Muskoka: The City Of Peace

My Recent Posts

Abstract: People think peace is not possible. These same people probably do not think telling the truth is not possible. A truth is always more simple than a lie and truth always produces better results than do lies. Living a life of peace is far more simple that trying to live caught up in the confusions and inconsistencies of your lies. We cannot have peace living a life that is a lie. Stop living a lie and you will find peace.

 

This article is designed as a program for a local municipality but it is a program doable by anyone, anywhere.

 

Muskoka The City Of Peace

Muskoka: The City Of Peace is a proposal for a new Muskoka Brand. 

For all of mankind’s successes, for all the miracles that make up civilization peace has evaded us, personally and collectively; globally and even at the level of our neighborhoods. But we can have peace if the people come together and consent to peace. Muskoka can be The City Of Peace.

We the people of Muskoka need only come together in peace. Governments cannot make peace for us, politicians cannot make us neighbors and friends. This is something we the people must do for ourselves, so, lets we, the people of this beautiful land come together and make Muskoka a place where social division and conflict no longer exist. Let’s make peace for future generations. Let’s make Muskoka The City Of Peace.

We will not be like the generations of the past who sent their problems into the future to be solved by their children and their children’s children or be sent once more into the future. Peace must be built on justice. There is no justice in giving our problems to future generations to solve.

Let’s stop sending poverty into the future. Let’s make ending poverty part of the peace process. A city divided cannot be at peace.

Let’s not send homelessness into the future. It is our neighbors who are homeless. A city with people who have no home is not a city that is peaceful.

No more debt. Let’s stop sending the future our debt? Debt is a cost we have avoided paying. Let’s pay off our debt and give our children a clean start.

Let’s make Muskoka The City Of Peace by ending all the causes of social division. There is no peace between debtor and creditor.

Is peace possible? Are we not all victims of a system we do not control? Let’s stop being victims. Victims are not people at peace with each other or with themselves.

The City of Peace is a city with no division or conflict no social injustice. We ask how is this possible? If we know how to produce debt and unemployment and conflict, then we know how to stop doing this. If you know how to drive through a stop sign you also know how to stop when you get to a stop sign.

If social conflict is created by social division then we eliminate the division to end the conflict. A division between people is just a separation. It is nothing complicated. To repair the division, we just take a step towards the other person. If this does not eliminate what separates us then we take another step and another until there is no more division.

We only have to decide who will take the first step. We could establish an elaborate process for deciding who that will be, or we could forgo the process and just take the first step ourselves.

Call up a friend, a neighbor, go into the street and talk to someone. Bridge the gaps that have grown up between us.

Meet for coffee, meet in your homes, get to know one another.  Find out what divides you. Find out what divides your neighbor from his or her neighbor.

Now we come to a problem, the bible says do not be yoked unequally with an unbeliever. This does not pertain solely to the ones who reject Christ for those who do not know Christ can know the truth written in their heart. The unbeliever pertains also to those who reject the truth of God as well as the person of God.

At some point the person has to walk towards us and learn to help him or her self and indeed be willing to help others. Eliminating division is not a one-way street. This is why at some point we need to work in and through the church. For those who reject God we can call the social configuration an Exchange. It remains a group of persons working together to eliminate social division.

This is not the place to bring up the issue of ecumenicalism beyond saying bringing people together brings the churches together. What peace does and what the Pacifarian solution does is bring people together regardless of their starting point. That some are Christians and some organizations pacified is incidental. The goal is peace.

Let’s imagine a beacon of hope shinning in the darkness that men see and begin to walk towards. This is the hope for peace. By coming together the divisions between them start to fade because they already share a common dream.

Creating peace requires a two-pronged approach. The existing divisions must be systematically eradicated, and methods need to be implemented to prevent new divisions from arising. It comes down to the reality we are sinful people. We cannot get rid of existing systems without simultaneously erecting new godly structures. To put this another way we cannot eliminate a dictator without putting democracy in his place.

