How I intend to “Prove God” in my upcoming book

My soon-to-be available book entitled Proving God contains 355 pages of text and 14 chapters. In a nutshell, each chapter contains the following strategies for my solving this unique and most difficult challenge:

Chapter One addresses the problems physics faces understanding the initial conditions of the universe at the very beginning of time (when t = 0). I also show why both Einstein’s relativity theory (Big Bang Singularity) and the probabilistic froth of the quantum vacuum take us to infinite properties (which make theologians happy). Physics cannot tackle the problem of creation because it does not work with dynamics removed from their involvement with time and space. I end this chapter by introducing the concept of LOVE as first creative form-generating principle in the universe—and therefore an exact science!

Chapter Two is a short biography about the amazing life of scientist/theologian, Emanuel Swedenborg. Amazing, because he claimed that the Lord God allowed him to perform real experiments in both the physical and spiritual realms of reality. His ideas form the basis for my book as they provide the key to unifying science and theology.

Chapter Three addresses the ontological reality of the Infinite and how space, time and finite matter all arise from the Infinite. This discussion offers a new background-independent theory of the structure of spacetime—which is not continuous but contains discrete geometries in the hierarchical scaffolding of reality and causal process.

Chapter Four tackles the problem of solving quantum gravity from the kinetics of action transforming into different and discrete scales of spacetime structure. In this scientific model, flux not only changes quantitatively but also qualitatively, giving us physical, mental and spiritual orders of action—whereby the gravitational endeavor of physical action has its non-material equivalent in love.

Chapter Five explains Swedenborg’s unique Doctrine of Forms. This cosmological model of structure in the universe is superior to modern multi-dimensional string theory because it takes us from physical dimensions to non-physical dimensions (pre-geometry). It accomplishes this feat by the lawful removal of static constraints from classical geometry, freeing up both action and its derivative forms to manifest and operate in non-classical ways.  These forms also determine the level of bio-complexity of a living creature including humans.

Chapter Six addresses Swedenborg’s multi-level architecture of human cognitive function. Modern neuroscientists are just beginning to scratch the surface of exploring deeper substrates within the neuron, which give rise to the higher functions of human reasoning and abstract thought. Furthermore, Swedenborg’s discoveries of the scaffolding of the human brain and neuron structure have reference to discrete qualities of love. It is only recently that scientists have looked into the importance of feelings in human cognition in terms of focusing conscious attention and arranging memory-data into coherent systems (worldviews).

Chapter Seven attempts to prove that God’s Holy Word is a multi-leveled scientific document. Within the apparent historic and literal meanings of its narratives, Holy Scripture contains the patterning principles of universal causal process (from a top-down perspective). Neither contemporary scientists nor traditional theologians are expecting this! I even use the story of Noah’s Ark to convey components of modern quantum theory.

Chapter Eight explains the topological differences between the physical world and the spiritual world. Flora and fauna are included, plus the different biospheres of heaven and hell. This chapter offers novel thinking concerning God’s Infinite Mercy and cosmic justice.

Chapter Nine explores the startling spiritual history of the human race, starting with early hominids. Swedenborg claimed to communicate with our remote ancestors now in the spiritual world. As absurd as these statements sound, his physiological description of an extinct race of humans is amazingly close to what we have learned from the fossil remains of Neanderthals. If Swedenborg is correct, then he may well have solved the mysterious disappearance of the Neanderthals!

Chapter Ten offers a whole new look into the Lord’s promised “Second Coming.” The answer to this mystery of what it means for God to make all things “anew” will shake-up the very foundations of modern religion (while preserving cosmology and the need for God to suspend the laws of physics to create a new heaven and earth).

Chapter Eleven explains human salvation from a scientifically plausible theory. In fact, I discuss why religion is God’s scientific strategy to extend the biosphere into a non-physical realm, by creating a heaven from the human race.

Chapter Twelve tackles the sticky issue of theodicy—the issue of evil in the world. Swedenborg offers new insights into why a God of Infinite Love and Mercy allows suffering, tragedy, disease, animal predation and war to occur.

Chapter Thirteen explores the mystery of hypnotism and its arcane mechanism—with an unexpected spiritual twist. The Lord came into the world to actually de-hypnotize the human race! Sorry, but most humans are asleep at the wheel.

Chapter Fourteen provides a mathematically precise model of how love can be envisioned as an exact science. The model I provide offers explanatory and predictive powers—which a plausible scientific theory demands.


