Content: [The Problem] [Math Proof Contra Transmutation] [Key to Fix Evolution] [Endnote on Universe Expansion] [Endnote on God's Transmutation Plan] [Viewing and Printing Tips]

Click on the "Math Proof" link above if you don't need any preambular explanation.

Preamble and Historical Review

This site is not to prove God's existence, but to plead for a return to Sane Scientific Research and Sane Bible Teaching. Both disciplines went bonkers beginning about the 1950's, and have become steadily more wacko, ever since. Beside some most-wonderful discoveries, are also the biggest gaffes in history, over the last 50+ years. It would take a separate webpage to tally both disciplines' geniuses and gaffes; but after you read this smaller page, you'll still have some sense of them. Basically, the gaffes are caused by biased research, or relying on old erroneous research; aka, not doing one's own homework. So, you do your own homework. This page, as indeed all my pages, is a report on aspects of my own homework, so that maybe a reader is spared tail-chasing, when he does his own research.

First, let's dispel one of the insane myths of the 20th century, the drunken idea that faith is somehow irrational, that faith is an emotion, rather than a reasoning process. In English, "faith" means you believe because of a reason: that's the meaning in the Greek and Hebrew, as well. So "faith" is something you do with your head; emotions are an attribute of the body, anyway (how they sway your soul, well — that's up to you). So: there's no inherent contradiction between faith and science, and in fact they are mutually interdependent: you can't progress in knowledge absent reason to believe something. That's how you learn 1+1=2, the names of things, the constituent elements of nuclear physics, the Bible. Faith always requires a reason for belief. At which point, you do believe.

Trick is, to be objective about what beliefs you have, such that if you find a belief was in error, you fix it. Like you would a broken window. However, humans' egoes bond to beliefs, such that if they change what they believe, they are somehow bad for having had an incorrect belief, prior. What insanity. Or, worse, the thing/person previously believed is somehow at fault for having been an object of faith. What insanity. Thus, the Scopes Trial, during which a whole lot of idiots spent time spouting their interpretations, and no one got any closer to the truth: Bible clearly was not consulted by the anti-Scopes folk. And the poor guy himself, didn't even deserve to be fined or tried! First Amendment should have protected him, see. So there, in microcosm, do we see the real problem: people are insecure. Has nothing whatsoever to do with the properties of science and Bible. Has everything to do with insane ego.

So, while a whole lot of folks pride themselves on believing or not believing in the Bible, they ruin true science in the process. And, true understanding of God. For, as you will see below, the so-called "theory of evolution" is a massive blight on science. Threatening the extinction of true scientific inquiry, since "science" will become identified with this thoroughly UNscientific theory. Just as Christian activism, the blight John warned about in Rev17, has from that moment forward identified itself with the Bible, though Christian activism is anti-Biblical on every count. We need to get rid of our insane attractions to these witches and warlocks in both camps, for we need Real Science and Real God, not magical tyranny.

Tyranny has been the norm in both disciplines, science and Bible teaching. The latter has been largely absent, because interest in Bible has largely been absent: breakouts of interest IN Bible, occurred only about every 200 years since 200AD.. until the Reformation. When absent, religion stamped its foot on everyone. When present, those teaching Bible were often persecuted. Same, for science. The two go together: when interest in God wanes, all desire for knowledge descends into darkness. Then we seek witches and warlocks. However, since the Reformation there has been an increasing cycle of interest, so instead of the interest-in-Bible cycle being about every 200 years, it steadily shortened; that's why you'll see scientific advance occurring, too. By the 1800's, such interest switched and stayed 'on'. If you were drawing a graph, you'd have an wavy upward trend beginning to rise rapidly toward the end of the 1700's, and peaking at new heights, ever since. The troughs still occur, but the peaks get higher. The two run side by side.

For every interest, there is a counter-interest, since any kind of mass change threatens entrenched powers. So, you had an increasing number of religious wars from the Reformation forward; an increasing number of scientific counter-clashes from that same time. And in the 19th century, everyone was ablaze with interest in 'something'. It's been going on, pretty much ever since.

Yet even 100 years ago it was considered good science to bleed someone when ill. That killed more people than helped them. Yet even the ancient Greeks knew better than that. Even 100 years ago it was considered good religion to kneel and light candles, as if even a human being would benefit from robotic ritual. Of course, today's insanities aren't much different: in science, we think it rational to presume that the night's sky contains leftover lights from stars which departed, long ago. In religion, we think it rational to claim the God would be so sadistic as to put a soul in a womb; rational, that one group should fight another group in the name of "god". Or, worse, rational to claim that all religions lead to God, that any ol' faith is okay. Yeah, and if you try to cash a counterfeit check you'll go to prison: how much more, when you try to cash in on a counterfeit god? The real God wouldn't lie about His Identity; but there would be any number of imposters, counterfeiting Him. For people seek power over people, and both science and religion are revered by people: so the potential for tyranny is high. And, used. Century after century. We love our witches and warlocks, so we put our faith in them. And hence become irrational.

Ergo: science and the world desperately need better-thinking scientists and Bible teachers; because people get so goofy, either treating science as god, or treating science as Satan. So science is always at the political mercy of human prejudice. You, if you are scientifically-inclined, can really help blunt these two horrible, anti-God, antithetical trends, by subjecting whatever 'theory' science proposes, to beta-testing by means of math. Math can't lie. It has no mass, nor any energy. So it can't change. It's just there, and it always operates the same way. How you interpret it, like how you interpret the Bible, varies. But anyone can check your math. Anyone can check the Bible. Problem is, no one does. We pretend to be scientific and rational, but prove ourselves hypocrites.

For, math is the king of all sciences, and all scientific endeavor can be conclusively tested by math. Biology, for example, is but fractals operating with respect to organic matter. Physics, with respect to inorganic matter as well. So you can use math relationships which 'mimic' the biologic or physics ones you see empirically, to learn and test for the relationships you don't see; and, to test what you think the right relationships, ought to be. Just as you'd prove out a postulate or theorem. So, if you use math to beta-test the currently-structured 'theory of evolution', the theory fails. It's shocking, how easily the 'theory of evolution' as currently constructed, is proved wrong, which of course puts all science at political risk from the science-is-satan people.

Here it must be also said that Bible believers haven't done their spiritual math. Historically, they've misinterpreted Genesis, which is why so many believers went ballistic over evolution from Darwin's The Origin of Species book, onward. Which is hysterical, since Darwin was once a clergyman, and his focus was on biological descent; he knew it had problems, too ("Difficulties of the Theory" chapter, which everyone today overlooks). Moreover, his idea was based on specializations which helped a species survive in its location: that's not inferior to superior, except as 'superior' for survival. In fact the fittest never survive, but it's always many weak and few strong; but that wasn't his definition of "fittest". Indeed, "fittest" in a weakening species would require more specialization, since the weakness needs more help. Question is, how do you classify? If specialization, we're talking "adaptation", not evolution, no matter how long the period of change turns out to be. So whether it's even evolution he observes, well.. he's calling it that, but absent TRANSmutation, you're not looking at an evolutionary process. But if you classify it as evolution, óila! Now you can pretend progress, when in fact progressive weakness is what you're observing.

Darwin didn't do his biological math, either, even though much of what he did learn, is extremely valuable and important. Darwin's entire theory is based on mere structural similarities, from which he infers progress.. completely forgetting the first law of propagation, that a child is never better than his parents. So an amoeba must be 'guilty' of advanced BUT recessive genes for many eons, to genetically justify the development of a biped with the ability to write language and think abstractly!

For, if a species is to specialize, which in science is called "adaptation"; if a species can undergo "mutation" from some outside source; if TRANSmutation is ever to occur: then the genes have to be thus changed. Which means, there has to be a genetic target capable of the change. You can't just assert there is one, based on similar biological structures. There has to be one, else you're just flapping your gums. You can yell at a piece of paper all day, but it won't react. You can spend your lifetime trying to teach an ape the Gospel, but it won't understand. Because, the attributes necessary to effect that change, have no target genes which can change. But Darwin didn't notice that basic problem in husbandry, though he was expert in it; nor (it seems) did many who vociferously criticized him. Nor, do any of the pro-evolution crowd, today.

So the Bible Thumpers of Darwin's day or today, should have done their spiritual husbandry, their spiritual math. First spiritual law of Bible is that you are a new spiritual species as a result of faith in Christ. Everyone knew that back in Darwin's day, having just spent several hundred years arguing and fighting over it, from the time of the Reformation to "liberalism" schools in Protestantism. "Faith alone in Christ alone" had long been taught by the Reformists, and even by the Lutherans. Germany and England were largely Protestant nations. The whole basis for salvation's need in the Bible, is we do not have the mechanism to be of compatible nature with God, which is why there was a Cross: to create one. So, John 3:16, 2Cor5:21 and Titus 3:5, we become what we were not: spiritual beings, as Righteous as God. That's Transmutation. In a nanosecond, not an eon. But, lasting for eons, we do thereafter evolve, and it's a continual transmuting (see Romans 8 in Greek, whole chapter, "glory to glory" verses, Rom12:1-3 in Greek); depending on, how much we want to learn God. That's why we have a textbook to learn. So we can transform, Rom12:2 (Greek). So no Christian should have been offended by Darwinian accusations; but rather, he'd be fascinated by them. For, they prove Scripture true. More specifically, they prove why Scripture is true.

So Darwin's work is rather more important than the taxonomic boondoggle of speciation, where how you classify can 'prove' any ol' theory you like. Rather, Darwin's big contribution is to show the likeness and hierarchy in biology; by learning it, one learns much about the larger UNseen hierarchy of God and angels. Reflected in creation, just as Romans 1 explains. Instead, the poor guy got embroiled in the same polemics which have attended his work, ever since: people felt threatened. Which is ironic, since Genesis 2:7 is even well-translated in English: God directly breathes life into you at birth; so that's the only reason you are human. Which is more ironic, since a bizillion Bible verses in the original languages, say that God doesn't touch the biological process; so whatever happens during pregnancy, is a deadness. Which at the time, no one could know, since all those verses in translation reversed out that doctrine (i.e., "out from" preposition min was reversed to "in", so in translation it would look like life was "in" the womb).

So God, who did know, brought out the real Bible Manuscripts, so people could correct the mistranslations; could have found out God's Transmutation Plan as God wrote it: and thus have been comforted and enthusiastic about Darwin's writings, rather than threatened. After all, if being "human" means having a soul which only God makes, then who the blazes cares about alleged 'biological evolution'? It's not contradicting the Bible, since "human" isn't man's biology, but his soul! For, at the very time Darwin was just getting published, the biggest finds of original-language Scripture in history, were being unearthed by folks like Tregelles and Tischendorf. In America, Joseph Smith was busy promoting some weird 'plates' allegedly dating back to 586BC (destruction of Temple in Jerusalem); which when 'translated', just happened to make wry, biting satires on Scripture verses in those original languages. So at the time, people didn't know much about what the Bible actually said. Nor did they bother to learn, even until today. Yet here are two sets of texts, Darwin and original-language Bible MSS, which when you read them, actually complement each other; not, contradict each other. You'd realize that the physical structure God directly gave man was intentionally higher than all other biological life forms, yet compatible: perfect picture of His Transmutational plan in Christ. Which is one reason why, God gave Adam the same job as Darwin: it was a kind of test for Adam to find someone of the same species, as himself (Gen2:19). There weren't any. Oh, what we miss when we treat Bible and science as enemies!

Do you see the humor and grace here? No need for the two sides to fight: God reconciled the entire answer! And right on time, too!

So when Darwin's works came out, people who hated the religion of the day, rallied to his defense. Those wishing to defend the religion of the day, ran to make "Darwinism" an enemy. What they all should have done, is to really learn the Bible. How ironic, since at that time more people knew the ancient Greek and Hebrew in both disciplines, than normal. Moreover, in translation you can't tell what the Bible really has to say regarding evolution. But in the original language texts just then being collated, copied, and distributed in Europe, you could know. This was a revolutionary discovery, those Bible texts: for the first time Protestants all over the world could be taught from them. It's not that no texts were available prior, but what we had, were far less reliable (i.e., KJV is based on an inferior MSS, so has a lot of errors, and is mistranslated in many places, as well).

Really really notice the timing here: at the very time accusations which seem against the Bible are being made, original-language Greek Bible texts (called "MSS"), which were long known to be hidden 'somewhere', but had remained unavailable.. were suddenly being discovered, gathered, collated and published in the original languages. Which, at the time, many middle- and upper-middle class folks could read: because Greek was the language of science and philosophy. More Greek, than Hebrew, but the Jews had kept up with the Hebrew, and the Reformation was a kind of godsend to them (with the Protestants becoming the targets, as the Roman Inquisition superceded the Spanish one). So these texts could be understood. (OT exists in Greek as "LXX", and that version was often quoted by the NT writers, so at least the references to it are safely treated as 'inspired'.) So now that the controversy over evolution is debated, people on both sides of the issue, trained already in Greek, could have read these manuscripts.. to check their allegations. To check what Bible actually did say.

They didn't do that, else they'd have learned a few things. For example, even in translation, notice from Genesis 2, that Adam had the same job as Darwin! For another example, Bible doesn't say the universe is 6000 years old, people claim it does; Bible doesn't say God created in 6 days, people claim it does. Hebrew (and Greek LXX) in Gen1:2 abruptly denotes an undefined gap in time between the big bang (or whatever) in Gen1:1, and the restoration of the Earth, which WAS a literal six days. At what interglacial period this restoration took place, I don't know, but the fact of this "Gap Theory" being known is as old as Acquinas' Treatise on the Six Days, if not older. There are many versions of the gap theory; the ones in our day focus on how long and when, but the ancient ones focused a lot on how by who: i.e., Acquinas queried from the gap whether the elect angels did the actual restoration/creation, since (presumably) he knew from the OT, that Satan&Co. had trashed up the earth, created darkness in the universe (putting out the stars), etc. [Angels' bodies are made of light. Think of the power that signifies. Light aimed in just the right place can heal or kill a person; can kill even a star. Atomic particles are affected so strongly by the application of light; they hold together or split apart, based simply on how well and how focused, a light beam is applied.]

As you'll see from the above videos (my Youtube 'Genesis' playlist), the weird idea that the universe (or earth) was initially created less than 10,000 years ago comes from a dingdong named James Ussher, who basically misconstrued the begats as beginning when creation began. That guy lived in the early 1600's, and no one has bothered to fix his error, because he's old and venerated, now. Think how embarrassed he'd be, now that he's in Heaven. Think how upset he'd be that people don't even have enough interest in Bible, to FIX the error or check his work! [If he dated from Adam's fall, he'd be about 100 years short, so not so far off. The big gaffe was to forget the obvious, that Adam had been in the Garden before the Fall, and that the earth was restored in Gen1:2 — it's not like he didn't have Acquinas who noticed the gap. God starts to number your days only in judgement, i.e., when a fall occurs. Careful reading of the Bible even in translation would show this. But for 400 years, now — we cling to this guy's tentative work (and even good work), as if it couldn't bear correction, as if it were as holy as the Bible. Oh well.]

So the obvious conclusion should have been, hey, God anticipated this discovery and now we see He deliberately made man biologically separate from all creation, yet compatible with it, so to show us transmutation. But.. God's way. New spiritual species in Christ, kaine ktisis, 2Cor5:17, the text newly being discovered. Wow, God thinks of everything.

See the humor and grace again. The scientists and other pro-evolution people were ablaze with discoveries about physics, biology, geology, pychology, political science, and all manner of natural law: and They usually read Greek. So, since God is God, and He loves questions (i.e., Mal3:10), well.. give them the answers in Greek. So also, the dingdong religionists who'd long mischaracterized His Word, could see in Greek what He said. So those against religion, could point to the original manuscripts and say, "aha! God exists, and He says thus and so!" Thereby, rejecting religion but not God. Moreover, Bible has a whole lot of natural law information in it, since natural law was used as a metaphor to teach the higher spiritual laws God created. So scientists the world over could save time in their endeavors, and find better answers, sooner. But, they didn't. In short, God delivered, and mankind, largely didn't pick up the package. How sad. True win-win situation for everyone, God provides. But we don't care.