The City Of Peace is built on social units called an Exchange. An Exchange is created by people who come together to work for peace in a special and targeted way. Exchanges do not just work to eliminate sources of social unrest they replace these with pacific structures.

People associate on two levels, geographical proximity or/and shared interests. Woman who need help from time to time could form an Exchange, so they can help one another even as they reduce their social distance from one another.

The size of an Exchange is defined by the limits of a social network. Groups of twenty people are not intimate and ones of 3 are not very effective. A good number is twelve, but the size largely depends on the needs of the members and the degree to which the group can function as a unit.

Twelve woman who come together to produce peace can look at the lines which divided them, some are married with kids, some not, some are unmarried with kids, others have jobs, some do not. The divisions need not all be spelled out. The solution is not to force all woman into the same mold. What is needed is a way for these women to reconcile their differences. They need a way to overcome the issues that divide them. An Exchange symbolizes their commitment to one another and their desire to come to terms with the needs and differences that separate them.

Ten women could organize to share shopping, housework, babysitting and even out of house jobs and so on. Now this is not unknown and has been done from the beginning. Social networks are composed of people who are friends and neighbours and family and who help one another. No accounts are kept and the giving and getting is fairly informal. But this leads to the potential for abuse. And this is something that needs to be address if we are to achieve a meaningful level of peace.

Before this the options were to argue and disassociate or to put up with the injustices of some people. Neither really is conducive to peace. Being upset and frustrated even if it does not lead to an overt split still sours the relationship and brings some degree of division.

We need a way to keep accounts without it being overtly formal. The woman could of course demand payment in fiat notes. This stops people claiming benefits they do not wish to pay for, but it harms the service giver who finds it difficult to get work when people are worried about paying out money they are not able to earn. So, the woman seeks peace by removing this area of risk for each other by in effect, underwriting the potential for loss.

The Exchange is an insurance underwriter guaranteeing compensation for any loss. Thus, the members can perform services upon demand without risk.

The woman do not look to the individual member for payment but to the Exchange itself. The Exchange is the guarantor of all debts.

We have mentioned that peace is the elimination of those things which divide us. A key risk is giving in more than one gets out or at least giving in more than others and yet getting back less than others.

In capitalizing the Exchange each woman donates a set amount of the amount she is able. This can be little, a lot of nothing depending on how the Exchange is set up and what it is intended to provide. If the Exchange is set up to provide services, it will require far less assets than an Exchange set up to manufacture a product.

All the Exchange needs is a group of people willing to eliminate social distances. The value of the Exchange in terms of its business activity is a measure of the distance eliminated. The value of Exchange activity is also a measure of the trust that exists. If there is no trust there is division and as trust decreases distance widens until there are not social interactions.

A voucher system is created to help eliminate the social division created by conventional monetary systems. The voucher system is backed by the equity of an Exchange. Vouchers are issued as equity increases so if the Exchange possesses $3,000.00 worth of equity it can issue a similar amount in vouchers. Vouchers are identical to and are issued as Preferred Shares. Preferred Shares represent equity. Each person who creates value is issued or paid a corresponding number of Preferred Shares. These Preferred Shares serve as vouchers or a local currency. Vouchers are spent in the same way conventional forms of money are spent.

At present, though we may not see this as clearly as we ought, the economy is a divisive factor. Exchange economics serve to reduce the social divisions between us.

When we go to a conventional supplier of services the relationship is strictly monetary. We pay our money and we receive the service paid for, at the point the relationship for all intents and purposes ends, though some effort is made to generate what is called Good Will it is a very tenuous bond easily severed by the competition offering the same service at a lower price.

An Exchange offers the service as a social activity. The group may meet for coffee and engage in other social activities such as sports. They may create a quilting circle and branch out into other services with the addition of other members.