About thegodguy

EDWARD F. SYLVIA, M.T.S. Philosopher/Theologian Edward F. Sylvia attended the School of Visual Arts in New York and received his Master of Theological Studies at the Pacific School of Religion in Berkeley, CA and a Certificate of Swedenborgian Studies from the Swedenborgian House of Studies. He is a member of the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences (C.T.N.S.) and the Swedenborg Scientific Association (S.S.A.). Award-winning author of "Sermon From the Compost Pile: Seven Steps Toward Creating An Inner Garden" and "Proving God," which fulfills a continuing vision that God’s fingerprints of love can be found everywhere in the manifest universe. His most recent book, "Swedenborg & Gurdjieff: The Missing Links" is an edgy collection of anti-intuitive essays for personal transformation that challenges and inspires. He has been a student of the ideas of both Emanuel Swedenborg and George I. Gurdjieff for over thirty years. Read more about TheGodGuy, his books and his ideas at
This entry was posted in god, Inner growth, Life after death, love, metaphysics, psychology, Reality, religion, science, unity and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to How I intend to “Prove God” in my upcoming book

  1. Sue says:

    I’ll definitely read your book. Can I ask who your audience is? I hope they understand a lot more than I do, because otherwise they are probably lost. I love this topic and still had to look up many words. Ontological? Classical geometry? Discrete geometries? But maybe that’s just me.

    I probably will agree with all I read in the book. Is it a proof that God is real though? I’m not seeing that.

    Here’s what I think you are proving: God can be envisioned as a lot more than a lame old man who rules from heaven: quantum physics is very cool and can be linked closely to Swedenborg’s vision of God. It is not stupid to believe in God; it actually requires sophisticated thinking.

    But like I say, don’t go by what I say because even after reading the wikipedia article defining “ontological” I still can’t figure out what it means.

  2. thegodguy says:

    Dear Sue,

    Thanks again for your interest.

    The book is finished and it has already received good reviews – so somebody understands it. My audience is anyone who is curious about fundamental reality and ready to tap into unused brain cells.

    Furthermore, one cannot attempt such a book without giving the best scientific minds in the world something to sink their teeth into. However, the book contains several chapters that most people can grasp. Belief in God does not require sophisticated thinking but includes it. The topic is inexhaustible.

    I left many, many things out in my summary of the book. My book does provide evidence that God is ontologically real. That is, God exists as a divine and infinitely human Person. Divine Humanness consists of Infinite Love and Infinite Wisdom – which in finite humans translates to free will (volition) and discernment (intellect).

    “Ontological” basically means that something has real existence. The Spiritual World and its unique biosphere is ontologically real.

    Spiritually yours,

  3. Sue says:

    Ok, thanks, I like your definition – we should write that into Wikipedia. Looks like saying “has real existence” has an ontology that the word “ontology” lacks.
    Can’t wait to read it – when will it be on Amazon?

  4. thegodguy says:

    Dear Sue,

    I thought it would be available around mid-March. There is some work still needed for the indexing at the back of the book. The final digital files go to the printer this Wednesday (March 3). It should be available by the end of the month. I will let people know on my blog.

    It has been a seven-year project.

    Thanks for the suggestion but as things now stand I do not have time for Wikipedia.

    The word “ontological” is usually used by academics. My book has to interface with the academic world to some extent in order for my arguments to have some level of credibility in the world of scholarship.

    Scientists have problems with religion because it seems to them that God promotes ignorance (i.e. blind faith). Why shouldn’t God (who created the universe) offer them new scientific insights into the physics ruling the universe on a fundamental level? That would excite them!

    That is what my book “Proving God” attempts to do.

    Spiritually yours,

  5. “The model I provide offers explanatory and predictive powers – which a plausible scientific theory demands.”

    But precisely (as I have already asked you before – without your answer), why don’t you cite, here and elsewhere, at least key falsifiable predictions, to confirm the truly scientific status of your results? It’s much more important than general promises that this and that relation is “explained” in the book. You know, everything and everybody claims to explain everything (religious texts including). Our great official science just “wonderfully” explains the world, according to its own omnipresent statements – but in reality cannot explain even the tangible physical nature and dynamics of the simplest world’s object, the isolated electron, or what “space”, “time” and other “basic” properties really are.