Science is neither Satan, nor God; science is a human discipline with human failings, just like religion. No more, no less. And that's how we should regard 'science': a valuable human field of endeavor. Not divine, not demonic. Therefore, science cannot detect the soul per se. So we can't ever prove if "Lucy", for example, was really human, or a superape, since we can't prove if "Lucy" had free thought. Thought is the evidence of the immaterial soul, since thought is alike immaterial, and demonstrably so any second: a thought you read replicates in your mind, yet stays on the page. No energy loss, no mass transfer, yet real. If it's the soul which makes man human, no type of evolutionary science, applies to the derivation of mankind. Immaterial souls cannot be propagated materially. So each soul is individual, and lives forever; so if 'evolution' exists in man, then, it must be individual, in the soul, not the body. So no amount of relic evidence will prove anything of import about the origin of man, unless it can be proved that man has no soul. Which is contraindicated, since thought exists and thought is demonstrably IMmaterial.

Science needs a Lucy to call human. So it ignores the pan-animal evidence of animals who hunt in packs, make tools, have specialized communications, etc. People have monitored apes for years, and seen this stuff. Duh: that's why it's so easy, to socialize them. Can't socialize an ability which wasn't latent, capisce? But oh, if they pretend animals can't use tools, then when they find them using tools they can claim a connection to humans. Yeah, and how many life forms can walk on two legs? A bunch: (bears, dogs, elephants, even cats). So to find lots of prehistoric evidence of hunting in packs, proves not at all, that the hunters were human...

Science has so little evidence of evolution, it has to take whatever it can find, and then pad that 'evidence' to make the theory work. Hence, it must find a trail of life starting with protozoa, and building up to man. So it takes similar structures, carefully classifies them to 'prove' man descends from apes (the Encarta classification of human evolution is a stitch); then, treats the lesser as giving evolutionary (transmutational, not adaptational) birth to the greater; so that when it gets TO the greater, it says "Aha! Here's the proof!" Yeah, look at that ape pelvis versus the human one. Yeah, and "reed" and "read" look alike, too. But what ape has ever composed a sonnet? Followed a religious practice? You can teach an ape a lot of things, but you can't teach him, "God".

So it is no proof. All you have, is an ASSumption between one lifeform and another. A dog has four legs, a dinosaur has four legs, so science treats them as related. They might not be. Lots of words in a language will sound like other words in another language, but the derivation of the two languages is totally different. In fact, you can get in a lot of trouble if in China you use the wrong inflection tone for "ma": one means "mother", and another one, "curse". If you asked a 1st-century Roman soldier for a "baptism", he'd laugh, warning you that you'd need boot-camp, first! [Baptism was a graduation ceremony; word is of Greek origin, and signified the tempering of a sword; so came to be a soldier's graduation ceremony, when he finished basic training. See how we don't do our homework?]

Same in biology. The similarity of biological forms is due to the root commonality of being on a planet with these consituent elements (i.e., all life is carbon-based). So you can't take those similarities and ipse conclude that the lesser spawned the greater. Especially since, as will be shown below, the first Law of Math, no set can contain itself, means that never does the lesser cause the greater, but only vice versa. So "Lucy" at most would be a degeneration from humanity, not a progenitor. If, even human and not a superape. But science doesn't allow for that idea, despite the overwhelming biology we all well know, about degeneration, and especially about psychological degeneration, in which man becomes progressively animal-like. Instead, 'evolutionary science' just sticks its head in the sand, and insists that we who are later, progressed from Lucy-like creatures. This is bad science. Mentally-ill science: defense mechanism of denial, specifically.

So the problem in evolution, like the problem in any discipline, is one of proper accounting; and the essence of proper accounting, is proper classification. Screw up the classification, and you get debacles like Enron, Global Crossing, and now Fannie Mae. Screw up the accounting, and you get.. our current 'theory' of evolution. And religion, for that matter — but my other sites pick on, so to speak, the stupidities of Churchinanity. [Nerd note: I thought I invented that term, but it turns out my pastor used it during a March 2000 class which I didn't hear until 2/18 or 2/17, 2005. So I don't know who really invented it.]

So in science, "Accounting" means that when you evaluate a piece of data, you must cross-test your interpretation with other data you have, and rigorously, precisely because a piece of data will look like one 'answer', but in fact may be quite the opposite answer. Same with Scripture: when you evaluate the meaning of a Bible verse, you have to cross-test it across a variety of Bible verses on related topics. In both cases, this scientific pursuit is to ferret out, erroneous ideas. Blind man and the elephant is resolved by feeling all the elephant. Blind researcher and the 'elephant' means feeling all the shape, to be sure of what shape you have. Science has very few skeletons it calls human, and it relies so heavily on carbon-dating which is known to be incorrect and unstable. So it needs other evidence to ferret out errors in its assumptions about how old these skeletons really are, and about whether they are properly classifiable as human. I've yet to see anything that justifies the current classifications, because the system used to classify, is tautological, based on superficial similarities which are asserted to be causally-linked to a supposed progenitor, etc. It matters altogether why one draws a conclusion. Never accept anything material you can't account.

See, the US went ballistic over Enron's accounting, because over time all those off-balance-sheet assets and (more importantly) liabilities, MISrepresented the financial health of the company. Well, whose fault was that? A few people, not the whole company. But what happened? The whole company was hurt. All of Arthur Anderson was hurt. So now, it's happening all over again with respect to Fannie Mae (the quasi-governmental mortgage company) and KPMG; so now the US Government itself, is guilty (they have oversight on Fannie Mae). It's material, to MISclassify earnings, assets, liabilities. Well: it's material, to do the same thing, in science. So when you find a material discrepancy, a red flag should go up.

So here's a material unaccountable thing: what evidence of civilization do you find among mankind? If man is so old, why does the record of his civilization, only begin about 6000 years ago, in Mesopotamia? Then, are we really talking human skeletons, thousands of years earlier? I've seen ranges for what constitutes the homo family going back between 60,000 and several million years! So it's how you classify what is "homo", that matters. Well, how can you classify as the same species, or even the same genus, all those 'hominids' who never built civilizations? What we know as 'man' universally believes in some idea of "god", and every archeological site within the last (say) 7,000 years or so, finds religious artifacts. Ok, then: why don't you find million-year-old or even 70,000 year old, religions? Just try to: I keep trying, for what it's worth.

Look: the biological basis for classifying, is a distinctiveness of great magnitude. Birds can fly, but people can't, so people aren't in the same class as birds. Well, we humans can imagine God, and build civilizations; these unique functions demonstrate the capacity for abstract thought. No other biological lifeform on this planet, has it. So we belong in our own class, for the same reason that "Birds" are a separate class. It's insane, the way 'scientific' people ignore their own classification standards!

More: why do we only find reliable burial mounds within the last 6000 years? And if we claim they are older (as some do) based on carbon-dating, sheesh: carbon decomposition's rate varies even within the same item from which you take a sample; so you have to take several samples, and then you GUESS which of them is the more likely. Well, what if you took the samples from the wrong place? What if the entire item itself is so corrupt? You don't get the same carbon-dating results from a mummy, as you do from a skeleton laying open on the ground for the same period of time: the latter will have decomposed the more.

DNA testing might be the better thing to use, then. So why, when the DNA results DON'T agree with your assumptions about man's origins, do you ignore them? Encarta reports they did DNA testing on some of the 'hominid' skeletal samples, and did not find close linkage; the mutation patterns expected to get to 'man' as we know ourselves, won't track back to the 'hominid' skeletons we have, so now folks like the Neanderthals and Peking man(?) aren't so related, after all.

OK: but the idea is still the right one, and you can posit rates of mutation, based on the mutational data you have in modern man. Ok: but DNA researchers can't seem to find generations of man back more than 2000 in number, and even that is a whopping guess first based on the SUPPOSITION that 'modern' man is something like 60,000+ years on this planet. For if there really were that many generations of man, why don't we find evidence of him civilizing until about 6000 years ago? Once he's man, it's technically a question of adaptation (man doesn't evolve; if he did, he'd have to transmute and become something not human). So sheesh: if man is sooo old, then why doesn't he adapt for nearly a million, or at least many thousands, of years, and then suddenly, poof! You find cities, everywhere on earth? Something's fishy with the storyline evolution presents, then. In sum, when we ballyhoo Lucy or Java Man, um.. we need to cross-check with other evidence which ought to be there. Like, evidence of thinking, which only a burial culture or civilization or written record, demonstrates.

DNA is the most complex latticework you can imagine, and if even one gene is different, huge changes result. Yet, you'll find people routinely claiming we are evolved, because "98 percent of our genes are the same as the chimpanzees'." Oh, so now the fact that our genes are similar is proof? Yeah, and rats are used in testing for deriving drugs, because of their similarities; so too, pigs and rabbits. Did we descend from them also? See, you have to have a sound basis for a claim, not a stupid one. The genetic claim is a stupid one: all life must have a lot of similarities to exist in the same biosphere. That's why dinosaurs aren't here, anymore.

Which leads to yet another unaccountable thing: how can animacy come from inanimacy? Life itself is really unaccounted in the theory. We start with it as a supposition, and never account for how it got there. So if life itself is immaterial and separate from matter-energy, which it must be, since both matter and energy are inanimate — then maybe the key to evolution is life mixing with matter and energy, rather than speciation of beings. Of course, the ancients all knew this (the idea of evolution as a strictly biological concept is at least as old as Aristotle); but we moderns ignore that problem. So, our theory accounts for nothing at all, until we can account for life itself.

Which accounting we don't do, since it will rather shake up our premises: we find we've built a castle on the sand. So before we go blithely teaching the mantra of evolution, religion, or anything.. we should check our premises for soundness. Even Darwin noticed that man's intellect is "godlike" in the last paragraph of his The Descent of Man. So if godlike, then not 'evolved', get it? Darwin didn't, and that's the mistake smart men were making then, like Feuerbach: man is but mass in motion, without a soul. It was all the rage, then, to fancy all these impersonal forces, man being the center and highest of them; it was all the rage, to feel one's oats and rid the self of the shackles of religion. For good reason, since religion had been tyrannizing man since Adam's fall, and it had proven itself a liar.

Notice how God graciously gave us the tools we needed, right when we needed them, to check our premises for soundness on 'both sides' of this raging debate, back in the 19th century: at the very time the largest collection of original-language Scripture was being unearthed, collated, and distributed, so also the largest anti-Scripture ideas were being considered, collated, and disseminated. Level playing field: God and anti-God ideas. Religion of all kinds became very active during this period. We talk about the significance of the Renaissance and the Reformation, but the biggest century of change was the 19th. Everything after it, is but corollary, and look at the rapidity! Not evolutionary, but revolutionary. Understand, the proof we have today of Biblical locations, was then being found; so also, real fossils of 'hominids' (i.e., Neanderthal=Neander Valley, where some pieces were found).

So for all this 'natural law' discovery to be raging, coupled with newly-discovered Biblical evidence and manuscripts, well.. revolution is the outcome, and we're still involved in it. The 19th century, blew the lid off history. Rejection became a virtue. Personal Independence became a right to demand, rather than a privilege to cherish. Two potent poisons, for mob rule. And we're still playing out all those 19th-century, 'finds'.

Funny how UNscientific a person becomes, when trying to cut out the existence of God, because he's ticked off at religion. Both these guys — Darwin and Feuerbach — grew up with striated religion; understandably, they hated it; but they threw out the baby with the bathwater, and also rejected God; so, on their new religious crusades, they were out to prove their new ideas, right — godless. You have to ask how unbiased they were. But then, none of us are. Science has been tainted with this sub-radar motive of proving no-god-origin, ever since.

So no one asks, "where does LIFE come from?" The answer coulda been, "it's just there". An obvious answer, since clearly matter and energy, aren't 'life'. But nooooo — if you are out to deny God's existence, you can't admit of independent life. So, even positing the far more logical idea that "life" is the 'missing link' independent, superior, "parent" — which you could easily say, without saying anything about God — they won't talk about it. It's too touchy, see. Just classify "life" under inanimate matter and energy, see. Pretend that's logical, see. And then we don't have to see 'god'. We can just pretend we are 'scientific', see. Seeing, nothing. In psychology, that's called a defense mechanism of "denial". You sweep into your subconscious what's too painful to admit. Problem is, that leads to dissociation, where the personality fragments, in its fruitless quest to resolve the garbage stuck in that subconscious. So 'science' has been suffering from dissociation, ever since. It's something of a comedy, really, as so aptly captured in an unrelated Youtube video by a user who spends much time examining the inherent illogics of Darwinism (video has since been set to private).

Darwin's and Feuerbach's theories don't hang together — they didn't account for "life"; millions of alleged intellectuals draw their conclusions based on these two guys, and so share in their denial/dissociation. Kinda sad, really. We could be learning so much. But we are afraid to account for "life" as a separate thing. Why, I can't fathom, since you can't really say which idea of God is right as a result, nor should you try.

The alleged pro-Bible people were out to get these guys and their intellectual kindred, so they urged on their faithful a stance that science is Satan. These anti-God Bible thumpers thus proved their own ignorance of the Word, when crying oh-so-piously that it took God six days to make the universe — the first six days of a six thousand year old universe? Whoa. As you might have seen in the above "Time Travel in Genesis" videos, didn't they prove fools: by then, everyone knew even the rocks were way older than 6000 years. Bible confirms that, since the BIBLE says a pre-Adamic ANGELIC REBELLION occurred for who knows how long, in Genesis 1:2! So the Bible thumpers were hiding their problems with Bible under false skirts, too. But no one Checked The Bible on either side! So: no one accounted for anything, but a lot of wasted time and money. And so it has been, ever since.

In short, no theory is worthwhile if it can't account objectively for origin, which is precisely why Darwin wrote his books — he was trying to account for it. Which is precisely why Genesis was written, to save man time IN accounting for it. And both books always look so important on the bookshelf.. nicely gathering dust.

But science isn't the only discipline which so misuses empirical data. Christianity has done that for centuries. For centuries, it taught that if you observed certain taboos, days, rituals, and good deeds, and crusading — you'll go to heaven, and God will bless you. Hooey. Bible says the opposite (and scathingly). So the Bible wasn't consulted; our teachers instead imposed on us norms which controlled us. And we bought what they taught. We didn't want the Bible, either. And these two guys, Darwin and Feuerbach, were just two of many intellectuals of that day, who were (understandably) fed up with organized religion. Problem was, they mostly threw out the idea of God altogether, in order to reject the religion. So instead embraced animism, dressed up in 19th century 'scientific' language. And accounted themselves, holy martyrs. Yeah, it feels so good to 'beat' God...

So everyone on both sides isn't voting for true science or for God: but rather, for witches and warlocks. So what should God do? Well, we see what He did in the 19th century: all those natural law discoveries, could help us appreciate how vast He is, how Loving He is. Accompanied by, the biggest discovery and rollout of Scripture original-language manuscripts, since the 1st century closed. So there was a hunger for it. Which no doubt, riled up the religious crowd and those anti-religion, alike; but that didn't stop Tregelles and his many cohorts, nor Count von Tischendorf, from doggedly finding those manuscripts and going to no end of trouble, to get them into the proper hands. Before that, God still 'managed', thank you very much, to preserve both translations and original-language texts. So that, from 1st century onward, when the occasional servant girl, duke, or tradesman really wanted to know God and His Word, He would orchestrate circumstances such that the person could come into prolonged contact with a real Bible. And, that person quietly then learned it, and grew up. Or, not so quietly, and was ridiculed. While the rest of the world bled each other in the name of science, or God.

