that is, you are TELLING PEOPLE how to live. You are TELLING them to dismiss "religion" and have nothing to do with it.
Your confused thinking, I would argue, is why you currently see less of "God".
The proposition that you can go through life, without HURTING---PEOPLE'S---FEELINGS is a formula for disaster.
The very idea in which you assume that your experience is a PERSONAL PROOF, is moreover, demonstrative of you telling people something specific. In and of itself, that can HURT---PEOPLE's----FEELINGS.
Your difficulties are demosntrative of several of the errant assumptions, confusing premises, and misconceptions that are prevalent in the American mentality. Until one is prepared to actually stand for something, and present a rational justification for that idea, some mediocre state of mind is about all that can be acquired.
. In conclusion, you write that God is true, and everything in the Bible is true, on the assumption that God is not TELLING people how to life, or in the errant assumption, that men and women have not died to bring you that Bible, or in the errant assumption that those who delivered the Bible to us accompanied by TELLING us that we should live by a "religious" standard.
No wonder your vision is so clouded. If the Bible is true, and God is true, then it follows that Jesus Christ is true. What hope for us is there, if we do not bear testimony to Jesus Christ as the truth?
You have a confused logic. What you are doing is ignoring the issues that mankind faces. If Hurting--Feelings were your actual operative premise, you would oppose Abortion; because it is not reasonable to assume that a Fetus has no FEELINGS. Your public PROOF is a testimony to a confused theology, at best.
What hope for us is there, if we claim to know a truth, but refuse to TELL people what the Truth is?
The entire point being, you cannot affirm something as TRUE, and then disassociate yourself from it, and postulate contrary conceptions to that truth, such as your confused thoughts as to POLITICALLY CORRECT concepts. In that context, you're just jumping on the popular bandwagon.
You claim that it is a demonstration of a WRONG, for people to dictate to another, how they should live. Unfortunately, in your bearing testimony to your PROOF, you demonstrate explicitly, that you have permitted others to dictate precisely how you should think and act.
And Why? Apparently because somebody told you that those POLITICALLY CORRECT concepts were also, "true" and you would rather following along with the ambiguous arguments, rather like a sheep being led by wolves.
. I know all about that kind of thinking my friend. That used to be my thinking, until I became a follower of Jesus Christ. I assure you, I struggle as much as anyone to live up to the ideas which a loving God, "dictates". Were it not for the fact that my God were a loving God, whose Son assumes the burden of my sins, I would probably be unable to continue.
I would like to leave you with something. Martin Luther King spoke as follows in a speech.
"When I say to you; 'Don't even be afraid, you know what I really mean?' For I submit to you tonight, that no man is free, if he fears death; but the minute that you conquer the fear of death, at that moment, you're free. You must say somehow; 'I don't have much money. I don't have much education. I may not be able to read and write; but I have the capacity to die!' And I say to all, ...the man that will not die for something, is not fit to live." ----from a sermon attributed to Pastor Martin Luther King, who succeeded Pastor Vernon Johns at the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama, in the Televised movie, "THE VERNON JOHNS STORY" (available on DVD)
Therefore, if Martin Luther King, like many martyrs for Jesus Christ, was willing to die to tell people of righteous living in accordance with the teachings of the Holy Bible, and if Jesus Christ was willing to endure death and pain for mankind, merely for telling people how they should live, are you going to continue thinking that nobody from heaven, is dictating how man should live?
That is why my friend, Western Civilization is esablished upon Logic, rather than Feelings. The proposition that religious doctrine, is demonstrative of some sort of a dictatorship which restricts a person, is not to be rationally demonstrated.
What human history really shows, is that the price of telling people how they SHOULD LIVE, is death. That is why blood is taught as a "mystery" in the Christian Religion. Blood is always the cost of speaking or writing the truth. Why? Because there is seldom such a thing as a "popular" Truth. If mankind wanted Truth, there is no possible way that men and women down through the centuries would be continually martyred.
The price of Truth, the price of telling mankind how they should live, is not written in ink my friend. Truth, has been written in Blood down through the centuries and the blood of Jesus Christ, and all the blood of the Christian martyrs is a sacred testimony to that fact.
I was reading a fascinating book of Golf Instruction last night, wherein PGA great, Jerry Heard was indicating, that if one wishes to improve at Golf, they should GET---ANOTHER----PAIR----OF---EYES, meaning that they should have someone else study how they swing a golf club.
The principle is the same with THINKING. If we wish to see more clearly, we can benefit from:
(A) Allowing others examine our THINKING
(B) Studying what others have written as to reasonable THOUGHT, based upon historical Facts and Certain Knowledge.
The neglect of this is as known, cared, or written.