    In particular, you’re talking about your interpretation of the Second Coming, salvation, creation of (and I guess passing to) heaven and hell, etc. The emerging question is when these remarkable changes are expected, at least approximately (or maybe never, all the time?), so that one can confirm or disprove/modify your “scientific” vision. These particular questions are particularly important at this obviously apocalyptic time, when real, readily observed changes in the world are both great (much greater than ever before, especially just in their “deep” meaning) and “critical” (approach absolute extremum and limiting point, like selective but massive material saturation, moral degradation, loss of any visible general direction of development, ecological and resource exhaustion, even real-time climate change, etc.). Or if you consider that these are but moderate variations similar to previous ones, while the true “history of love” has its own time-table, then it’s probably such rather special statement that should be properly specified.

    In any case, every author/proponent of a “great truth” proposing it at a time of at least remarkable changes and growing, apparently fatal but “unsolvable” problems SHOULD provide a better specified (than usual) version of the events and at least schematic problem solution, just following from the great truth in question (or else why is it so great if so irrelevant?).

    In general, why do you leave any significant details of your results beyond the scope of your description of the book? Are you afraid that it can decrease potential readers’ interest? I don’t think so: those who are really interested in such things will buy it also (and even more readily) after having read a properly specified result summary (which is not yours here and in other presentations) and the reverse. For a real-time confirmation, see the above Sue’s comment.

    Also, I find it a bit strange that the selection (actually text-copying) function is blocked for this blog text (contrary to usual web-page and blog practice). Brotherhood of great thinkers in danger? 🙂

  6. Concerning the “sticky” problem of evil, as a dweller of an earthly hell, I want to ask you, a dweller of an earthly paradise, about a particular detail: why is the degree of evil so unevenly distributed, does it mean something special “spiritually”, or is it closer to a random distribution of chances exaggerated by us, perishable sinners?

    Consider, for example, two great living thinkers of comparable power and greatness of results, practically intellectual brothers, but one of them living in an earthly paradise and another in earthly hell, with practically infinitely big difference of living and working conditions, including their work support and distribution, interaction, etc. (infinitely much better in paradise, of course!). What (if anything) would it imply spiritually for their respective results and/or personal destinies, and why in general such rather special configuration of good and evil can emerge from (what) God’s plan? It seems especially curious today when a reasonable (and even unreasonable) maximum of practical desires is massively (and already for a long enough time) satisfied in big enough (though relatively limited) parts of the world. So how God’s infinite love, great plan, our earthly brotherhood of great thinkers (not to mention earthly love from dear sisters) correlate with these persisting huge differences? Do you think your answer would be the same should you live in hellish condition? If it’s difficult for you to imagine the details of the latter, let me just say that it’s at the (always attacking) border of miserable physical survival in the absolutely dominating, persisting ambiance of ultimate irrationality, love of suffering and absolute ignorance, if not hatred, of anything intellectual, either “scientific” or “philosophic”. In other words, I don’t need to ask you about Satan’s plans, it’s the God’s great idea and infinite love – in particular with respect to our advanced brotherhood – that look increasingly puzzling (maybe because I’m not sufficiently masochistic – should I evolve in that direction?).

  7. Despite being a professional “thinker” myself, I would strongly support Sue’s confusion with that “technical” terminology dominating in addition within quite “humanitarian” studies about love! It’s just so ironic and so characteristic of modern state of things when even devoted promoters of universal love tend to impose those idiotic terminological barriers only in order “to be taken seriously” by a vanishingly small company of equally abusive professional colleagues (while addressing such UNIVERSALLY oriented and GREAT issues about salvation etc.!). Incorrigible sinners, aren’t you, The God Guy?

    Of course, everything can be expressed here in “normal” words. “Ontological” means concerning real world events and tangible objects but especially as opposed to their mental, or “epistemological”, representation in human ideas/knowledge. In philosophy they have invented their “learned” technical synonyms for virtually all usual notions, without any change of actual meaning but with the only purpose to “sound great” and be properly appreciated by “lay people”. I like, for example, “hermeneutics” standing for (science of) “interpretation”/“explanation”. If you want to analyse a relation between real world and human knowledge about it, you don’t say that by any means but instead something like “epistemological manifestations of ontological functions and their hermeneutic aspects”. Got them all, you’re a great thinker!