God did another rollout in the 20th century: he added teachers to teach those original-language texts to the common man. So, in the 1950's when those teachers were rarin' to go, He caused a Beduoin kid to find Qumran; and either that kid or someone else, also unearthed far superior, contemporary Greek grammar rules. All Greek grammars written before those finds, had to be retooled. Most, of course, were not, for man doesn't care about God, but about his ego — oh, the old is venerated, no matter how wrong it is now. Yeah, respect an old scholar who did the best he could but was only human — but DISrespect the God Who went to the trouble to preserve Scripture and its study materials!

So let's look at God's Accounting, to help us do our own, better.

• We saw earlier that God says you are only human because you have a soul (Gen2:7), so we can't at all tell from biology, whether those old skeletons were 'human'.
• Next accounting item: Bible never depicts man as a hunter-gatherer, except in last-stage degeneration (i.e., in Isa44, in Hebrew and Greek, Romans 1, Greek). So "human" means civilized, and indeed we only have historical records of civilization going back for some 6000 years. What embarrassing proof of our lack of analysis. How long has Genesis 4 been available to read, even in translation? What, all those degreed religious and scientific folk, can't read it? Nor anyone among common man? What, did they only have the Bible in the Click language, so couldn't read it for centuries? Darwin surely didn't notice Adam and Cain's sophistication, even though Adam had the same job as Darwin, lol. And what does Cain do when he is punished by God? Builds a city. The guy was a vegetarian, for crying out loud, and was mighty ticked off God didn't want his vegetables. (Meat wasn't allowed for food until after the Flood.) But no smart scientist in the 19th century or since, noticed all that. No one in the Scopes Trial noticed the glaring difference between hunter-gatherers, and that first man, a biological taxonimist, and his first son, a city-builder. LOL! No one even today notices the glaring difference. Instead, you have scientific versus Bible debates inanely raging, millions of dollars spent.. what a circus. Everyone goes blithely on, hallucinating meaning in, and conflict between, Bible and science. It's apples and oranges, doo-doo brains!

• That doesn't mean a young earth. We don't know how long ago the gap between Gen1:1 and 1:2 ended, so we can't say when the human race began. You can say fallen civilized man began circa 4100BC: which happens to accord thus far with the archeological data scholars largely agree on, about civilizations. You can also say that up until that date only two humans existed. But from the Biblical data given, you can't say how old the earth was pre-Adam; nor, how long they lived pre-Fall.

• Per Bible, man doesn't even go through a hunter-gatherer stage until the end of a degeneration cycle; at which point, he becomes brutish, theme of Romans 1; that's why mankind eventually ends (passim theme in Bible but highlighted in Gen6, Revelation Chaps6-19). So anything prior to 6000 (up to 10,000) years ago, isn't even relevant: a mankind which can be saved, didn't exist before that time. If we posit that some other 'adam' preceded the one in the Bible, well.. that story isn't relevant to us. We are "mankind" since Adam, provably; and we've not evolved, since we still are "mankind". For "evolution" requires a TRANSmutation of species, but we can still mate, so by science's own definition we are still the same species, since Adam. So see? There's no basis for arguing this question at all: we are souled, meaning IMMATERIAL; evolution is strictly limited to biology. So it's apples and oranges, no matter what.

So we humans on both 'sides' of this non-issue debate, prove we could care less about the truth. What we care about, is preening. And given the insane way both sides use empirical data, we prove that what we really want, is magic.

If we were interested in truth, we'd do proper accounting, as mentioned earlier. You have to account from the origin forward, and until you do, you haven't really proven anything. Just like circumstantial evidence in court, empirical data at best offers more questions than answers; so until you track back to source, neither guilt nor innocence have been established. In court, the "source" you seek is motive. In accounting the source you seek, is the origin of the transaction. You must classify based on source, or you will chase your tail, in accounting, in science, in faith. But people on both sides of this non-issue debate characteristically and irrationally use empirical data like magic pills; whether shroud or ossuary, stone tool or bone ax, everyone seizes on the relics as if they were holy. This is not science, and it's not faith in God, either. It's simply a sick desire for magic.

Some scientists nonetheless smile at the Bible toters, thinking them illogical and emotional; for 'science' is superior, 'objective'. For they base their erudition, on facts! Excuse me? Remember Piltdown Man? Science loves magic, too! Ohhhh, that was the proof to end all proofs that man came from an ape, in 1912: yeah, because some clever guy meshed an orangutan jaw to a human skull. What's so hysterical, is that the skull of the human and the ape-jaw joined, both dated from the Middle Ages! That makes it a very expensive hoax. People don't just keep centuries'-old skulls and orangutan jaws in their garages, y'know; that stuff HAD to come from a rich person's collection, or a museum. So you just know, someone smart like a scientist would be, put that hoax together. Wasn't until 1953 that someone figured it all out!

So imagine between 1912 and 1953:

• the preening by 'scientists', oh, this Bible is bunk, because here's this SKULL showing the 'missing link!' LOL, one swallow makes a summer? Do you see the hunger to deny God? One measly skull and suddenly it's conclusive proof that evolution is true? Um — did that skull have a soul? No one asked that question, since no one could prove the answer.
• And then on the Bible thumpers' side, oh the gnashing of teeth! Oh, our Bible is a LIE, I can't trust it anymore, because there's this SKULL! LOL, one swallow makes a summer? Do you see the hunger to deny God? One measly skull and suddenly it's conclusive proof that evolution is true? Um — did that skull have a soul? No one asked that question, since no one could prove the answer.

But then, no one wanted an answer. We all just wanted to wail, or preen...

Then there's the other side of the ledger, that other goofy thing, the so-called "Shroud of Turin". Carbon dating was off by 14 centuries, because the sample used wasn't tested properly. Even Encarta is constrained to explain that the farther back you go with carbon-14 dating, the more INaccurate it is likely to be, maybe as far off as 2000 to 5000 years, but the variable itself has a 8% variance (per 5730 years, the 'new' half-life of carbon 14). It's considered so UNreliable, no one will use it anymore to date beyond 40,000 or so years. Hmmm: that means our whole crafting of time needs to be reworked, for when I was in school in the 1950's, carbon dating was the new god, in science. Magic. The latest incarnation of Tulipomania.

By the way, those claiming the Shroud is of Christ need to see a psychiatrist, since they are obviously too mentally-ill to read the Bible, anymore. God would not leave a full-length naked picture of His Son behind on some piece of cloth. He already did better than that, by leaving us a copybook with Full Naked Thinking that paid for our sins. Aka, the Bible. Elsewhere I've covered the provable stupidity of the Shroud, and how you can tell from the Bible that there wasn't one, at all; so I won't elaborate, here.

Ok. We've now looked at two hoaxes, one on the evolution side, and one on the so-called 'Christian' side. Let's go back to the pro-evolution side, looking at more relic magic which is not regarded as a hoax. So, then: those Lascaux cave paintings, are variantly presented by Encarta as 13,000 years old. The Chauvet paintings are presented as 32,000 years old. Of course, you can't use carbon dating on rock, but most of the archeological dates given in encyclopedias are based radiocarbon dates made from rock (i.e., all those cave paintings, little bits of the charcoal used ON the rock, were carbon-dated). And the other dating methods have big problems, too. So if someone claims cave paintings are 12,000 BC, like Altamira, that date might be completely off! For have you looked at that art? In the first place, someone painted over other art, using it like a canvas, not like a religious rite. Moreover, the painting is the same style as you find in the Mycenaean cultures; the animals depicted are of very modern type, visible even today, in all three cave samples shown by Encarta.

So you really have to ask if those paintings are soooo old. So, let's look at these cave paintings closely: why are they so much more sophisticated, and of very modern animals? I mean, if you could get hold of charcoal and ocher of very ancient type (ocher being but a form of iron, anyway) and painted it on a ceiling (that in itself warns me this isn't a real cave-man thing), then — since the scientists only date the 'paint' (charcoal, ocher) used, óila! it's 15,000 years old! Yeah, the 'paint' is maybe that old, but not necessarily, the date it was painted.

You understand, I hope, that charcoal can be naturally burnt from very old wood or coal; coal itself is the product of long-extinct prehistoric animals. Iron, of course, is as old as the earth. The rocks around you are likely millions of years old. So if you grind up ancient material to make a paint powder, and then paint with it, you have an 'old' painting. That's why, when art-fraud detectives are reviewing a painting to detect forgery, they NEVER go by the AGE OF THE PAINT. Rather, they look for the type of BRUSH STROKE. It's like a fingerprint. So the age of the paint can be reproduced — but each artist had a unique type of brush stroke. So you couldn't use the age of the paint to date that work of art or pronounce a seeming-masterwork, genuine — you needed to verify the brush strokes. Art fraud detection by this method is centuries old.

So why, then, do today's alleged anthropologists, insist that those cave paintings are so old? Surely their brains are turned OFF.

I'm not suggesting that the cave paintings are a hoax; I'm rather pointing out that the basis used to claim age, is one which even art fraud detectives, call wrong. So maybe long ago some people used the cave to paint, but used much older 'paint' material. You can't tell when the painting was painted, by the material used. So I am 'suggesting' we should be skeptical: since a) the animals are modern ones, and b) your average cave inhabitant wouldn't have time or inclination to go through the torturous procedure required to make those paintings. You realize, I hope, that painting in a cave can't be done without adequate illumination, which in those days, meant fire. In an enclosed space. Takes a lot of free time, which who has, now or then — to paint. Especially, on a ceiling. Moreover, caves were not the preferred method of dwelling. People preferred to dig beneath the earth, because it would be warmer; worse, animals lived in caves and you could never know if one would be in there. But if you dwelt in the open, you could run faster. So, cultural facts like these, which you can find fairly easily — they don't mesh with elaborate cave paintings, in the first place. How could such elaborate paintings be only in the caves? If such depth of artistry, where are the CITIES? For when you have culture, you have civilization. So: where is it?

Now the art's style can tell you much, and in fact if you major in art history in college, you are required to date a piece by its style, or you'll flunk your classes. So: compare, if you will, to the Australian aboriginal stick-figure paintings also alleged to be 30K years old, which are more typical of rock painting you find in New Mexico circa 800 (to 1800) AD at Chaco Canyon, etc. (I went to the New Mexican ruins in 2002.) Something's really fishy here. How can the aboriginal painting be of the same age as Chauvet, yet be no further advanced at Chaco and its related sites, if man 'evolved'? Our ability to paint in 800-1800AD is demonstrated in museums all over the world, but the aboriginal paintings look like the primitive Indian paintings of 800-1800AD. Very much alike. Moreover, the sophisticated Spanish and French cave paintings are of the same animal-body style you find in the Mycenaen and like Greek and Egyptian art. (I thought I saw some Chinese cave with painting like the French and Spanish in Encarta, but I can't find it now.)

So not only are the art fraud detectives ignored, but also everyone whose ever taught art and art history, in the world's colleges. And we should believe these people 'scientific', when they ignore other sound 'science'? Art fraud is a forensic science. Art history and dating of art styles, is a kind of forensic science. Anthropology is supposed to specialize in forensics, but clearly is rather selective about it...

Next sample of relic magic: Encarta proffers a 'Venus' figurine, but calls it 30,000 years old. Well, that was also typical of the Mycenaean custom and art, of handheld phallic deities — so is it really 30,000 years old? Mycenae began about 3000 BC; so did someone mistakenly ADD a "0" to the age? And again — they dated the rock. That tells you nothing about when the rock was CARVED. But the art's style tells you much. Oooh, how we can tune out truth when we want to, yet call ourselves, 'scientific'.

Another example: a mammoth tusk Encarta claims is also 30,000 years old — did ya notice the style of the art? Sheesh: it's abstract! So how can it be 30,000 years old? If there's abstract art, if there's lots of carvings etc. allegedly belonging to the "Perigoridian" or "Magdalenian" period, where are the CITIES? Where, evidence of written language? Of the same age? Sumthin's Very Fishy, k?

So, then: an African spear is claimed to be 8000 years old, well.. it might only be 3000 years old. Or, yesterday. You have to prove when the material was ASSEMBLED, carved, painted, etc. Can't go by the age of the media. That's true in Bible, and that's true in science.

In sum, while the 'scientist' can rightly claim that Bible thumpers aren't objective, the 'scientist' has his own turf to guard, as well; hence objectivity is missing, today. You don't have to be a Christian, to be dogmatic. Given the current insane idea about how light 'travels' (discussed later), so the stars we think we see at night aren't but old photos and the real stars are long gone — I trust 'science' like that, not at all. But I want to. Christianity has abysmally treated science ever since Darwin, so it's kinda understandable that scientists feel somewhat persecuted, and hence defensive. Alrighty, then: don't give the Christians more fuel. Do better homework.

Any real scientist will first tell you that nothing in science is certain, but rather educated guesswork: "there's so much yet to know" is the true scientist's catchphrase. Christians should be thinking in exactly the same way: God's Word is bottomless, and we should quit trying to use our interpretation of the Word as if we were as accurate as IT is.

People are so insecure about themselves, that if someone around them uses long words and knows facts they don't know, they are impressed and automatically confer godlike status on such an individual. Hence science is deified, no matter how much it protests. Hence science is demonized, if it doesn't live up to the godlike expectations of it. Hence getting funding for further scientific research, is always a political battle between the deifiers and the demonizers, with the result that science has to go along with its deified image, to get the money! Thus the deification, intensifies. Thus the demonization is more destructive, when it occurs.

God being God, science will reflect God. So it's not even possible for science to disprove God. Which, you can tell immediately: everything has a cause, so when you track back to absolute source you are only left with one answer: God exists. Believe that or not, but science will never lead to any other logical answer, because all science is based on cause-and-effect inquiry. So let's forget about using science to prove or disprove God; let's instead fix and improve scientific inquiry; fix and improve our understanding of God's Book. Click here for more detail.

Meanwhile, insecure Christians and non-Christians alike abuse "evolution" to support their own ideas about God, as if 'scientific proof' were conclusive, in establishing God's Existence, pro- or con-. So, such folks can't think straight: so NO improvements in Bible and science understanding, occur. Hence both disciplines, stultify: everyone in each 'camp' belligerently stands on his turf, rather than pursuing scientio, knowing. Our ideas about God, right or wrong, don't justify screwing up rational thinking: for, a thing is either right or wrong, and we all benefit by finding more of the right answers, every day. For, "science" itself is quite plausibly defined as either the faithfulness of God in operation, OR the constancy of a non-judgemental 'life force' in operation.

So let's all check our brooms at the door before examining the problem with "transmutation".

The Problem with Evolution: definition of "Transmutation"

Here's what's right about "Evolution" — there IS such a thing as a macro-progress and regress over eons of time (i.e., geologic time), and the nature of the organism CHANGES SPECIES. For, the core meaning of evolution, is a CHANGE IN SPECIES, not just internal progress. Internal progress is called "adaptation", not "evolution." Unfortunately, even encyclopedias (e.g., Encarta) egregiously misuse the term "evolution" today, so man thinks some long-term, macro "progress" is the same as "evolution". Not true. Sheesh: our academic standards have really declined, and we've really become sloppy. So first we have to examine what "evolution" really means, before we can say what's wrong with it.

So yes, "evolution", as a CHANGE IN SPECIES, exists. The Question is, how it works, on whom does it work; not, whether it exists. The math about Biology, for example, is (again) but fractals operating with respect to organic matter, so there IS something akin to 'evolution'. Trouble is, "Evolution" as currently conceived is MISconnected in its formulae of causes, conditions, successions and relations: even the first law of math proves the misconnections are rampant. These misconnections can be fixed, again by beta-testing against math; and it is the solemn charge of 'science' that they BE fixed. Unless, we all wanna go back to witches and warlocks.