The Exchange is a close-knit group of friends one can call on any time for any favor, only the use of a voucher system keeps anyone from being treated unfairly. This is important for the long-term stability of the group.

Belonging to an Exchange makes it possible to help any other member at any time without worrying about the cost, so long as one is available, as one is guaranteed to be compensated by the Exchange.

Exchanges underwrite all risk that might be incurred by any member due to transacting business with any other member of the Exchange. If Ethel needs help with her housework Gladys can help. Gladys’s work creates value, and this serves as the basis of an issue of Preferred Shares based on the equity created by Gladys. Thus, the Exchange vouchers or Preferred Share issue is always covered by the value of the Exchange.

Gladys can purchase goods and services from other members of the Exchange. As more woman and men join a quilting Exchange is started and a few members create an Uber style taxi service to give those members without cars a way to get around.

The Exchange can grow indefinitely and expand goods and services as the skills and abilities and capital of the group increases. Because the members find it in their best interest to help one another and expand the value and capacity of the Exchange peace develops even as the Exchange expands its line of goods and services.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments

Autumn Cote Added Apr 16, 2018 - 6:32am
Please note, to improve readability I recommend adding white space between paragraphs.  Are you aware you can edit any previously submitted article?  As always, many thanks for your participation with Writer Beat!
Joe Chiang Added Apr 16, 2018 - 11:43am
I think Rodney King summed up this article when he said, "Can't we all just get along?"
 
The Muslim Terrorists want "peace", you must become a Muslim, then we will all live in Peace.  If you don't agree, then they will kill you and the rest of the Muslims will live in Peace.  Hitler wanted Peace, he wanted it so badly he was willing to exterminate 7 million people and go to war with the rest of the world to attain it.  Had he won that war, we, the rest of the world, including Muskoka,The City Of Peace, would be under Nazi rule and at peace.
 
Universal peace will ONLY come when Christ returns.  Until then we must weigh the COST of that peace, freedom.  So are we and you willing to give up our freedom and become slaves in order to have peace.  But I say this is not peace, but just a lack of violence which is NOT the same thing.  But that is just my thinking.
Joe Chiang Added Apr 16, 2018 - 7:25pm
I agree, which does not mean much.  But the Bible agrees as well, and that means everything.  :)
Robert Burk Added Apr 17, 2018 - 4:07am
Thanks to you all for reading the title. I do appreciate those thoughtful comments and the amount of information you could derive from the title. Kudos to you all.
 
Joe have no idea if you agree with me or Kurt but I assume Kurt. I disagree mankind can overwhelm God.
 
Robert Burk Added Apr 17, 2018 - 4:08am
I only have one thing to point out... no ones inability or lack of knowledge in any way puts similar limitations on me. Just saying.
 
Leroy Added Apr 17, 2018 - 6:16am
I read your previous article and also your pdf document describing your system.  You probably remember my previous comments.  Your theories are seriously flawed, no offense.  I am just telling you like it is.  I didn't waste my time reading this post.  Is it a repost?  In any case, not everyone is as smart as they think they are.
Robert Burk Added Apr 17, 2018 - 8:31am
Leroy, I know your name, other than that I don't rmember much about you. I honestly do get a lot of general comments from people who are like you who have enough intelligence to be negative but not enough to understand why. As you say, not everyone is as smart as they think they are and this is why such people will be able to remark something is flawed without having the means to substantiate the remark. 
Robert Burk Added Apr 17, 2018 - 8:37am
Oh, and do not worry about reading the post. I am sure you can be negative without needing to pretend you had established a reason.
Dave Volek Added Apr 17, 2018 - 4:37pm
A couple of years back, I was invited to provide a leadership position to draft the constitution of Asgardia. Aspardia is the realm outside of the Earth's atmosphere, and its original thinkers were gathering people who didn't like current world systems of government for when we go into outer space on a more permanent basis. In particular, some of us would be spending our lives on space stations, moons, or planets. And we should draft a new constitution for this new realm.
 