    Technical terminology can yet be justified in totally abstract, mathematical descriptions of reality as they do have non-existing structures needing special verbal designation. However, even here one may ask what is the sense to invest so much in unreal descriptions of reality pretending to be exact! Hence the main problem of modern “exact” science, where already even narrow “specialists” do not understand one another and only exchange “advanced” technical word plays supported by their absolutely subjective “authorities”, without any real problem solution (all at the expense of duped taxpayers, of course).

    See a well-known Sokal’s joke (intentional technical abracadabra being published in a “professional” journal) as a good illustration: .

    If all we need is love, then why all this excessive and repulsive abracadabra?

  8. thegodguy says:

    Dear Andrei,

    I guess that means you won’t be linking to me anytime soon. By the way, shouldn’t you be venting your frustration on those with less noble intentions? Or am I an easy target because I mean no harm? I certainly am not duping taxpayers.

    With that said, I will not allow you to dictate how I should cater to your personal demands! Judge me as you wish!

    I am amused with those who take shots at me and leave with a “happy face.” Very effective!

    Spiritually yours,

  9. You’re not fair, The God Guy, or maybe just too quick with your effence. I am evoking concrete examples only to pose a general problem, which is not a personal one. I’m not saying that you’re duping taxpayers (I hope!), but many colleagues from exact sciences – and yes, certain pseudo-philosophy sages – certainly are. Well-known Sokal publications are just about that – do you feel offended by them?

    I am sorry to have produced a negative effect, but I had an impression that you accept an open discussion style (again contrary to dominating practices). I do formulate concrete scientific questions/problems because I am interested in an answer within your vision and if a formulation is too “strong”, could you concentrate less on the form and more on the content? I am also trying to approach you to real-world “ontology” – it is there that any philosophical “smoothness” would become less “polite”, but we should try it sometimes, shouldn’t we?

    Terminology is OK for me personally, but as you should have noted, all these intellectual games in science and philosophy are just losing the world because of such “features”, in favour of much simpler (and negative) tendencies. Shouldn’t we care more about it?

  10. Anyway, since I have already wrote it, one general problem with your approach (which, for example, I avoid in mine) is that you sort of “start” at a very high, outside-reality level (e.g. from supernatural “love”), which is even out of scope of modern science direct observation, and then you explain all the phenomena of this low material world by essential influence of superior-reality entities. There seems to be something fundamentally wrong with this ORDER of things. In a very largely confirmed, apparently universal order of things, all lower levels are relatively, directly independent of strong superior-level influence, and only when one gradually ascends the hierarchy of levels of complexity, one can eventually find increasing influence of a superior reality (note that I even do not discuss the problem of its existence or nature – it’s another problem, let’s just assume it’s there). In other words, the highest consciousness results could be reasonably influenced by superior reality – but hardly any single electron jumping arbitrarily in your brain or elsewhere. It doesn’t concern the ultimate origin of things – this one can be directly related to the outside reality, even for elementary objects (it always is – people only discuss the detailed origin of the outside reality). But considering “everyday” world dynamics, it seems natural to start from “material physics”, with only eventual, generally weak connections to any outside reality (already because it has never really been stably observed, even indirectly, despite a huge amount of work). So it’s the order of things you seem to propose, not their existence or nature, that looks somewhat contradictory.

  11. thegodguy says:

    Dear Andrei,

    It was you yourself who made the point in an earlier response that the issues we are addressing cannot be adequately communicated within the limited format of a blog post.

    But let me throw you some bones.

    Human subjective experience or consciousness can be confirmed by everyone yet it does not fall under the scope of modern science’s direct observation. So something personally real and experienced sticks its tongue out at science! It is this non-material world that my book really tackles with ALL NEW INFORMATION.

    For instance, physics is slowly moving in the direction that there can be real dynamics between “states” as opposed to between two points in space and time. My book shows a new geometrical approach as to how form and structure can transcend classical physics by removing physical constraints until we have a form that manifests change of state instead of displacement of location. The mind does not simply push electrons around – its deepest neural substrates consist of forms which are more conducive to changing states. These changes of state produce thoughts and mental images.

    It is through changes of state that the mind (human spirit) supervenes on brain structure. But see, if I tell you that you will still demand more explanation until I empty out the whole contents of my brain. It takes a book to do just that! So I wrote a book. The book is my contribution to the world of human thought.

    Please withhold your certainty of my failure. My book challenges BOTH the assumptions of the New Paradigm science and traditional religious theologies.