Bible has its own definition of transmutation: God created you, so if you consent, God Changes You, aka "salvation" (or "hell", if you refuse). That was why the OT rituals were designed as they were, mnemonic teaching aids: believe in God, and He will change you to become like Him, so you can have a close relationship with Him. Christ then is the Source for the Transmutation. So the old way of learning, changed. Hence, a "new testament" (he kaine diatheke, term used in various ways in the NT). So, the New Testament spends its words explaining how this transmutation occurs in you, and it has a lot of key phrases for that transmutation, so the reader can track the explanation: "Christ in you", "new" versus "old" (dramatically stated, in verses like 2Cor5:17,21), "far" and "near", "born again". You are literally a different species of human being, the first second you believe in Christ. The rest of your life is to learn how to live being that way, and the choices you make program you. So you end up being the person you want to be. And if you want to be closer to God functionally, it takes God's Power to do that. Hence the commands to use 1Jn1:9, Eph5:18, Phili2:5, 2Pet3:18, Romans 12:2, etc. Christ Himself was transformed into "the Way the Truth and the Life" by learning God's Thinking from the Holy Spirit (i.e., "full of grace and truth"). So we get transformed now by learning His Thinking (main theme of John 14-17). Note that God Does It. God, being superior, is the larger number set. We, being inferior, are a smaller number set. So our 'parenting' is done by God, which is why we can 'inherit' His Thinking. But He's God, a spiritual being. So, we have to transform into becoming a spiritual being: which happens, the first nanosecond you believe in Christ (John 3:16).

Of course, this process doesn't take long periods of geologic time, so it's not "evolution" by the timeline science uses. But it is a valid transmutation: for example, sumorphologew, the witty word in Romans 12:2 and other verses. All sum- prefixed words denote God Is The Actor, not man, and they are never translated properly, though even basic lexicons like Thayer's, note the solely-God-does-it meaning. And there are many such words, in the original-language texts of both OT and NT. [Forget Strong's. Maybe he understood the languages well, but any student can't learn anything of real value from Strong's. Seems like — and I'm guessing — Strong's was developed for students who just needed bare rudiments, kinda like a very abridged dictionary a foreign tourist would use. Well, that might work if you need to ask where the bathroom is, but it won't help you learn how to read Bible.]

The birthing of your transformation takes but an instant of time, that first second you believe Christ died for all your sins; on the other hand, learning how to live afterwards, takes a lifetime — you have to get filled up with the rest of His Thinking (main theme of Romans 8, Ephesians, Colossians 1-2, most of 1Cor). Because, you are preparing for a new life which will last forever. Paul likens this preparation to pregnancy, in the Greek of Romans 8:11ff. So, "evolution" by God's standards is how HE makes you grow, but never apart from your consent. And it takes one lifetime, however short or long. It ends up being an evolution, though, since you will live forever with God. Note how the connection to God is what makes for transmutation and evolution.

Of course since animals don't have souls, they don't evolve. So chuck all that idea. Whatever looks like evolving is adaptation or mutation, but never TRANSmutation. For unalike species, cannot mate. So there's no way to transmute. Duh. They do adapt within their species over long periods of time. They do differentiate over long periods of time. So you'll see the ape group, differentiate a lot, but ape didn't come from amoebas, either. That would have required TRANSmutation. So, dogs didn't come from birds, and while birds maybe resemble dinosaurs, they didn't come from dinosaurs, either. We were wrong about dinosaurs in the past, and we are wrong about them now. Be careful not to cross the line between differentiation within a species, and CROSSING OVER to a new species. The latter is a taxonomic problem, but biologically, it can't happen. You'd need two to mate who are of similar enough species, to bear kiddies. So TRANSmutation, which is what "evolution" is all about, simply can't happen. Bible doesn't ascribe TRANSmutation to anyone but humans, and then only because God does it to you. So you can't do it to yourself, either.

The Bible book on human origin, "Genesis", was first written down by Moses circa 1440BC; yet you can tell by its Hebraically-succinct, axiomatic style that everyone was long familiar with the basic details. [Inspired Greek OT ("LXX") titles the book "Genesis": means the beginning of MAN, not the beginning of creation. Hebrew Buh-RAY-sheeth simply means "In the beginning", and it's a brilliant wordplay on the "head" connotation of the Hebrew root consonants (rsh): see a good lexicon. Book of Job was written pre-Moses. When you read the story you see the same wording, essentially, as in the Genesis account, and the Genesis account is very succinct. Succinctness is used when the audience is already familiar. The Bible's stated purpose for being written down is to fulfill a promise, viz., in Jer31:31-34. This promise was stated first in the Garden, when the Lord promised He'd come as man to pay for sins Gen3:15, because the purpose was eternal togetherness. God's Thinking in Writing is the most-cherished of all Bible promises: just ask any Jew.]

We see Moses' life story beginning in Exodus. There, you had magicians turning sticks into snakes. Frankly, that's the same as the heart of evolutionary theory, "transmutation". Magic. Man has always had stories where magpies become stars, people become gods, etc. An inferior changing to become superior to itself, through some meritorious action or magical action. Like, Isa14:12-17, Satan fancying himself to be able to make himself like the Most High (God the Son), long before man was even created. So, when Moses penned Genesis, he made repeated mention of reproduction being "according to its kind", never beyond its own nature. So no, you can't turn stones into bread (but God can, which is why it was the 1st Temptation to Christ in Matt4:3); so no, you can't go from an amoeba to a man — no matter how long you wait.

Moreover, the central theme of the Bible from the Fall forward, is that man is DEgenerating. Historically, the evidence is overwhelming. We can't think, write, analyze half as well as the ancients. We can't understand their plays, their wordplays, and we can't duplicate some of their technologies — or, when we can, we can't do them as well (i.e., build those pyramids without mortar). We need all kinds of gizmos they didn't need, to do the same things. For more detail on this degeneration process than you'd ever want, CLICK HERE. For the psychological origin of it, CLICK HERE.

DDNA.htm is another webseries which goes into much detail on how God transmutes your soul, if you're interested. It's the most sophisticated set of webpages among all 'my' sites.

Ancient ideas of evolution all recognized that someone bigger or better than you, had to 'parent' or 'change' you in some way, for you to get a better future. So, if you did something really nice for that bigger or better being, you'd get a favor in return: being made a better being, yourself. We all like to believe tomorrow will be better than today, and we all want to feel we caused Merit. So, the magical transmutations of magpies, people, etc. reveals man's basic motive of wanting to be worthy by his own hand. Which means, man is Fixated, Fearful, and Fault-Finding, so wants to Fantasize his own improvement. This quadruple capital motive is the "sin nature" Bible says we genetically inherit from Adam due to his fall; and, why we have insane egoes which deify or demonize, belief. [See "History for" link at page top, then when that page is loaded, search for the "In the beginning..Man" section.] So ANY claim which answers that motive, will have an adoring audience. Even if we call ourselves, "scientific". So we should view with suspicion, any religion or science for bias, since this human desire for longevity, is so deep-seated in mankind.

So 'evolution' is just another rehashed version of reincarnation or animism, without the God words. You can understand why: the idea of becoming better, is always man's ardent desire. So, evolution is yet another religious claim about longevity: and, a better tomorrow. The idea of ultimate progress of mankind has been around since Adam. The core of the so-called theory of 'evolution' is really rooted in man's notions of an afterlife: "metempsychosis", the central tenet of reincarnation, (some versions of) gnosticism, etc. Term means change-soul, literally: you start out one way, and eventually progress or regress to some other form of life. So the idea of 'transmutation' has been around for a very long time. [Nerd Note: the encyclopedias and like references put reincarnation ideas beginning around 500BC (i.e., brought by the Aryans to India), treating religion before that as multiple, limited gods. I'm not sure the reincarnation idea is that young: it was Satan's claim in Isa14:14 and I can't imagine Satan&Co. didn't sell it to mankind from Adam's fall, forward. Historically, it seems animism is a version of reincarnation, and that's as old as mankind (i.e., kamis, in Shintoism). If reincarnation as a concept is that young, then reincarnation has to be a mutation of the written Old Testament, since only in that book is a true transmutational idea presented — God saving you and making you like Him. The ancient religions are akin, espousing the idea that "the gods" can change you: but not, you changing yourself. So reincarnation would then be an offshoot of what gets done to you — the traditional morphology. In the Vedas there are satirical plays on Bible passages in the Old Testament but from 1400BC-701BC or so, maybe even more recent; but the Vedas weren't all composed at the same time.]

Now we're ready to look at the math proof. But once more, remember what "evolution" is and is not. Because, too many people use the term 'evolution' to embrace any ol' long-term improvement. That common idea is not the scientific meaning of the term "transmutation"; rather, long-term improvement within a species over a long period of time is called "adaptation". A short-term change within a species, is called "mutation". Evolution ONLY means a TRANS-species CHANGE. Hence, "transmutation" must occur for a change to be called "evolutionary". See the difference?

As noted above, this idea of transmutation has probably been around as long as mankind, so to pretend it a scientific discovery, rather than a renewal of an old religious belief, is your first big clue something's amiss. If anything, the current definition is worse and less scientific, than what the ancients held true, since at least they recognized that any transmutation, had to be engendered by a being superior to themselves. Thus we know that "evolution" is really, a religion — here, one which seeks to deny God exists. Which is fine, but.. the prejudice shows. As you'll see, in the next section.

---

Why "Transmutation" is Mathematically Impossible

---

Repeating: "evolution" as bandied about in common parlance (and even among scientists, who should know better) is NOT the same, as the ORIGINAL scientific definition of the term. The ORIGINAL scientific definition of "evolution" hangs on the prerequisite of "transmutation of the species". That's the core of evolutionary theory, as currently constructed. If an organism remains itself and improves, that's adaptation, or mutation, not transmutation, so not evolution. So man doesn't 'evolve' to be a better man: he'd have to become a different SPECIES, and from a prior inferior species, for the word "evolve" to apply. If he stays the same species, it's not evolution, but "adaptation" or "mutation"; those can be either progressive, or regressive. So it's not to say man can't get a better life; it IS to say that the scientific definition of "evolution" is not the right term for that process or goal. Evolution is properly a ONLY a process by which the organism CHANGES SPECIES, via "transmutation" (i.e., ape to man, not ape-ape improvements or man-man improvements). It's the TRANSmutation which the First Law of Math disproves, as you'll see in this section.

Repeating Again, sorry: the SCIENTIFIC definition of "evolutionary transmutation" is the ability of an organism to become a SUPERIOR SPECIES compared to its pristine state, over long geologic periods, such that primordial organisms over that time gave birth, as it were, to highly-specialized organisms, such as mankind. So now, let's look at why that definition cannot be correct.

So, for example, the "ape" number/genetic/dataset is an inferior and therefore smaller "set". So the "man" set CANNOT have come from the "ape" set. Consequently, the "man" set in fact derives from a larger, not smaller, set than itself. Consequently, any similarity between the "ape" set and the "man" set might give science clues as to what "greater" set accounts for both "ape" and "man", but it's always impossible that the "man" set be a 'child' of the "ape" set. Unless, of course, you want to toss out all mathematic law, and just substitute a fairy story:

Because some bones look a lot like human ones, all life just magically comes from chaos...Just because a dog has four legs, and so did a dinosaur, the former came from the latter, somehow? No? It's not so simple? Then why make the claim that a rock can become an amoeba — which must be true by such 'logic', given the inanimate 'big bang'. For, if "life" is but matter and energy, then how can inanimacy become animacy, except by magic? Oh? Light/Energy can think, which must be true, if "life" is but matter and energy? And this 'evolution' argument is somehow more sensible than an infinitely animate number/ data/ Attribute Set as 'parent': God?

Now let's look at two counter questions:

1. Well, how is it that we see life 'progress'? Easy. The property of progression or regression is innate to life itself. That's why a thing can be born, change, die. So, then: if innate to itself, it's not a 'transmutation', but ADAPTATION, so is not outside the definition of 'species'. That some can mate, and mutate, means that ability-to-change within the nature of that life, exist. Some of these changes are not compatible, so biological mating is not successful. Even, in large numbers of lives.

The fact that a biological attribute, via much use, specializes, only seems to mean it becomes 'better'. Truth is, it ADAPTS. Same thing as happens to a muscle when you repeatedly exercise it. That's NOT evolution. This adaptation, if helpful to the life form, might or might not be reproduced in any progeny. We can never say that 'improvements' are always produced, because then we'd all be geniuses, beautiful, etc. We can likewise never say that 'de-provements' (for lack of a better word) are always produced, for then we'd all be Neanderthals, assuming they were even human. [Apparently the DNA testing didn't support that idea enough. I don't have details, just read it on Encarta, so if you're interested, you should investigate the details.]

Then there's the question of multiplication. As even Malthusian theory can tell you, multiplication is not always good. Too much (i.e., cancer cells), and the organisms start to fail. Some attributes seem to be progressions because of multiplication, and in fact this is how most biological life occurs: a blastocyst becomes an embryo, for example, by means of multiplication. However, the twin attributes of specialization and multiplication of themselves do not tell you the evolutionary origin of the lifeform in question. They might provide hints, but you won't read the data properly by ignoring the First Law Of Math. The 'parent' HAS to be a larger data set, not a smaller one. So progression is rooted in the attributes of the parent only. In all events, progression or regression multiply and specialize.

So, in the larger sense, "progress" is in fact impossible. What we call 'progress' is but a set of characteristics which had to be inherited from a larger parent, operating. For example, man's 'progress' is not due to inanimacy, at all: but rather the combining of man's own abilities with inanimacy. Two parents, one larger than the other (animacy is a larger dataset, obviously).

What we call "regress" is likewise a set of characteristics from a parent, or can be due to rejection of one or more of such parental characteristics: and hence, regresses for that reason. For, the child is never more than the parent. For, derivatives can fling opposite the 'parent', and thus become smaller, but never can derivatives themselves become as large or bigger. Again, you'd have to toss out all mathematical law, all physics.. well, all of true science, to justify the kooky evolutionary tenet that bigger can come from smaller.

So we are adding up the facts, backwards. Just as the Holocene epoch's fauna is much smaller generally, than the prior epochs' fauna, it must be assumed that the smaller apes of today, had bigger, not smaller, ancestors. Same for whatever prior populations we call 'human'. Again, because the parent must always be bigger than the child, so that a suddenly-bigger 'child' is the product of recessive genes (or a mutation, in which case it's the mutation which is the superior 'parent'). In short, you have to be careful how you classify cause, especially when tracing out biological descendance. You know you've misclassified cause if you violate the first law of math. Can't be another answer.

So what we are calling Neanderthals and other hunter-gatherer populations, could be more-advanced animals, from which today's apes descend. The big clue that these weren't humans, no belief in an afterlife exists among their remains; whereas from about 7000 years ago onward, you have evidence of such belief everywhere on the globe. The next big hint, is that these allegedly hunter-gatherer populations, didn't civilize. Civilization means a coherence of norms and ideas based on abstract concepts. There's no evidence of that. Whereas, there is ample evidence that not only do animals of all kinds think, plan, and use tools relative to their survival needs, so also do they gang together, or separate, again relative to their survival needs. So it's not hard to imagine, that if there were once these huge dinosaurs roaming the planet, some other lifeform which would need the dinosaurs as food, would be around; else, there's no way to check the dinosaur population. Doesn't matter that we now know most dinosaurs were vegetarian — because of that, you need predators. And the predators would have to be very much smarter, since they can't compete with the dinosaurs based on size.

