Folks, I know this is going to be hard to believe but it’s true: I’ve found someone who makes Larry Fafarman seem like Mortimer Adler by comparison. I mean howl at the moon, voices in his head, out of his freaking mind gone. His name is George Shollenberger. He’s one of the roughly 14,000 cranks who thinks he’s found a Scientific Proof of God and has self-published a book explaining his “proof”. And this one, folks, is really really funny. Mark Chu-Carroll has been having some fun with this nut and reviewed his book. He describes it this way:
It’s worse than I expected. Based on reading George’s writing before, I was expecting something bad, very bad. This is beyond mere badness: this is “please oh please stab my eyes out with a rusty steak-knife so that I don’t need to read anymore of it” bad.
Mark was kind enough to transcribe a small portion of the book so you can see just how bad it was. Please note that this transcription is completely accurate; all of the misspellings, punctuational and grammatical errors are in the original, as are the bizarre leaps of logic:
Historians agree that the Middle Ages ended with the work of Nicholas of Cusa. But, they do not tell us that Cusa developed a new and creation theory. Nicholas describes God as the ‘coincidence of all opposites’. Thus, his theory of God is not understood easily by logicians. Logic and its law of contradiction must be used carefully if one expects to unify a theory of God and a theory of creation. But, if one learned how to use logic properly, a person can become a panentheist. A panentheist argues that god is both creator and creature. This duality is the God of Christianity. Nicholas unifies his theory of God and theory of creation with the pair of opposites, identity and difference. All created things this become images of God. I discuss the complex creation theory of Nicholas in detail in Part IIa
After Nicholas’ death, Isaac Newton developed a new creation theory. It was the first mechanical theory of creation. A mechanical theory has no active God. Newton’s theory of God is Deism. Newton’s God must rewind the universe if He decides to create a second universe. In the 17th century, Gottfried Leibniz also develops a new creation theory. His universe has atoms known as monads. I apply his monads in my modern creation theory in Part IV. I call them spritual atoms because they are spirits and form a spiritual-physical universe.
Wow. Double wow. The ability to pack that much nonsense into two paragraphs is astonishing. I’ll give it 850 milli-Hovinds. As it turns out, George really has his panties in a bunch over Mark’s bad review and he’s taken to railing against ScienceBlogs and sending emails to our Seed overlords, which I imagine will provoke much laughter in the office. You really have to read the text of this email to get a full understanding of just how loony this guy is. After noting that Mark had “attacked” his theory and him, he writes:
Since Carroll did not listen to my arguments that the field of mathematics has no access to God through numbers, I started to inform ‘the people’ on my website that our mathematicians are practicing atheism. Then, after I investigated the website, ScienceBlogs, I concluded that all sciences also practice atheism. So, my website is now informing ‘the people’ that mathematicians and scientists are practicing atheism.
I make statements about ‘practicing atheism’ after I discovered the scientific proof of God. I make these statements because both the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence say that the founders mandated that the USA be a nation under God. In the USA, the practice of atheism is thus illegal.
That’s a great phrase, “practicing atheism.” One wonders how someone practices atheism. He says in a comment on his blog that merely not going to church is not an example of practicing atheism, but he doesn’t bother to say what would constitute practicing atheism. Presumably, he means someone advocating that atheism is true is unconstitutional, but that would be a spectacularly idiotic statement. Yep, that must be what he means.
But the stupidity is not done yet. Wait till you see this bizarre non-sequitur:
Today, both mathematicians and scientists are saying that the universe has an end. This statement is made without any proof. My research shows that this saying is false. The danger of making such statements in any nation is great. For instance, the Muslim’s say that a suicide bomber will be rewarded by God. This saying is false and causes errors in human behavior in the Muslim nations. Saying that the universe has an end causes errors in human behavior in all nations.
Let’s try and write this out in syllogism form, shall we?
Premise: Mathematicians and scientists say the universe has an end.
Premise: Muslims say that suicide bombers will get 72 virgins in heaven.
Conclusion: Therefore, scientists saying the universe has an end causes Muslims to think they’ll get virgins in heaven.
Go ahead, turn in that argument in a sophomore class in philosophy and see what kind of grade you get on it. Statements simply don’t get much more inane than that. I was going to make a snarky comment about how this guy is practicing idiocy, but that would be wrong; clearly, he has perfected it. And for that, he is the winner of April’s Robert O’Brien Trophy as the Idiot of the Month. Congratulations, George!