    I guess I won’t make anyone happy!

    Spiritually yours,

  12. Well, if you succeed, I’ll be happy to help you to bury them! 🙂

  13. thegodguy says:

    Dear Andrei,

    We both seek to make a better world. And I may not succeed in terms of being RIGHT. I just want to have my heart in a good place and be one less problem in the world.

    Remember – IT IS BETTER TO BE GOOD THAN RIGHT! All truth is the measure (metrics) of GOODNESS.

    Spiritually yours,

  14. Sue says:

    Ah, Andrei, I do get what you are saying. You are very bright. And if you only knew … how you already think Swedenborgian (even though you are somewhat on the other side). You picked up on the order thing. You are right – Sw. started at supernatural love and worked down to the ontological world we see. You don’t agree with doing that. But for Sw., that was the correct order to think. Which is why God can’t be proved.
    There were other things you wrote about that sounded Swedenborgian to me, but right now I can’t recall them.
    I’ll make a falsifiable prediction: Swedenborg will grow on you. You will become a fan. And it won’t mean you will change in any way. You will still have your great thinking powers. Shall we say two years from now?

    And, GodGuy, you just solved one of my biggest Sw. dilemmas. A word by which I could understand that intellect/spiritual/knowledge concept. It eluded me. And there it is: discernment. Thanks. And I’m really looking forward to your ‘change of state’ idea; sounds true to me.

    Here’s why you both think that the world does not think spiritually anymore: it’s because you are academics and you are speaking a separate language. Of course, you can’t hear the rest of us thinking on that topic (but we do)!

  15. thegodguy says:

    Dear Sue,

    Have you read Swedenborg’s scientific works? They were extremely valuable in helping me to prove God from rational principles! I have distilled information that other Swedenborgian scholars have overlooked or failed to grasp.

    Swedenborg was prepared by the Lord to be a scientist first – so that he could make rational sense of the non-physical phenomena of the spiritual world.

    Many students of Swedenborg concern themselves only with his theological work, however, his scientific discoveries are still superior to those of modern physics and neuroscience and in fact, represented a theistic science! My new book will show how to re-evaluate ALL his contributions to human thought.

    Spiritually yours,

  16. There’s less problem and disagreement about being good PERSONALLY, everything including, good life, practices, new unifying vision, proving God… Things become much more complicated, however, if there’s a real, strong need in becoming better collectively, interactively, when the question is where WE should go to be better, with what detailed preferences, which better truth, way of life, practical interpretation of “love”, etc.

    Traditional Christian and even wider, Western way is about the great preference for personal aspects at the expense of collective/interactive ones usually left to a “spontaneous” order emerging from a “natural” (arbitrary) interaction of individual results. In practice it would typically add up to domination of personal material and psycho-intellectual advantages: rich (high-positioned), strong (ambitious) and intelligent personalities (unfortunately in THAT order of preference) would have more chances to impose their visions on others.

    Whatever the advantages and problems of that traditional order of things are, today it cannot dominate any more, even in the West, just because interactions become too strong at any level of a quickly changing world and one cannot leave the question about “our” best preferences and way in the second place or a spontaneous background. In terms of activities we deal with here, we can reasonably assume that individually everybody in an advanced intellectual community with common orientation is not far from a maximum personal goodness. Books are written and read/discussed, God is reasonably proven (and accepted), personal life practices are close to a possible minimum of destruction… What then? Just continue in that way, wait for an emerging real paradise, and that’s OK?

    Something is definitely missing in that deceptively comfortable picture (quite real for many I guess). If Swedenborg’s ideas are so strong, why are they so poorly known even in learned circles (after centuries of intense spiritual and intellectual work) and are certainly far from domination even in prosperous countries with apparently the best conditions for their proliferation? Moreover, the popularity of ANY intellectual efforts, either more scientific or spiritual, goes down very quickly, despite explosively growing applications, necessities and possibilities for their realisation (real, practically ensured freedom for many)… If knowledge is power, apparently more than ever, why its actual popularity goes down so desperately?

    Which leads to the ultimate, increasingly relevant problem formulation: can one really be good (basically) alone today (or within a very narrow circle of formally “unified” but actually separated individuals)? I hope that we agree at least that one cannot be really happy alone, even being provided with external material and intellectual comfort. And if one is formally good but not really happy, is it a way to heaven?