Finally, when animals get together, they have a collective intelligence which far outweighs their individual intelligence. It's a Borg-like thing, but you can observe it in wolves, elephants, hippos, gazelles, monkeys (especially baboons), geese, deer, squirrels (at least, I have). When acting as a 'herd', there's a smartness level you don't find, otherwise. So it's not farfetched that animals would figure out how to make Clovis points. A bird makes the most elaborate nest; paper wasps are incredible, in their ability to make an impossible nest, which hangs upside down, and is shaped much like a lightbulb — the narrow end hooks to a ceiling, not the wide one. You'd think it would fall down. In short, we really are just hypothesizing that the Neanderthals, etc. are human — despite the evidence, despite the genetic and mathematical fact that no set can contain itself.

So here's what needs doing: first, for populations you believe human which are more than 7000 or so years old, verify the dating thousands of times, not just a few. Yes, that means ruining samples, but carbon dating cannot be effective until you have gotten the same answer a statistically-significant number of times. Secondly, look into those populations to see if they aren't very advanced animals. Which, by the evidence we have, they really must be. Third, if you find a population which seems animalistic and yet human, ask if they aren't de-volved from a higher, prior, mankind. For that latter, will be the most likely relationship, if the so-called ancient population, is conclusively human. Again, because no set can contain itself, any primitive people degraded from a previously-superior group. So check to see if Neanderthal came from Cro-Magnon, not the other way around, especially since the essential configuration of Neanderthal reflects characteristics which show up in severe retardation.

2. Well, how is it that man's attributes are so similar to an ape's? All life has similarity, and difference. When you talk about similarity, you should first assemble all the variables (here, the 'variables' are attributes) and then see if one is a subset of the other. Of course, since there is so much similarity in biological structures, you can't be sure that one is a subset of another, but 'the data suggest' conclusion can be pursued. For example, going by this criterion, it's more likely that apes come from man, than vice versa, because man's attributes are the larger set. I'm not saying apes do come from man; only that, based solely on the logical 'math' of sets always being smaller than their 'parents', it's something to look into.

Therefore, the organizational structure of life, if depicted like a corporate organization chart, is thus more like a huge rectangle from which 'descend' connecting lines to smaller rectangles directly linked to the huge one, rather than the evolution argument's series of nested rectangles that work backwards, with the protozoa being innermost. Because math doesn't work that way, and neither does genetics: so in the latter nested structure, mathematically man's attributes would have to be smaller than an ape's. Which, of course, we know is not true, irrespective of what beliefs in God we might have. Either man's attributes are partly connected to the ape attributes, and partly connected to a larger set (rectangle), or not at all connected to the ape attributes. See? The entire evolutionary 'theory' needs to be completely reworked. From scratch.

Of course, if you want to try to say that the "ape" set is really larger than the "man" set, and you can pull it off, then you could say man came from apes. Frankly, that's a pretty frustrating endeavor to attempt; the idea can only be pitched if you pretend that the differences in ape consciousness, behavior and speech compared to man's, are superior. Which, mathematically, you won't be able to justify either, since man has volition-led religious practices, but no ape ever has; nor can you pick some outside inanimacy like an asteroid hitting an ape as the 'cause' of its transmutation. So the actual "parent" of man must be a) alive, and b) Attribute-wise, superior to man, not inferior. (That man can either conceive of 'god' or can learn and use sophisticated math, each illustrate the presence of a faculty of abstract thinking: this attribute is demonstrably not in the "ape" set. The ability to willfully jump from concrete to abstract is itself a separate and superior mental faculty: we see it develop in children. But no non-human has ever demonstrated it, despite all these eons of time. Recognizing this, the faculty itself has been alleged to 'evolve' by folks like Julian Jaynes of Harvard. However, that is adaptation, and not evolution, since it's still man as a species, developing. I'm surprised Jaynes would misuse the term evolution. He should know better.)

Genetics, of course, flatly contradicts evolution at every turn. A tad more complicated than whether a towhead bears towheaded great-grandchildren, genes link based on some kind of commonality and are the clearest way to trace origin. Key to all genetic development is one or more sets of genes sometime in the past which 'show up' in progeny. So the amoeba would have to be superior to man, for man to come from an amoeba (or other primordial soup-life), and the genes which 'became' man, were recessive for eons. Not very likely, k?

So then something higher than man with genes which were higher than whatever it mated with, could have produced man's complex biology, theoretically: if we pretend man has no soul, then the thinking abilities he had, still have to come from at least one superior parent, however far back in the past, that parent might be. Superior genetic abilities can't come from nowhere. So you'd find a provable genetical tracing of that long-back superior 'parent'. Math, of course, would agree: since sometime in the past you had at least one superior dataset 'containing' the progeny. So if the superior set was [1..10], progeny could have some of those 'numbers' (attributes) missing or mutated, but none of them could have an "11". So if it can't work genetically, based on some however-distant superior parent, it can't work evolutionarily, either. And if it does work genetically, even over eons of time, then it's not transmutation, since the progeny shares the genes of the same species which birthed it. So it's still not "evolution".

Again, similarity in genes is not enough. They must be able to MATE. When has a human mated with an animal and gotten pregnant? Mated with, not been inserted with an embryo. it's whether an embryo gets produced BY mating (not artificially, either), not whether a womb can sustain an embryo already formed. Even then, you'd have to follow whatever hybrid organism was born, to see what it became, lest you mistake the initial birth of something for a valid life form. Freaks occur in nature. That's not what we're testing, here. A thing has to test positive over and over and over again, before you can even say you have valid evidence. This, science does not do, with respect to what it calls evolutionary proof, because it doesn't want to wreck its samples. Well, then: you have no proof, especially since carbon-dating is so unreliable.

Geneticists, when they try to determine how old man is, have a better approach, but they also have to make too many assumptions they don't test. They start validly: let's take a sample of DNA from someone we know is human, and go backwards. Trouble is, they have to ASSume rates of mutation, backwards, and they have to assume them for periods during which they have no samples. So they end up assuming how many generations backwards, based on those assumed constant rates of mutation. Nothing in biology is constant. So you can get any answer you like, simply by varying what's a logical rate of mutation, its constancy, etc.

So here's the DNA-testing improvement needed: collect DNA in as many skeletons as possible going back from now to say 4000 BC, since we know civilization is that old. So we know we've got valid human remains going back that far. Then, having done that, they can then chart the mutations in their collection of skeletal remains for DNA; then, extrapolating back farther, they can chart what prior (pre-4000BC) mutations should have been. Finally, they can test those results against any skeletal remains of very ancient supposed human progenitors. Unless the tracing is done this way, statements about man's age and origins are sheer fluff.

DNA is a much better tracing mechanism, it's very expensive to do, and you have to be super-careful, or you'll mess up the test results. But you have to account (and hence trace) the differences genetically, or you have no proof. DNA testing for identity is critical in crime investigation. It's even more critical, in determining where the entire species, comes from.

See? This evolution theory is being advanced without sufficient homework, and we're all bombarded with it. It could be differently true, but no one tests the premises, and the obvious neglect of scientific method, is downright criminal. Just as bad as every religion, foisting its ideas on people so they feel evil if they don't 'comport'. So what happens when some day in the future, it's proven wrong? Then everyone will hate science, and all the Bible Thumpers will trumpet how right they are, and everyone goes back to the Dark Ages. Do we want that?

So here, we have an easy fix: just admit that transmutation has at least one superior parent which has the characteristics which result in an organism (i.e., man) you wanna call 'transmuted'. Frankly, you can easily claim that there is one master 'parent', a superior 'life force' which is extrinsic to matter and energy. Because we all know we ourselves can interact with matter an energy, so this 'life force' can obviously do so even better. Then you can decide if the other 'parent' was some other, lesser creature. You'd also have to be careful about what genes are impacted, since there would have to be some kind of compatibility between the transmuting agent (the 'life force' being the most powerful) and the receiving agent (the 'child'). Since there remains at least one superior parent, you no longer violate the first law of math. Might be that you link up the other parent incorrectly, or make some other kind of mistake: but at least the lie that smaller produces bigger, is not 'playing'.

It's not really all that hard to do or understand: for centuries, animists believed all this, already. They were right, in a way. So if you are nervous about "God" questions; or if the idea of God will be rejected, then use the term "life force". That's vague enough, and logically true: for the largest data set must be an infinite aliveness and personhood, or else there would be no persons. Who that personhood is, well.. that's up to others to determine. Science wants to stay out of God questions, so it can use the term "life force". Simple.

For, what science cannot conclusively evaluate, math will; what math cannot yet prove, Bible will. For the Bible teaches spiritual math. Each metaphor in the Bible, is a numberset — each word has a number of meanings, and the interaction between words and metaphors, tells you the relationships. Of course, if you mistranslate or misdefine the words and metaphors, you'll be working with false variables, and hence will derive false formulae. The entire works=spirituality idea comes from false definition of what Bible says. And Bible says a whole lot about the structure of the universe, about what we secularly call, 'natural' law. It's not 'natural' law, but SUPERnatural law, and God sets it. We then learn what He set. If we can't handle the idea of "God" (since that makes us fearful), then think of it as life-force law. It's extrinsic, not intrinsic, since matter and energy are INanimate. So, find the extrinsic 'life-force' laws, and you can see better how reality actually is structured; how it really functions.

Spiritual math is God's Thinking; hence secular math and all science is better served if you first learn God. So any 'holy book' might have something to offer. Since the Bible is so deft and painstaking about what is true, examining what it says should be more profitable — even for a confirmed atheist. Sure, science and religion should be kept separate; but "separate" doesn't mean "ostracize", k? Frankly, the prejudice against the idea of God is really hurting science, and makes it look incredibly hypocritical and foolish. So the other hypocritical and foolish group, the religious crowd, will be crowing over the demise of science — then we'll all go tumbling back, to the Dark Ages. Seriously, that's the most dangerous trend in the world today.

So if you would be truly scientific, Learn God. Treat Scripture as a math textbook, for that's what it is: the Thinking of Christ, rational, perfectly fitting. Using God's infinitely-superior top-down accounting, rather than man's bottom-up blind groping. Of course, as you do study God's Textbook, you'll be able to conclusively prove it's His Thinking. Takes time, as indeed any good learning does.

For it's always true, that the Uppermost Truth is the Overlooked Obvious.

If you wanna see the Uppermost Truth being obviously overlooked, keep reading. The next section will go through a longer answer about how evolution and cosmological conundra of long-standing, can be fixed. Solely by starting at the TOP, when sleuthing...

---

Key to Fix Evolution

---

So, let's try looking at the Bible and see if we can find a key to help fix what's wrong with evolutionary theory as currently constituted. The 'missing link' with respect to "Evolution" is likewise 'missing' in cosmological theories. These "missing links" are but merely misclassified. And Why? You guessed it — the uppermost truth remains overlooked. And what are the misclassified links in both? The nature of Time, and the nature of Life. Their fundamental definitions of both don't admit of higher and first extrinsic nature. The uppermost truth about both, is that they are extrinsic, which is why there IS intrinsic time and life. The first two, are themselves in hupostasis (time under life). So the first hupostasis, causes the second. In hupostasis.

So, once you see the hupostatic structure, you find in biology, economics, psychology, the exact same unity you do in cosmology and physics. By applying this same structure to evolutionary theory, you can re-classify it; with the result that, the theory is no longer bass-ackwards. In short, you have a Grand Theory. This grand theory, math itself illustrates over and over again, without fail. This grand theory, math itself predicts where the hupostatic connections will be. Math, being immaterial by nature yet acting on nature, tells you the higher and first nature of Life and Time. Hence you can always prove the hypostasis, though for some functions it may take awhile to find the hupostatic connections. That latter job is for our many brilliant scientists to unravel.

So once you restructure the classifications/definitions, each theory will 'unify'. To show how, requires a windy approach. So parallels between 'missing links' in evolutionary theories and cosmological theories, will be drawn here. Beginning with the latter, since by resolving it, you can better see how to resolve evolutionary theory. For evolution is predicated upon a particular definition of time, in order to craft its definition of life; cosmology in turn, is likewise predicated upon the same definition of time, and doesn't address the definition of life. Hence, both sets of theories end up claiming the mathematical irrationality that a set could contain itself. So grab your favorite beverage and a quiet place, for this will be a long, windy, (and probably frustrating) ride...

Accountability Premise: Science must account for the Most Basic Cause of variation, and then exhaustively diagram it, before it can really prove anything. Further, this Most Basic Cause ought to be the same cause for all things IN the universe; only the interaction of this Most Basic Cause would vary, depending on its specific relationships with its objects. For the universe IS a unity. Hence, there must be a Unifying, Most-Basic-Cause theory, underlying all others, to explain that unity. To only look at results and then try to back into the underlying cause is a bottom-up approach: frustrating, fruitless and too expensive, unless you have no other way to search. Aristotle's writings proved that fact in spades.

Which means, there must be an underlying 'common denominator' to everything. Aha, that's a math question! Since math by nature is top-down, math itself is focused on most-basic-cause and variation relationships. So you best find and prove the existence and nature of Most-Basic-Cause, by looking into mathematical principles and formulas which seem to depict the data seen; and then, by applying those principles and formulas. For every math principle and formula, there will be a corresponding real-world playing of the same math, so it's a much faster sleuthing job: match the math to the real-world counterpart. This is a top-down approach, like proving out a theorem. Here, we apply a look-alike sequence in math we know, to a potential real sequence in economics, biology or physics, etc. To be most productive, you'd first want to do that sleuthing where there are conundra to solve: such as, the appearance of a set containing itself.


Grand Theory, Most-Basic-Cause: Hupostasis

---

There's only One Most-Basic-Cause, functionally: a hypostasizing of all opposites, individually; such that when they are unified, a dynamic and Synergistic Equilibrium results.

Corollary: what would on its own be harmful, evil, bad, is made into exponentially-greater reproductive benefit, than had such harm (etc)., never existed. All this, through no attributes of its own, save its temporary existence in an unmodified state. Rather, those attributes are but fuel or 'womb' for the benefit to be permanently birthed from them.

The deeper 'math': an affinity exists between two opposites which should not otherwise exist; but which does exist, only if a third element which is opposite to both of them, is the unifier.

I got all this from Bible: its term is ὑπόστασις.

That Greek word is used for Christ in Hebrews 1:3 and 11:1 (and elsewhere, never properly translated).

The doctrine itself, is all over the Bible, especially in verses of irony, like Isaiah 54:1 and 53:10-12 (latter passage can't be properly read in translation, see last full screen of Isaiah 53.htm).

Because everything should reflect its Creator, and the Creator decided since forever past to add finite Humanity to Himself, therefore everything finite is likewise hypostatic in nature and function.

Can't but see that duality everywhere you look: pick any field, discipline, event, item, idea.

That's why the universe looks the same in all directions and at all times, as it is in Dynamic (never static), Cycling Equilibrium (akin to a big bang and steady state, being in ὑπόστασις).

So the nature of finity is unboundaried, even while boundaried: finity needs boundaries to have structural integrity, but is in boundaried contact with its Creator; so the boundaries in finity, become freeing, not confining. For the boundaried contacts are conduits, rather than obstacles; just as, Infinity has no boundaries, so also finity essentially functions as if no boundaries, due to the contacts.

This dynamic homeostasis is therefore always and only, will-dependent. Unconfined. Hence the 'laws' observed, never limit, but only 'transmit' Freedom; and do so, synergistically.

Whew. Explaining what all this means, will take the rest of the page, and I'll probably screw up the explanation!

So let's now test this hupostasis on cosmological theory, to see if it will 'unify' it. My understanding of cosmological theory comes from Dr. Stephen Hawking's book, A Brief History of Time (10th anniversary expanded edition). So: using the above "hupostasis" grand theory, we first look for two opposites, and then a unifier. The two opposites, are quantum physics and theory of general relativity. The unifier, everyone is seeking. But the unifier is right in front of us, an overlooked obvious: space itself is a vacuum. Not a perfect vacuum, but a vacuum, nonetheless. And all those black holes, are smaller vacuums. It's the emptiness of space, the emptiness of the black hole, which unifies both quantum physics and general relativity.