Having just had a new baby, I declined to chair. But I asked to remain in the loop just to watch things envelope. The fellow that tried to chair the committee was doing a reasonable job of getting all the viewpoints together. But just about everyone had an agenda of some kind. One fellow wanted gay rights to be in the constitution; one wanted the death penalty; one wanted a currency based on food; etc., etc., etc. The chair tried to get some common understanding together, but there was little of that: everyone was operating on "my way or the highway" to get Asgardia's constitution together. Even though most of the participants had great intentions, eventually everyone gave up!
 
Robert, While your ideas are great, I doubt 5% of even mindsets similar to yours would be in reasonable agreement with you.  There is a lot more discussion required--and the more points that are introduced into the constitution, that elongates the discussion. The tone of your work indicates that you are not going to give on many of your points.
 
I recommend reading the history of how the American Constitution was created. It was not certainly about one person writing a manifesto that everyone else agreed on. And it was not about one executive committee either. There were a lot sailboat and carriage rides for these guys to meet together--and meet often. How they got something together in those days when the Asgardians have all this internet technology behind them is amazing.
 
 
 
Joe Chiang Added Apr 17, 2018 - 11:10pm
Robert:  I was referring to Kurt's post.  
With regard to YOUR god being able to be overwhelmed by man, I believe you.  My God, the God who made the Universe, cannot be overwhelmed by anything.  You have my sympathies for having such an impotent god.
 
Also congratulations on being so intelligent, that you seem able to be a gods over the god you have invented that is so impotent that even you are able to overwhelm him or her or whatever your god may be.
 
Dave:  Congratulations on the newborn.  :)
 
 
 
Robert Burk Added Apr 18, 2018 - 4:20am
Schreiber, perhaps you posted under the wrong essay. ???
 
Vlek.. there seems to be some cross posting or something... I have no idea what you guys are talking about. The post is Muskoka, The City of Peace... is a local program. 
 
Chaing.. I can only say the same thing again. Have you seen the Muskoka essay? Sorry, but I refuse to reply to such a garbled, meaningless rant that I have no idea where it comes from or what it is suppose to relate to.
 
Dave Volek Added Apr 18, 2018 - 9:31am
J Kurt
 
Unlike many, I consider the Constitution a flawed document in that it was created by misogynists, racists, and elitists. Now you throw drunks! 
 
Regardless, it still is an amazing document that shaped the world. Given my "Asgardia" experience, it's still amazing that such the American constitution could have been produced in the first place. 
 
When I looked at the builders of the Asgardia constitution, it seemed they wanted to solve all problems with the document. On the other hand, the American constitution was more about providing a forum to solve problems.  
 
My experience in political parties changing their own constitutions is that only an elite within the party engage in the discussion. The general membership rubber-stamp their work later. 
 
 
 
 
Robert Burk Added Apr 19, 2018 - 3:53am
Volek
Its odd but for some reason no one has read the posted essay or at least never made a comment relevant to it. Be that as it may the program the essay speaks of by passes the problem of constitutions because it starts reform from a small social network and builds society from the ground up. The idea seems beyond the comprehension of people as no one seems able to grasp the idea. The fact that you could by-pass what I said to discuss constitutions substantiates this. Why oppose a decentralized program for a centralized one?
 
Leroy Added Apr 19, 2018 - 7:52am
"The idea seems beyond the comprehension of people as no one seems able to grasp the idea."
 
Have you ever considered that we comprehended the idea and found it wanting?
Shining One Added Apr 19, 2018 - 8:12am
Robert Burk, You said, "A truth is always more simple than a lie and truth always produces better results than do lies." Oh my, where to start.
 
 There are many layers of truth. If telling the truth was so easy, don't you think we would all be doing it? Telling the truth about a small cash transaction is one thing, but telling the truth about someone's subconscious behaviour is something else. Most people feel uncomfortable about hearing the truth about some aspect of their personality that they are unaware of. Sometimes revealing that truth can have devastating consequences, when a small white lie would of been more beneficial to all involved.
 