  17. thegodguy says:

    Dear Andrei,

    Collective betterment and fruitful interaction in the world comes from decisions made by individuals to transcend their biological selves and become more inclusive in mind and heart (this is the underlying premise of TRUE RELIGION).

    Sir, you believe that the human race is flawed yet you find the world’s dismissal of Swedenborg’s ideas as somehow a true judgment of their value. What is your point – that the world is flawed, yet, when it comes to judging Swedenborg’s ideas they suddenly manifest great wisdom?

    Even learned circles dismiss Swedenborg because his ideas threaten the worldviews and assumptions of most current human institutions – both scientific and theological. The “Great Red Dragon” in Revelation is actually a metaphor depicting human institutions defending themselves against a new paradigm shift that will be spiritually based (from heaven). People don’t like change (its called “having your ox gored”).

    If one is good and not happy then being good is not where an individual is looking for happiness. Even a self-centered individual can find happiness if everything goes his or her way. Heaven is not a reward or a place you go to. It is something you become! Therefore, there is no wait for an emerging real paradise. Heaven (or hell) is what we cultivate in our hearts and minds). We are spirit. Our life choices determine our spiritual realty and its quality – whether good or bad, is immune to the tyranny of time and thermodynamic laws.

    Andrei, the collective behavior that so interests you is even demonstrated in Swedenborg’s physics. Existence is relationship – for new things to exist (creation) previous things must co-exist. Complexity in nature is a physical analog of love (which is in a perpetual effort to unite all things through common relationship and interaction.) This is one of the main topics of my book – to show how the laws of nature actually inform us of God’s nature and character (that is, if we learn how to look at the world with new eyes).

    Spiritually yours,

  18. thegodguy says:

    Dear Andrei,

    P.S. I think you are hoping for a social utopia on this physical planet. We can certainly make things better on earth but we cannot make things PERFECT!

    Even if we all miraculously and suddenly learn to treat each other with sincere love and respect we will still grow old, suffer pain, have accidents and finally die in the course of time. I don’t believe Human consciousness can find true happiness under such finite and temporary conditions. The human mind is faced with the reality of death for itself and for loved ones – a death that can come at any moment.

    Kindness is a meaningless blessing if it can be destroyed by the mere death of the physical body (which has nothing to do with the quality of the human heart).

    Spiritually yours,

  19. GlennSchoen says:

    A.K. wrote, “If Swedenborg’s ideas are so strong, why are they so poorly known even in learned circles…”

    If the learned are so wise, why are they so incapable of grasping the profound simplicity of Swedenborg’s ideas?

    Moving on…

    In his paper Subject, Objects, Data and Values, Robert M. Pirsig wrote,

    “I think that science generally agrees that there is something that has to enter into experiments other than the measuring instruments, and I think science would agree that ‘Conceptually Unknown’ is an acceptable name for it. What science might not agree on is that this Conceptually unknown is aesthetic. But if the Conceptually Unknown were not aesthetic why should the scientific community be so attracted to it? If you think about it you will see that science would lose all meaning without this attraction to the unknown. A good word for the attraction is ‘curiosity.’ Without this curiosity there would never have been any science. Try to imagine a scientist who has no curiosity whatsoever and estimate what his output will be.”

    One may go further, and say, “Try to imagine curiosity without an underlying affection (i.e., love) of knowing…”

    Simply put, science not derived from some love is not possible.

  20. thegodguy says:

    Dear Glenn,

    Thank you for contributing to this conversation. You are correct. Unfortunately, science today does not lead us to wisdom. Knowledge has been removed from life, values and matters of the heart (and has become artificial).

    However, hidden within a scientist’s endeavor is a PASSION for procuring knowledge. Remove the passion and the research stops in its tracks.

    Not only does LOVE operate in the cockpit of human experience it drives all law and causal process in the universe – and is therefore the ultimate science. This is what Swedenborg brings to the table.

    My new book “Proving God” is my personal attempt to get Swedenborg to that table!

    Spiritually yours,

  21. Mike says:

    I feel this book is another piece in the revealing. I look forward to reading it. Perhaps you’d like to submit an excerpt to my site

  22. thegodguy says:

    Dear Mike,

    Thank you for your interest. I will consider your invitation. Perhaps, after you read the book, you can let me know what excerpt interests you most.

    Spiritually yours,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s