And there's no bigger, more chaotic quantum physics, than sin. E=mc squared, at the negative end, is sin. So the person sinning keeps on getting smaller and smaller, eventually disintegrating into so many anti-particles. [This is what hell will be like. Since the soul is indestructible, it can only become more and more chaotic in personality and behavior, enjoying nothing. Free will still exists, since free will is an indestructible attribute of the indestructible soul. So all this disintegrating is always and only done by volition. The person always has the ability to change his mind — but never will.]

It takes a long time, and the speed of disintegration, slows down toward the end, because there's progressively less mass, and hence energy, working (it won't seem like this unless viewed over a very long time, which man can't do). It never quite stops. Behaviorally, the movement gets faster and faster with less and less energy being needed to get the same impetus. Overall effect, though, is that the scope of reaction, progressively narrows. It truly is, a continual death.

By contrast, E=mc squared at the positive end, is the spiritual life: the person in it gets bigger and bigger, eventually being the source for all lesser bodies within that person's gravitational pull. But where spiritual and secular physics part company, where the theory of relativity breaks down, is that the latter has a limit on speed, and hence on time: the speed of light. But true infinity has no limitations, so in spiritual physics, the law of relativity is that as the mass increases, so does the speed. Same formula, but "c" is never a constant, unless you want to say constantly increasing (well, that's not true, either — the rate of change is itself a mini-E=mc superscripted on "c"). [Einstein's mistake won't show up anymore than the previous mistake he fixed, until one realizes that a "c" constant doesn't account for all matter-energy interactions either. Newton's prior construct failed once the mass was large enough; Einstein's works for larger masses, but not for ALL the interactions. So "c" is not really a constant, but plays in given ways on given limited-mass quantities: which we know, since Newton's construct still works up to certain mass limits, at which point the student switches to the more complicated Einstein equations. So: there's yet more 'above' the Einstein equations. Hence, the right value for "c" is 'c exponential', where the exponent is the limiting factor, and c itself is not a constant. The potential exponent is unlimited (positive or negative), hence the designation e=mc AS the exponent, where "c" is not a constant. Einstein's formulas work on a larger 'set' of mass, than Newton's. So there must be a set of formulas bigger which 'contain' Einstein's formulas, just as Einstein's formulas 'contain' Newton's. Probably something in singularity or the math of limits, will help. All this is in the Bible (specifically, in Isa53:11 and in the way spiritual growth works in Church): so it has a counterpart somewhere in secular math, for all secular math inherently reflects and derives from, Truth itself.]

This is how Bible doctrine in God's System, works in the soul. You can easily prove it, too: the more doctrine you know in God's System, the more every verse 'speaks' to you. So you can know that the audience for those Scripture books, knew the Doctrine quite well. For it was deftly stated, deftly written. Kinda like, protons. Nuclei. Fusion, two nuclei.

So you have two counter-processes: one, a progressive INelasticity (economics term, but also in physics), which is the effect of sin. Two, a progressive ELasticity, because there is an EL behind it. [Nerd Note: "EL" is the most ancient name for "God".]

Hence, in secular physics there remains an unexplored set of properties which reflects how E=mc squared, is not operating, but rather the property of something way faster than the speed of light, which mass itself, keeps increasing — and the speed keeps increasing the mass. Never hitting a limit. Hence, you need a vacuum on finity, to keep that finity from going faster than its slowest 'parts'. Hence quantum physics, which act like a counter (which is why Einstein's E=mc squared IS capped, really). But even that's not enough: you need a vacuum, to mediate all this interaction, so it is free to BE in equilibrium.

The essence of infinity is a unity of opposites, the largest numberset, beyond which no bigger number set can exist. So it's a STASIS, not a progression. Homeostasis, and dynamic, not static. Hence it is infinity which contains the vacuum, not the other way around. This too, science misses, since the only way this can be a fact, is if the containing infinity, is Immaterial and.. living. Call it a "life force", then, if it's not acceptable to use the term "God". But don't pretend it doesn't exist, or you'll get false answers in your research.

There's no bigger vacuum, Greek word mataiotes, than rejection of God. Everything spiritually true is always depicted in whatever you can see. Because, God sees it first. He loves the Truth, which is His Son's Humanity's Thinking (and Son as God created the whole universe in a nanosecond, Gen1:1), so thus the universe will always and only, Reflect Him. Know that fact, and you can solve any conundrum in any area of secular life: if you only knew your Bible well enough, via God's System. So: let's now test that claim, since it's a type of theory, so should both explain, and be predictive. You test Bible theory, with Bible verses, always.

So Isaiah 53:11 in the LXX (not the Hebrew text alone) tells you how to unify cosmological theory. Exactly: Isa53:11 "Then the LORD [Father] delights to PLUNDER, birthing/carrying out from His [Christ's] Soul's [pregnancy] Labor, to DISPLAY/POINT OUT/MAKE KNOWN/EXHIBIT via Him, the Light." The actual verse is much longer, but this is the part we need to resolve unified field theory. See? Hupostasis. How God makes a universe of Sons, is how He makes the universe, period. Always Bible tells you the secular reflects the spiritual, which means everything must reflect the Son (e.g., Romans 1).

So cosmological theory itself is likewise unified just by consulting the One Who made the universe; and He made the universe, to implement the eternity-past Contract depicted in Isa53:10-12. So now you also know WHY stars are made to be born in black holes, in the first place. The sins, see, never end (hell lasts forever): so how could He actually pay for ALL sin, like the Bible says? God's answer to that conundrum is in DDNA3.htm.

Notice how the union of opposites (here, sins and Christ) is 'held' by a third 'party'. Cosmologists know there's a third holder, and they liken its identity to a pair of "pants". Well, it's not "pants", but a womb. This womb is in turn 'held' by a larger body. In the case of cosmological theory, the larger body is the imperfect vacuum of space itself. Balancing against this vacuum are both mass-and-energy dynamic reformulations, recycling; and, littler wombs, the black holes. Which, when they birth a star, disappear. Which, as a star is dying, forms a black hole.

Really, you can see the same dynamic hupostatic structure right down here on earth: most of your life's day is spent on inanities, which therefore is a 'vacuum'; every day dies, becoming a womb for a new day; everything you eat, cycles out of you, and into you. Certain things are more weighty, so you gravitate to them. Other things, repel you. See — the whole structure of everything is based on a Unity between opposites which do not have affinity; yet if they weren't united, you couldn't keep living. And the unifier, is a vacuum, balanced by its own opposite, many little wombs which simultaneously process both death, and life.

Hence the behavior we observe under the theory of general relativity, is merely an outgrowth of quantum mechanics: the vacuum itself is the unifier, a kind of 'womb'. So, a black hole is used as a unifier. The actual unifying action, is a hypostasis of the black hole, and the matter-energy entering it such that the latter, grows. Kinda like a fetus when enough biological multiplication occurs, the elements connect, and an aggregate and coordinated body gets produced. In biology a cell starts out single and undifferentiated, but in a connected fashion, multiplies and differentiates. In a black hole, it's the reverse: external 'pieces' are sucked in, so are disparate; but as the number and mass of them 'fills' the hole, they attach and coalesce. Spiritual growth is exactly like quantum mechanics in operation, which is why you can't feel it, and what you think you feel, is often unpleasant. Note how in these twin analogies, at some point this multiplication and connection will fill up the black hole, and the now 'unified' mass-energy, will at some point have to either be ejected from the black hole, or will explode it. Biological counterpart results in ejection of fetuses, respiration and elimination functions; explosion or implosion, in disease; explosion or implosion, in physics. Same essential hupostatic dynamics are depicted in virtually everything organic, or inorganic. Because, it's the same law underlying them all. Which math always illustrates: dynamic union of opposites results in dynamic equilibrium.

Hence space is a vacuum, itself, and so the amount of matter in it, must be relatively small. Light in the vacuum is what sustains matter. Matter doesn't sustain light, nor does the vacuum. Too much mass, and the universe would contract (think of the concept behind the "Chandrasekhar limit", but applied pan-universe, or to large 'sections' of it). Too many stars dying, and the universe would contract. Too much light, and the universe would explode. But, due to the vacuum, it's not too much. We think we see the universe expanding, and maybe we do. But we also see it contracting, but in 'points': those black holes. So, overall, it stays in dynamic homeostasis: a steady big bang, or a big-bang steadiness. Heh.

God says the universe we see began differently. And it began, just opposite to what science imagines. It wasn't darkness getting light (i.e., a big bang); rather, it was an initial state of only light, becoming darkness. The Greek and Hebrew of Genesis 1 plus other passages tying back to Genesis 1, make this origin clear. So at the very beginning, the universe was pure light and no darkness. God is Light, neither mass nor vacuum. But Satan&Co. rebelled; as a result, the stars were put out over vast sections of the universe; one of which sections, included the Earth, which was Satan's home base. Angels' bodies are made of light, so light acting on mass and other light, well.. we know how powerful that is.

Bible also teaches about vacuum nature and black holes, with the Greek term mataiotes. [Hebrew term is "hevel" (Abel, to you). Root meaning is emptiness, so when Eve named Abel, she was stressing that life is short and empty. My pastor had quite a lot to say about her choice of names. Abel was a good guy, so clearly "hevel" isn't strictly a negative term. But mataiotes is always used negatively, in Bible.] The term means, someone who rejects God, whether unbeliever or believer: root idea that life is futile, apart from God. Difference between unbeliever and believer is depicted. For God is out to make everyone a star by putting His Nature in the person, via God's System (link at pagetop). But we can reject God's Plan. So: the believer who's become a vacuum — devoid of Truth, not living in God's System — is still a 'star', but emits no useful light, and instead is a snare to all who aren't 'weighty' or 'energetic' enough with respect to the spiritual life, to escape that person's gravitational 'pull' (2Tim2:26-3:7, Phili3:18-19, etc). The unbeliever, by contrast, is a vacuum as well, but never had light to begin with, so has no mass, either. However, his condition can change by Light hitting the vacuum, in which case a star is born — "born from above", literally (in Greek), via John 3:16. This is a pretty upsetting analogy, but you can prove it true. Same, for the universe.

We humans are so prone to assign value to ourselves where none exists. The only reason a believer can be a star, is that God makes that happen. We are all darkness, by nature. Bible stresses that fact over and over, i.e., in Isa64:6. So don't get huffy because a believer is a star but an unbeliever is not. Anyone can become a star via one thought of John 3:16 believed. Forever.

All this is taught by Bible, in Genesis 1:14ff and other passages, because the initial discussion is about why Adam was created: as the beginning of a series of witnesses in the very Trial which resulted from rebelling angels, who put out the lights. That sounds goofy, but it shouldn't: surely we aren't the highest lifeform, living. Each of us has to decide what other types of higher life exist. For me, the Biblical answer resolves all the seeming contradictions. So now I've been testing its answers, to see what it resolves in science. Here, with respect to cosmology and evolution. For as we all know, the test of a theory (treating Bible's answers as a theory or theorem), is what it explains — and even more importantly, what it predicts.

So if you knew enough about Bible and then learned quantum mechanics, you could see the Biblical parallel in the latter. In fact, that's how I learned it: a friend of mine brought over Dr. Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time for me to read. As I was reading it, I recognized the Biblical parallels in what he was saying. Hence the weavy nature of this webpage, which seeks to show those parallels.

Now, we know that quantum mechanics operate just like a disease or any other aggregation process: once the chaotic individual elements in it reach a certain critical mass, these elements themselves unify into a larger whole; at which point, the behavior in aggregate is opposite from the behavior individually. Here, the 'opposite', is general relativity. Disease of course, also requires a partial 'vacuum' in which to operate. Everything in science operates this way. The spiritual life is constructed this way. So also, quantum mechanics operates this way, and the theory of general relativity is but an outgrowth of quantum mechanics, operating at the aggregate level. So the entire universe is likewise a sort of black hole, and all these larger bodies we see, are ordered because they are so large: it's the natural vacuum property of the universe, balanced against the matter energy, which results in a sort of dynamic homeostasis.

In the theory of relativity, the focus is to measure one moving object compared to another, accurately; it's recognized that all objects are moving, and the constant is the speed of light; hence, the closer to the speed of light a moving object moves, the more its mass seems to increase and the more it seems to slow down. That is, relative to the 'spacetime' coordinates of the observer. So to a distant observer, the time and mass would result in different measurements. Plus, you can calculate and predict the differentials between the two observers. This phenomenon only applies to large and fast objects, like stars, galaxies, etc. which are nearer the speed of light. As a result, because you have these constantly moving objects, and because the speed affects the measurement of time and mass, you can't predict the relative positions except by bundling both space and time together into a kind of continuum grid: the so-called spacetime continuum. (That bundling problem is your first big hint it's quantum mechanics which is the parent, but now operating at its cohesive, aggregate, "general relativity" 'end'.) Further, you have to make complicated allowances for the curved trajectories such mass objects must take, since by approaching the speed of light they seem to add mass and slow up (relative to the observer, called a "frame of reference"); so, they won't be travelling in a straight line: but rather, a geodesic one. This theory has been proven time and again, and without question, works with respect to properly measuring velocity and position, especially with respect to energy waves (aka speed of light).

Frankly, there's nothing wrong with the theory of relativity itself. But there is a lot wrong with the conclusions drawn from it about the nature of Time; and hence, how to measure the universe for its age or origins. Time is necessarily treated as an dependent variable in the theory of general relativity, since that's the only way to get the proper coordinates of a body in space. Yet Time is really an INdependent variable, since of itself, it is neither energy nor mass. So to measure universe age, finity, expansion, etc. one needs an extrinsic set of rules to balance against the relativities measured. For the same reason you need a spacetime continuum, you need a Time continuum. Because, Time really isn't slowing down or speeding up, but the bodies in time are internally affected.

So we need to factor in the absoluteness of time. Because we aren't, we draw crazy conclusions: oh, the lights we see in the night sky aren't really there, but leftover reflections from long ago. No, it's the same 24-hour timeslice across a gigantic amount of space. Oh, the distant light we see, intimates the age of the lightbody being measured. No, the age isn't indicated merely by the distance, you need other information. Oh, but if we say the entire universe is in the same 24-hour timeslice, then the universe is in a steady state, not expanding. No, it could be expanding and contracting in cycles, predictable or no; with the former eventually outpacing the latter. Notice how the same data being differently classed/defined, altogether changes one's interpretation. So mistaken observations are also based on one's theoretical and relative frame of reference in the mind: rather than, on an absolute, independent, extrinsic (albeit dynamic) reality. Time must be an external for reality to exist outside an object; all objects must have a superior 'parent' to whom they are all attached. No set can contain itself. Time isn't created by speed; so Time is the superior parent, affecting space and hence speed.

In fact, we can prove that there is a dual nature to time, intrinsic and extrinsic — and hence they 'mate', with the result that matter and energy, function. But we insanely lump things together, misclassifying the separate and extrinsic as being integral and intrinsic: so we chase our scientific tails. So, just as we don't accept in evolution the superior God/'life force' set as the Birther, we also don't accept the extrinsic 'side' to Time itself. So, things observed as being in the dynamics of matter-energy, aren't recognized as first existing 'outside' matter-energy. Laws thus acting on matter and energy, are deemed solely intrinsic, rather than also possibly being extrinsically related in a parent-child manner, as well as in the child, independently functioning internally. This duality, once recognized, would resolve many conundrums science faces.

The larger truth is that Time, like math and all 'natural' law, are IMmaterial by nature. No mass, no energy. Immateriality of course, has to mean a Personal God, since we are persons, and no child can be of greater attributes, than its parents. Hence a Duality, a Hupostatic Relationship between the Immaterial and Material, exists.