 The truth means so many different things to many different people. Even if you believe you know something is true, is this not limited to your level of understanding? On one level, a cup is a container used for drinking, on another level, of truth, it is a group of atoms arranged in such a way as to give form to a material object.
 
 As Dave Volek pointed out, when describing the difficulties encountered when a group of people were trying to write a new constitution for the Asgardia enterprise, everyone had a different idea of how to describe this perfect utopia. They all had their own ideas of what is true. They all had different levels of understanding what the truth is.
 
 To my mind, this boils down to a reluctance to face reality, as it is! Everyone is uncomfortable with dealing with the actual situation we find ourselves in now, so they project ideas about how it should be different, or better. It is only when we get a deeper understanding of where we are now, individually and as a society, will we be better equipped to make changes for the better.
Dave Volek Added Apr 19, 2018 - 1:35pm
Robert
 
When I post an article on WB, seldom does the discussion go in the direction I anticipate. On one hand this is frustrating. But on the other there are still things to to learn from such discussion.
 
I could have spent several hours commenting on your article as the topic does interest me. However, my time and energy are limited, and I have justify the time into such a lengthy reply. I can't justify it here because I just don't think a constitution written by one person is going to go anywhere. 
 
If you do open up your constitution for a lot of re-thinking and re-writing, you are embarking on a very lengthy and frustrating process. I am only relating what I observed in the process of writing the Asgardia  constitution.
 
You can take these comments in any way you want. 
 
 
 
Shining One Added Apr 20, 2018 - 5:31am
Dave Volek, hello there fellow Asgardian. Yes, I also am a member. I have not been as involved as you though. Being one of the "first few" as it were, granted me the privileged opportunity to have some personal information/video/pictures uploaded to the satellite we now have in orbit. I never got around to it lol. I could not make my mind up on what to send. Is it too late? Anyhoo, I like your comments.
Shining One Added Apr 20, 2018 - 6:23am
 Joe Chaing, the thing that annoys me the most about people who promote "Jesus" as a saviour, is the arrogance they show. Otherwise, intelligent, reasonable people who show a healthy scepticism to scientific results because they understand that future investigation can yield new incites, show a complete lack of reasoning when it comes to the evidence of a divine being. The evidence of which, is zero.
Robert Burk Added Apr 20, 2018 - 6:35am
Leroy.. No. For reasons I shall not go into here, the idea my theory is wanting is not a rational possibility. Sorry.
 
Shining.  I trace the problems back 6000 to the dawn of  civilization. I predict the outcome and provide the solution. There is no loose ends in my analysis, not possible to demonstrate in this space but I spent 60 years tying up all the issues before I published. Normally, you would be right. Not in this case however.
 
Volek... I would love someone to tell me what they are reading. Did you read Muskoka: The City of Peace because so far as i know it has nothing to do with constitutions.
 
Shining... Odd, because I generally find atheists to be very irrational and in fact the only way they can dispute the existence of God is through silly, childlike ridicule. I wrote a 160,000 word book on the source of your confusion and detailed an empirical expriement that proves God's existence. Atheists refuse to read it...  I also developed 40 individual proofs of God, not all original to me but reworked them to compensate for the issues atheists had with them. But if you are merely stating God is not made of matter well, no big deal, it is becoming more and more obvious that reality is not made of matter either. Remember, the findings of science are always contingent and liable to change so lets not get dogmatic, does not become a true scientist.
Leroy Added Apr 20, 2018 - 8:17am
"Leroy.. No. For reasons I shall not go into here, the idea my theory is wanting is not a rational possibility. Sorry."
 