Read Aristotle or anybody ancient that you like, and you'll find that the ancient common first premise was this very Duality; specifically, that immateriality (usually called 'god' in some way) is the Unmoved Mover. Trick was, to find out how this Unmoved Mover worked upon and within the material (which we today call "matter-energy", etc). Immateriality must be the larger data set, for it is by definition outside the materiality set. So Immateriality, is an overlooked obvious. Which math puts constantly in our faces, by means of its own immaterial nature. So, we overlook the obvious, again.

Infinity is an ABSOLUTE Attribute of Deity, so is by nature Immaterial, and NON-dimensional. This translates into a nonspacetime STASIS. Time would be like a living Georges Seurat painting which God both views and wholly experiences ALL AT ONCE. Including, all past-present-future; all woulda-beens, coulda-beens, might-and-might-not be's (all alternative potential universes and nonpotential universes). Hebrew language of Bible communicates all this by its unique tenses which other languages don't adequately reflect in translation. A cool discussion on Hebrew tenses and the nature of Time, is in Thorleif Boman's Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek. Book costs about $12US from Amazon.

Of course, math itself constantly teaches you the fact that Infinity is NON-dimensional. Not infinitely progressive, but STATIC. Opposite of true zero, the one "set" which contains all others, and itself is UNcontained. While most of how we use math is movement-oriented (causes and results, equatings), the whole of math is but a set of unchanging Truths about relationships. "Fractals" best illustrate both the nature of infinity, and the impact of infinity ON finity, in that you see the entire paradigm of unchanging parent formulas (the stasis, union) creating and then acting upon child process formulas, and then on variables' values; depending on these values, there is a bi-directional effect on the child process formulas; then, the feedback to the parent formulas results in yet more action by these unchanging parents, which then feeds back to the child process formulas, etc. Of course, math formulas have no intrinsic matter-energy properties, but affect all matter-energy. So, the formulas themselves display the attribute of Infinity, as noted above: parent formulas, absolute; child formulas, the relationships with respect to finity. So, the agent being acted upon, is finity.

So since Time is immaterial by nature, and the immaterial is the largest dataset, containing all but itself UNcontained; we now must look at the definition of Life, before we can better understand the nature of Time.

Mathematical Paradigm Key to Evolution, a LIFE hupostasis: that is, a dynamic and homeostatic union of two disparate natures, infinity (immateriality) and finity (materiality). The former sustains and operates on the latter, and the dynamic is that the latter 'responds' (or interacts bi-directionally) to/with the former. Hypostasis is the governing, fundamental dynamic of the whole universe, so every math principle, physics rule, scientific or natural law, and all empirically-observable data will 'fit' it. So obviously the dynamic will be testable, provable, etc. For, we're no longer overlooking the obvious, the Uppermost Truth about Life.

Problem is, to explain what the blazes "Hypostasis" ("hupostasis", in Bible's Greek) means. Many people in history have tried to explain it, like theologians, the yin/yang folks, the gnostics, economists, physicists, biologists, mathematicians, etc.: they all use different names for this dynamic, but one property all the definitions have in common is a circulating BALANCE: God-man; male-female; light-matter; equlibrium; action and reaction; inhale and exhale; positive and negative.

So "Hypostasis", as summarized in the blue box above, is a UNITY OF OPPOSITES. So the biggest 'set' of a unity of opposites, would be Personal Infinity and personal finity. Any impersonals, would be lower 'sets' (inferior attributes). So plants are not persons, nor apes. So, they don't have the abstract-thinking characteristics, OF persons. And the biggest 'set' of personhood, must be "God" or "Life Force", if the word "God" makes you nervous.

The ancients all knew this, so their cosmological and 'evolution' theories worked better than ours. Here's what the ancients knew which we moderns forget: Science can't function apart from an absolute fundamental standard. The closest absolute standard science has which it can pretend isn't from God, is math. But, even math isn't consulted, today. So, modern science has all these "missing links" which aren't missing, but rather reveal flaws in modern scientific theories. So if you have some problem with a theory, look for a violation of "a set cannot contain itself" in the assumptions, claimed relationships, conclusions. Then, look for a MISclassification which lumps together, what should be separated. Or, what separates, what should be lumped together.

Example we just saw: the essential vacuum nature of the universe, is the unifier between general relativity and quantum physics; one BIG black hole, being sparsely populated with little black holes, so stars can be born, and die, and be born again.

For, a thing or being necessarily reflects the nature of its creator/ parent/ author. The "Physics of God's Transmutation Plan" link at pagetop, has some helpful basics. God is Pure Thought by nature; Infinity means ALL THOUGHT AT ONCE is "living and active". (Heb4:12.) So, as you probably know, thought is both immaterial and replicates immaterially; that is, the thought you read on the page right now REPLICATES in your head, but remains unchanged on the page. Notch up that idea to true homeostatic Infinity, and you can better grasp what "God" means, as a whole.

Of course, if we don't want to say "God", we can prove this from math: infinity is a spectrum, most easily seen by numerical progression. At one 'end', you have the lowest numbers (real or rational); at the other, the high ones. So Opposites Are United by some kind of progression or regression in value/nature. So, transmission along this united 'line' or 'number' set, so to speak, can occur. So, it's not too hard to understand that the formulae of life are also hierarchically organized. So, if we go back to saying "God", Truth is a living stasis, but organized and specific; and, full-spectrum. So there are happy truths, sad truths, 'good' truths, 'bad' (harmful) truths. All at once True, but not all at once being on display (interacting at a given moment of time) within finity.

So then, if time were measured by what's so fast nothing's faster, the speed of thought is far, far, faster than the speed of light. When you are in God's System long enough, you recall Bible Doctrine and verses even in your sleep — djut! instantly. Appropos, in context, often concatenated with disparate verses in Scripture. In short, just the same way as the original-languages of Scripture, are actually written. Even if you recall in your native language. Same is true for regular thought, except that since the Doctrine is coming from God, then you're talking infinite speed. John 14:26, the Holy Spirit recalls to your mind the material. And that's how sins got paid for, precisely, Isa 53:11 — which makes sense, given that if God, then God is infinite, and only Infinite Quality Thought could pay for sins; and Infinite Quality Recall would be necessary, if the Humanity of Christ, which was not Infinite, is to have those thoughts IN that Human Nature, From the Holy Spirit, while ON the Cross. Exact same mechanism as the conversion of mass-energy in a black hole from quantum chaos, to birth of stars. Isa53:11 is quite graphic about its mechanics, using the very metaphor of light and womb. Every verse in Bible references that nexus: sadly, you can't get that verse in translation (the translated text is only PART of the verse). So you can't learn, the Divine Physics of the Cross! (Last full-screen section of Isa53.htm corrects the translation to amalgamate the untranslated parts.)

Again, to not upset anyone, you can take "God" out and just say, "the speed of thought".

Next, we consider the relationship of Infinity with finity. This is the essential dynamic of "Hypostasis": True Infinity 'cycles' within finity. "True" Infinity is a homeostasis (God's Character); 'cycling' is done by means of True Relationships decreed between Infinity and finity, and FOR finity: it's the finity which moves, at all points apprehending or receiving contact with Infinity. This contact is both negative (rejecting) and positive (accepting), so the varying contact has an exponential effect on finity.

Again, math reflects this relationship. Take a grid sheet of paper, and look at it; or imagine it; or, use the typical spacetime grid. That whole sheet, would be what Infinity, 'sees' or 'contains'. But each coordinate on it, would be the 'experience' of the finite item (or person). So finity 'moves' on the grid, impacted by its relationship with infinity. We think of Time functioning as a horizontal straight line, so you can imagine that movement also (even though it's not quite correct). Now, anywhere finiteness 'moves', is visible and 'touching', infinity. Never out of contact with it. So, depending on the nature of the NON-dimensional parent 'math' formulas (aka, God's Thinking), the way and the speed and the direction of movement of the finite, would be altered. Also, finiteness inside itself must have some kind of timing mechanism (i.e., a lifetime), so the internal speed of that timing mechanism is likewise affected. Next, let us suppose human will: one may will against the internal and external timing mechanisms, with either happy or unhappy, effects; the willing against, introduces yet other variations in timings, with respect to the one willing. But those effects will in turn have ripple effects, and they all inure to the finite item, and to the aggregate of finite items (maybe only within a certain range, but more likely with respect to all finite structures). But no effect, accrues to the Infinity 'holding' them. Because, the opposite of materiality, is immateriality, and immateriality cannot BE affected by what is opposite its nature. On the other hand, anything IMmateriality does to materiality, will mammothly affect the latter.

This is the main reason we need salvation. We are incompatible with God by nature, due to being finite: sin severely complicates the problem of being finite, by introducing anti-God desires, such that the person innately wants to be away from God. We all have this twin problem, it's in the genes: see Romans 3:23. But we can't even be alive, unless created, and since Infinity is uncreatable, we have to be created finite. At which point, there is this dilemma: what does it profit God, to do this thing? Technically, the only way God can profit, is if Infinity could be produced inside finity, for then a compatibility would exist. But how do you 'produce', what cannot be created? You don't 'produce' it, you connect it. Then the finite being thus connected, is 'producing', via its connectedness and finiteness. Of course, for that to actually work, God has to maintain the connection, and run it THROUGH finity. That's how Christ's Humanity became "the Way, the Truth, and the Life". Truth is immaterial, and it connects. If you want truth, you are opting to GET the connection, which only God can do. But He WILL do it, if you want it. So then you ARE connected; thus, in God's System, you eventually get filled UP with that Light, and hence yourself become a star. This sounds poetic and even dreamy, but it is real; and to your dead body, it feels alternately terrible or surreal, once you have enough of the Word in you: because, your vacuum-body, can't abide all that energy. Hence the Holy Spirit indwells you. In the universe, then, you find this same story told of infinity acting on and filling finity, with pretty dynamic results: negative, explosions or implosions. Positive, stars being created and steadily giving off light, which matter then 'orbits'.

So, Infinity in effect 'cycles' inside finity: the finity's interactions are like inhaling and exhaling infinity; finity, meanwhile, is also being affected by infinity, by itself, and by all those other finitenesses, around it. Kinda sounds like the universe, huh. So if the finite rejects what's coming from the Infinite, you'd have a pretty big explosion or implosion. So if the finite accepts what's coming from the Infinite, you'd have a massive internal increase. ("Due Disclosure" link at the top of the Home Page, and "Physics of God's Transmutation Plan" like atop THIS page might help you brainstorm this idea. Most of my other sites also cover this topic passim.)

Quickie version of derivatives' application here: God being infinite, what derives from Him would be infinite. Positive derivation, what we learn of His Thinking. Thus becoming INSIDE, much bigger than we were before. Capacity. Body is too limited, and it's not what's saved. The soul becomes much bigger over time, because of the positive derivation.

By contrast, if that derivative is rejection, the soul so rejecting, is completely shattered. This is why you see Adam and the woman go completely wacko, in Gen 3. Come on: figleaves? They were naked all those years, and suddenly it's a problem? Adam himself could not be ignorant that he was naked, having spent all that time classifying fauna. End of Gen2 says they knew they were naked. Gen3:11 IS mistranslated to make it look like God 'hid' that information from them. Verse should read, "Who DENOUNCED YOU", not "Who told you". Rhetorical question. Satan denounced nakedness, because he thinks it's shameful. And, he's the boss, now. In charge of denouncing God. So, Adam and the woman go completely barmy. Derivative theory, playing live in every body born from their genes, ever since. Except One, which is why there had to be a virgin pregnancy, so that Adam's derivative genes didn't pass on. If God exists, it's no biggie to put 23 chromosomes in a uterus. He only had to think it for Light to exist. Faster than light.

The result of this HYPOSTATIC interaction is, to some degree, (the corrected definition of) Transmutation: a union of opposite natures/attributes, whether discrete (i.e., uniting act of reproduction), temporary (i.e., bonding which wears off), or permanent. "Opposite" need not be black-white, but just enough of a differential between the items united to constitute a new, amalgamated whole. Even many rock formations are due to such an action. Thus there is logically a Full Spectrum of such unitings, in every aspect of existence. Trick is, to decipher what is the litmus cause of genuine 'transmutation', if any, as distinct from mere adaptation or genetic (etc.) variation. Note well: 'transmutation' is not limited to a blending of attributes, but includes transmutation-via-Bonding, like igneous (blending) and conglomerate (bonding) rocks.

So finity is not wholly self-sustaining, but is sustained by something OUTSIDE itself, as well as partly by what is intrinsic to itself. We need to eat and breathe; reproduction is usually due to the Combination of Opposites (i.e., sperm and egg); while matter and energy are convertible into each other, it usually takes something other than the matter itself or the energy itself to provoke the conversion. Consequently, what correctly constitutes transmutation, for example, cannot be sourced in the organism itself, though part of what's needed for (correctly-defined) transmutation might be sourced within the organism; for, the organism needs something other than itself to even keep living.

Okay, someone might reply, but how is that different from currently-constructed evolutionary theory? It's always been said that something external causes the transmutation. Yes, it has always been said, but what external is credited, and to what target does that external, go? See, if man came from an ape, then something bigger than both the ape and the man, has to be the Transmuting Agent, and would have to be acting on at least two opposite-sex organisms which could thereafter mate and carry on the transmutation. So, that transmuting agent, can't be within the organisms themselves, already: it wouldn't qualify as evolution, otherwise. So this superior parent, of sufficient magnitude to progress all life from protozoa to human as we 'know' human, well.. it has to be SO big, it's outside all of the universe as we know it. Especially because, the universe as we know it, is deemed mere matter and energy — which we know, is not 'life'. In short, 'life' has to be IMmaterial, or we'd have no thought; has to obviously be thinking, or we'd have no thought, and of course has to be alive. So the difference versus current evolutionary 'transmutation' explanations, and this one — so to correct the problem of a set containing itself — is .. God. Or, use the term "life force": but it's extrinsic, and infinite. For, no set can contain itself.

Then there's the variable of INTENSITY's impact on finity. We know rocks, for example, change nature when exposed to extreme heat or pressure. Igneous rocks are so named because they fuse chemically and become different as a result of extreme heat. So too, conglomerate rocks become that way due to extreme pressure. Fossils occur due to a sudden and massive death due to immense heat and/or pressure, such that the skeleton of the creature is IMPRESSED into a discernible outline. Or, the skeleton itself, is preserved. Rapid change accounts for that happening, not slow change. Or, INTENSE change accounts for that happening, and rapidity is a subvariable of intensity.

What makes for the intensity? Something extrinsic, intrinsic, both? Is it constant, or varying? Of uniform impact, or variant impact? And caused by what? See — so many ASSumptions are made with respect to the TIMING and INTENSITY in geologic and evolutionary processes, that any alternative explanations go unresearched. This is not good.

For the Christian, it's even worse to not research alternative explanations, since part of the reason Bible tells the Genesis story, is to warn of satanic power. We Christians should be among the most avid and objective of scientists, for look: all that sudden destruction, giving rise to fossil fuels, mass death — can only be due to the prehistoric Angelic Conflict. God doesn't massacre animals: His Attitude toward life is cogently expressed in such verses as 2Pet3:9, Matt 10:29-30. So now, in the Trial, when destruction occurs, it's because Satan&Co. argue for it (viz., the Book of Job), or because the human 'argues' for it (wide spectral range of verses here, like Romans 1:18ff but also Phili3:10). So Bible tells the pre-restoration of earth story in many other passages as well: it's a threaded theme throughout Scripture. In Genesis 1-2, the focus is on the solution, and on the Origin Of Man; so other passages explain the massive destruction, and always in parallelism — so you can know the same guys who trashed the earth, are out to trash you. Not because you're some great person, but as always — because of Christ.