I admire your arrogance.  Yes, we here at WB are not worthy to behold such perfection, much less question it.  We must take it as a revelation from an unimpeachable source.   Forgive my stupidity for suggesting that it might be less than perfect bordering on utter nonsense.
Dave Volek Added Apr 20, 2018 - 12:22pm
Shining One
 
I spent a few hours with Asgardia.  I thought if I had more time and energy, I just might partake in this venture. The fellow who recommended me to Asgardia nominated me to chair the "constitution" committee. I declined but asked to be kept on the mailing list. He then took on the job himself. I could see that he really was trying to chair the group by first building a foundation, but the individuals just could not get away from their own versions of minitua of their better world. The committee stalled. I later heard that the original founders of Asgardia suspended a lot of their committees, but I could be wrong. That is the extent of my involvement in Asgardia.
 
Robert
 
I'll try to be a little more frank. As I was reading your work, I gained the same sense of those 20 or members of the Asgardia constitution committee. These members were not interested in hearing any ideas from anyone else. They had the "right" way; anyone who thinks differently is a fool. I have put you in a similar mindset. Any discussion would be pointless. So I'm not wasting my time and energy.
 
I could be wrong on this character assessment. And maybe I should try you out on a point or two about your work. But I just don't have the inclination to do so.
 
Maybe try submitting another article on WB that is not so "big."
 
 
 
 
 
 
Shining One Added Apr 20, 2018 - 2:02pm
Robert Burk,  "I generally find atheists to be very irrational..." It is very common for someone to project their own faults onto others. I can assure you, you are irrational. Do you know what atheism means? I suggest you have never debated with a clever person, if you assume all atheists to be childish.
 
 "But if you are merely stating God is not made of matter..." How on earth did you come up with that from my comment? No, I am stating that no one in the history of mankind has ever proved the existence of a god, immaterial or other wise.
 
 "I trace the problems back 6000 to the dawn of  civilization. I predict the outcome and provide the solution. There is no loose ends in my analysis, not possible to demonstrate in this space but I spent 60 years tying up all the issues before I published." Am I to presume you think the dinosaurs never existed? The universe is only six thousand years old? You predict the outcome and provide the solution, may I suggest you have not comprehended the idea of humility.
 
 I doubt it will do any good, because I have had experience with people like you, but may I suggest some more research for you. You say most atheists are irrational, ( if you even understand what that word means ) so here is a web site with very rational people debating this very subject with members of the public. The host, was brought up a fundamentalist Christian and so he knows the bible inside out. He is now an atheist and debates the most learned of Christians on the subject. They video all their debates and have a weekly call in. They have covered every possible piece of evidence for the existence of a god, from ordinary people to the top scholars. If you are as rational as you claim and are as erudite as you claim, a few hours of viewing should not bother you. I can assure you, they have covered every argument you can come up with and in doing so, have shown them to be completely inadequate. 
 
 If after viewing it ( if you even bother ), you still believe in a god, we will know one of two things. Either you are completely irrational, or a liar.
 
Google search, the Atheist Experience, the best of
 
Their web site.
 
Shining One Added Apr 20, 2018 - 2:35pm
 J. Kurt Schreiber  "One has to bury his head in the sand and practice a regimen of strict ignoring of facts to come up with the notion that this (creation) all this is some bizarre accident." I am in the mood, please delineate these "facts" that prove the existence of a god? 
 
 This universe is indeed a ( I will not say miraculous lol ) truly awe inspiring, incredible mystery. I personal feel absolutely amazed that it even exists! Also, that we have the privileged position of actually witnessing it. However, just because we do not currently understand how or why it exists does not mean we have to fall back on the antiquated idea that a super human being created it. 
 
 There are several ideas of how I could carry on with this comment. I am going to chose this one. In my opinion, there was never a beginning to this universe, it is infinite in size and has always existed. That immediately dismisses the idea of a creator. That also dismisses the theory of a big bang ( in ultimate terms ).  This observable universe ( restricted by are current technology to see further ) is merely a single cell in an infinite number of cells.
 
 Mainstream science is as corrupt as any other field in this society. Scientists only get grants when they follow the established rules.
Robert Burk Added Apr 21, 2018 - 5:03am
Leroy, I have no idea what is behind your sense of inferiority, I admitted your opinion would be perfectly valid b ut not in my case. You have not looked seriously at anything I have written. You would not know my ideas. Its just natural you would assume if x is valid in a,b,c, it is a universal law... I am only saying it is not.
 
J.  Not that hard for many to do... one only needs an unshakable commitment to the desireability of a meaningless world.
 
Dave. I spent 60 years on the theory behind my work. I never asked anyones opinion nor did I get anyones help. I refined my ideas so that I can go from metaphysics through to economics and monetary theory. It just seems a bit bizarre that after completing my work I would be asking for suggestions.  Sorry if this makes people feel less significant than they would like but I am not ready to pull apart a perfectly workable theory just to make people feel needed.
 
I have submitted several articles and I post on FB and have web pages. No one is ready to throw out everything they were told was true not even to eliminate unemployment and debt and so on. I am trying to find a way to sneak my theory in the back door, get people implementing it without knowing it, until it is too late to turn back. Its not easy changing the lies of an entire civilization.
 
Shinning... I have seven books implicity or explicitly detailing how atheists are irrational and two essays going into the issue in a very detailed way. I dare say I understsand atheism better than anyone on the planet.
 
I have a book, The Scientific Proof Of God on Amazon and I am working on over 40 proofs of God so I beg to disagree on if anyone has proved Gods existence or not. 
 
Ifully understand humility and tried to get my books published anonomously, but it was too difficult, so I started promoting my ideas, people kept telling me what I did was impossible, and that I could not have done what I said I done and making silly arguments such as yours and over time it has inevitably led to me sounding rather arrogant. I am not really but I gave up trying to hide what I did and what none of you can do. Sorry if it  bothers you. Prove me wrong if you do not like it... that would humble me.
 
lol, I have met dozens of your so called Christians for life who became atheists... they are a joke, they are just as confused as atheists... Trust me, I know an atheist within a few comments the thing I still cannot do is tell if the atheists used to be a christian or was atheist from birth.
 
Ask him for me if he knows why there are two books in the bible :)
 
Shinning. Nice theory.... now derive a theory of money from this and I will believe you may be on the right track....
 
 
 
Shining One Added Apr 21, 2018 - 9:07am
Robert Burk, Please provide a link to this book of yours, on Amazon. I did a search and can find nothing related to you. If indeed it actually exists.
 
 "I am working on over 40 proofs of God so I beg to disagree on if anyone has proved Gods existence or not." Then, seeing how much you only believe something if it contains a monetary reward, you will no doubt win a noble prize!
 
 In doing my internet search I did come across one book, authored by the leading exponent of the scientific approach to proving god, according to his peers. I also, recognised the name. Ray Comfort. The reason I recognised his name is because I saw a debate he had with Matt Dillahunty, the host of "The Atheist Experience". The debate, in which, Matt thoroughly shows how absurd and irrational the arguments were.
 
Matt Dillahunty vs Ray Comfort - Is There A God - 2014
 
 I am unsure if you will be receiving any further correspondence with me. I came to this site for dialogue with mature adults, not childish sycophants with an over rated sense of self importance.
Robert Burk Added Aug 22, 2018 - 12:54pm
I almost broke into tears learning I was about to be deprived of your mature dialogue. It seems the link is a bit late but since you will not likely use it I suppose the timing is moot. https://www.amazon.com/-/e/B06XVFRBP5?ref_=pe_1724030_132998070
I hope this does not sound childish to you but I have it on good authority there is such a thing as progress and no matter what one expert might think is plausible or possible there is always that chance someone far smarter and insghtful than him will come along and prove him wrong. This has actually happened over the course of history many times. Ask an adult if you do not believe me.