Here, the story told by all those old bones and sediments, is that Satan&Co. hated Him (Son: called "The Most High", by angels). Their hatred has a kind of 'logic' you can learn, if you first examine Scripture to see the parameters, and then look out at life to see those parameters, play. So what no Christian can afford to do, is to be negative toward science; it reflects the Bible totally; and you need those analogies to understand the larger and whole Truth, the Bible conveys. Granted, the way 'science' connects the dots to get its own conclusions, needs correction. But the data is still presented, and you've GOT the right connection formulas, in Scripture. So vet them. So quit also, the emotionalism, the religiosity: and buckle down to a lifetime of continuing spiritual homework in God's System. Or, don't — and don't be surprised when a lot of Divine Discipline, comes your way.

For God gave the angels a universe, and they were free to do with it, what they chose. They could have chosen to agree with His Choices, or not. One-third of them, did not agree, but rebelled; and thus the earth and some of the universe, got trashed up. Here, in this Appeal stage of the Trial about their rebellion, God gives us our own 'universe', with all the same options (less innate power, but due to HIS Power, we have the same freedom). We are free to misuse His Gifts, but they have consequences. Especially because, we are not alone, and others are affected. Above all, God exists and.. well, what should He get? What should HE see? We just saw above that He wants to connect His Thinking in our heads, the ultimate kind of intimate relationship: coalescence of thought with God. It's not an emotional thing, since God is infinite (only mass can 'feel'). It's Infinitely intense, this relationship. But, we can refuse it. We can believe in Christ and be forever saved, but refuse the Thinking to be 'poured in' (Rom5:5, Rom 8, etc). In which case, we will abuse what He gives us; so, there are natural consequences going with that result (Col3:25). We can opt back into a functioning fellowship with Him via use of 1Jn1:9 and getting into God's System, at any time. Just as, the unbeliever at any time can choose to believe in Him. But we know we have a limited amount of time on this earth. So the decisions we make, affect our lives forever. Our choice. Hence the "due diligence disclosure" of a Bible, to explain and train. For God isn't the author of pain, but of Pleroma (Eph3:15-19, Greek).

For the non-Christian, it's bad not to research alternative explanations, for much the same reasons as it's bad for the Christian to persist in ignorance. Ignorance is not bliss: ignorance is insanity, eventually. Persistence in ignorance leads to denial, and denial, to subconscious garbage, which — like a black hole filling up — eventually will 'explode' into a variety of mental illnesses. Apathy is the worst of them, and apathy makes enjoyment, quickly pale. So whatever you believe or not about God, you can't afford ignorance.

It's sheer ignorance to pretend that finity acts on itself; that there's no higher and wholly-independent external and living 'immateriality' as the superior parent in all events. Intensity and rapidity cannot return to equilibrium, absent an external unifier. Time must therefore be used as a unifier, and it itself, being immaterial but INanimate, must be a tool of that external and living 'immateriality', no matter what 'name' you give to that Living Agent.

Intensity and rapidity properties thus beg the nature of Time itself: for, if a sequence can occur rapidly, it must be occurring more intensely as well to make up for the same sequence resulting at a slower pace. Or, if intensity, maybe interim steps in the change sequence can be omitted, such that the end result is the same as if it happened at the 'normal', slower, rate. For example, it takes maybe 9 minutes to microwave a potato, but a good hour to bake it. You can, however, tell the difference in a microwaved potato versus a baked one. But what if the end result were exactly the same? Then you could mistake which process cooked the potato, and miss out on a lot of scientific discovery, by solely labelling the process, "baking".

We all know that a body at rest, operates much differently than a body in motion: dieting is a multibillion dollar industry. So if all the rates of change we know geologically, are based on the current universe we know, we really have no clue how fast or slow the developmental timing was, since we are looking at our current universe, from its relative STASIS. We can try to estimate a big bang, or a hot period and a cooling down, but our very premises are colored by what we see now. Could be, an entirely different process 'begat' our universe; and, having completed, an opposite process, replaces and governs. That's one of the basic predictions of hupostasis: opposites are joined by a process which creates an opposite effect, post-joining. We see its prediction prove out, every day; every fetus or seed or organism in formation, went through a process opposite what it becomes, post-birth/germination, etc. The gestation period of any fetus is likewise disproportionate in time, to its lifetime once born. So because we see fulfilled this predicted oppositeness/duality in so many other 'laws' of life, we shouldn't imagine that what birthed the universe, is like what happens now.

Would you expect a worm to become a butterfly, if you didn't have proof? There's nothing at all similar between the two stages. Yet, the larva transforms. But, is still the same species. But you'd never know it, unless you saw the process yourself. Same might be true, for the universe, and a wide variety of what we might mistakenly classify as 'different' species. We didn't see its first birth, so we don't really know if it was once a 'larva'. Nor, are we asking that question. Conversely, we impose a larval origin on everything, such that amoebal life forms merely differentiated enough to become human over long, romantic eons of godless time. Ignoring that the quality of oppositness itself, is multi-natured, so might be of a different kind; not all life develops like the butterfly. So why are we presuming via evolution, that it does? Oh, but we aren't asking that question, either. This blind insistence on one narrow way to view origins is not good science. But it makes great religion, blinding everyone. [If God wanted you to have narrow views, He'd impose the knowledge of Himself on you. But instead, a universe is created which reflects His Nature, and as a result you are free to decide what you want to conclude. So there is a set of answers all revolving around a Real God, to account for everything. But you are free to never learn them, and substitute your own. But if religious usage has its way, you won't have that freedom.]

The Big Hint that we should revise our premises about origins: the RATE OF CHANGE in an object may be governed by factors EXtrinsic to itself, or INtrinsic. This TIME variable may CREATE or CHANGE a hypostatic relationship among the elements affected by it. Some elements may not be affected; some, greatly affected. Notice how the affective quality of life creates different effects ON life, due to how time is perceived. We see this kind of change every day in animals, which is why we have pets. People even talk to their plants for that reason (but they vainly talk to pet rocks).

Our big hint that such interaction between EXTRINSIC and INTRINSIC Time exists; that further, such interaction has collateral affective results which can change the intensity, rapidity, and even sequence of change: time is affectively perceived by a lifeform, and hence its reaction and rate of change can be disproportionate to the 'normal' time and the 'normal' sequence. Psychology is all about correcting those affective perceptions. But humans aren't the only ones who literally mutate based on their affective perceptions. Granted, it's not time alone acting on the organism which makes for affective mutation, but the timing of events in sequence, and the sequence itself, will produce both real effects and affects. We know humans can literally make themselves sick due to what they THINK true. Many animals, have less defense: they can't tell what's true, but whatever hits them will be registered as true, since they don't have souls. Plants, which aren't conscious, still biologically react to music and certain sounds.

Even a cancer cell registers affective behavior. It behaves like any other cell except in two respects: its rate of cell division may be zero or slowed, or rapid. In the latter case, the cell is said to metastasize, and we can't reliably predict what makes it do so, though we pretend external agents are the usual culprit. Research doesn't bear that out, however. Some people can be in constant 'evil' contact with cigarette smoke and other deemed-carcinogens, yet nothing happens. Others live a very healthy lifestyle, and die from rabid cancer, despite that. There's no true statistical correlation. We thus impose standards and caution patients to avoid cigarettes etc. because they might be agents of this horror, but.. no one really knows.

The second difference with a cancer cell is that it lacks an internal 'cap' on how many times to reproduce. Medicine tries to impose a cap via pills, radiation therapy, etc. in order to contain the cancer. So, while the internal sequence of change may be a constant, the rate of change and the endpoint of change is not constant. Virtually anything in nature shares these aberrative qualities: well, we call them "aberrative", because we are forever imposing fixed norms on processes. Yet no process in nature truly operates in a fixed fashion. Largely alike, yes; largely predictable, yes; largely the same sequence, yes. But never 100% exactly the same. There are always at least small variations. [Nerd Note: this isn't to say cancer is solely caused by bad thinking. Nor is it to say anyone who gets sick, is being punished (bad stuff can be either an honor like the Cross, or a wake-up call). However any disease is greatly impacted by what thinking is in the patient, once that disease exists. There are limits on what techniques like biofeedback and other thinking-therapies, can do to improve or prevent illness. However, the relationship does exist between affective nature and effective results. You can't really predict it for any given individual; you can only see it prove out in large numbers, and via anecdotal stories.]

In short, there are many variables which cause unpredictable consequences with respect to development (or regression) TIME, so we shouldn't imagine fixed norms apply. At least, not as we imagine them now.

Consequently, to evaluate how much time a thing took to develop from one set of characteristics into another is ASSumed based on formulas with constants.. which may not always be true. If the expected sequence and intervariable-relationship remains the same as in the assumed formula, but the actual Extrinsic Time (of decomposition, travel, growth) were much faster or slower, science would not necessarily detect it. For example, 2a+x=3a always means x=a, but since the value of "a" can be any value, you can't assume that "a" only changes by +1. So if "a" changes by a much bigger external multiplier, yet the inner formula of 2a+x=3a remains true (as it would), then you can screw up the larger mathematical construct in which the formula resides, simply by ASSuming the wrong rate of change in "a", or by assuming a constant rate of change in "a", even IF the assumption you make about the rate or constancy is sometimes true. That's a problem in crafting theories which are not beta tested against math, like "transmutation".

Time itself is too vital a variable in the theory of transmutation. To say it took eons of time for an amoeba to become a man is a mere assertion, no less. Even if the assertion didn't violate the first law of math, the Time ASSumption is a big problem. Time itself is so poorly understood, any assumption we make about it is likely to be materially flawed. Because math is based on both relatives and absolutes, then Time must have those characteristics as well. Hence, at least Two Different Kinds Of Time: one, a timing Intrinsic to the item, and two, a Timing Extrinsic. Again, a cancer cell operates on unpredictable timing internal to itself. Or, it is claimed that metastasization is caused by external chemicals called "carcinogens". Since political-correctness has always plagued science and particularly medicine, what truly constitutes an external "carcinogen" is quite debatable. Nonetheless, the idea of an extrinsic affecting or overriding an internal timing mechanism makes inherent sense: even microwaves cook a potato faster than a conventional oven.

Worse, our methodology for dating 'how long', is based on the most unstable element in the universe: carbon. Carbon changes easily due to a wide variety of factors and elements with which it comes into contact, since it is the main unit of organic composition. We think we get around that, by using the carbon-14 isotope for dating, as if it were 'god'. We now realize it's not reliable, yet we don't revise our past research to correct the dates. Worse, we don't do statistically-significant sampling, to figure out a way around this problem (i.e., whether carbon-14 leaches from limestone, or degrades faster than it does in wood, so to adjust what seems an older limestone date, to its real date). So between the fixed norms we impose, and the inferior and defective methodology we use to date material, we really are fooling ourselves if we think we have accurate measurements.

So at least we know Time must be Absolute, and Relative. Thus more than one kind of time could play within the relative. Technically, "Absolute" would mean ONE BIG NOWNESS, no sequence: only the relative, needs sequence. Clearly intensity changes the rapidity of a sequence, and maybe even the sequence itself, such that when the change finishes, it will seem as though it took longer or shorter to 'develop', than it actually did. [Supposedly there are more than four (some say five) dimensions in which we live, but I have trouble with the word "dimensions", with respect to actual living: it's really ONE whole, kinda like real numbers are all wholes, with 'fractions' being an abstract concept we use to compare wholes. If "dimensions", then Life and intensity might be two added dimensions, which thus mean time 'local' to the entity might be faster or slower than time 'outside' the entity. Eternal Life and soul life are Immaterial, so are not part of any of the five dimensions (if the fifth is time). So here, I'm gonna invoke Occam's razor: it's easier to say Time has dimensions, and our actual experience is a continuing whole. The way we experience Time varies with the kind of time we experience. Any added complications due to materiality dimensions, wouldn't be discernible per se until we were sure about the Time dimensions.]

Bible has a lot to say about the nature of time, and it's multifaceted: something of the absolute; something of the 'relative' the way we envisage it now. Purpose and function dictate how time works. Since matter-energy equilibrium seemingly requires one type of time, that's the one we most see; so we mistake it for being the only type. So it seems (and largely acts) absolute, for the sake of maintaining relative homeostasis. But since the universe is essentially a vacuum, this equilibrating function must be part of a larger, four-dimensional nature of Time itself. We know this, because matter needs something to balance it, and a vacuum would therefore have to be partly 'balanced' outside itself, for the vacuum itself to be maintained. So what we think of as "time" is really two-fold, to start with: time which plays inside (intrinsic) the matter or energy or life; and, time which plays outside. They couldn't always be the same kind of time, nor 'play' always in the same amount; since matter, energy, and life are always in some state of dynamic change and motion. Moreover, the way time would have to play with respect to the vacuums of either black holes or the vacuum of the universe itself, cannot always be the same in kind or amount. Again, because what these vacuums are to contain, is in flux.

There is a third type of Time which, like a weather pattern, affects a whole group of objects all at once at the same or varying rates; occasionally, or constantly, or anywhere in between; it's distinguished by being of a certain character which must interact in addition to the first two types of time, and only would indirectly touch the objects; in other words, this third type directly affects how the first two types of time interact with each other; but in a particular aggregate configuration: again, kinda like a localized or even rolling (or diffused) weather pattern, rather than a blanket or bomb, covering everything. Think of how the tsunamis of January '05 didn't work uniformly, and how the ripple effects of them were also not uniform; think of how it was an earthquake, not some other direct cause, which gave rise to the tsunamis. Chain reaction, then, of secondary or tertiary forces and objects, did the damage: rather than, the actual earthquake itself. So also, in time-to-time interactions, the matter and energy are not the primary objects, but are massively affected.

The fourth type is NONtime: Absolute Time, a constant now-ness which in religious English we refer to as "eternity" (meaning not only nonending, but nonprogressive). That Georges Seurat painting quality mentioned earlier, in connection with God. Here, the oft-imagined infinite universes of potential and nonpotential are known, but only ONE real universe exists (presently). [There will be two universes in eternity; one for those who never once wanted to believe in Christ, and one for those who did. Angels divide over the question kinda like we humans do, so the humans against Him will be in that universe with Satan&Co. Those angels who wanted Him will be in the same universe as we will then be.]

Only in the Absolute Time sense, could time be called quasi-geometric; else, it will play largely linear or curvilinear. Technically, Absolute Time is a NON-dimension, but here we'll artificially classify it as a dimension: the 'dimension' which all other dimensions, intersect at all 'coordinates'. So how these four, intersecting dimensions of Time work in the process of creating and destroying, travelling, and especially with respect to spiritual growth, can be quite different from equilibrating time. Yet, all four dimensions of time are designed to be equilibrating, since everything exists in hupostasis.

Hence, it's simultaneously true that the universe exists in the same 24-hour timeslice, but it is also true that some elements IN the universe operate on a marginally-different timeline. Some would ascribe to that marginally-different timeline, the character of another universe or dimension, but neither is true. Some would think therefore we can travel in time, but we can't. It's more like being able to step in and out of "time" as we normally know it, into a different (far faster), "time". A unity of bisections at each 'point'. Integrated together. Not wormholes, but having something of the function we imagine of wormholes. Atomic structures (as we know them) can't 'go through' these bisections. So "Light" as we generally know it, ends up acting as a barrier, since light is just another version of mass (light as we know it is never completely free of mass).

Further, atomic-based light is not the only kind of light there is, so the fastest speed in the universe is not the speed of light, but a bizillion times faster. That's why angels can just show up, having travelled billions of light years in space (from the third heaven), in the blink of an eye. That's why your prayers are instantly heard, that's why all the sins of human history could be judged in only three hours on the Cross, why He could just show up after the Resurrection through closed doors, why He could Ascend. We don't understand these things, and call them miracles. Well, they are, but to God they are natural. For angels, natural. So, that's why the Bema is but an instant of earth time. [At least, that's the impression I get from Revelation 4, since the opening of the Title Deed to Earth wouldn't begin until after the Bema. It's a conclusion I'm drawing.] Hence it's not science fiction, nor titillating, to say time operates in ways beyond our atomic-based universe, such that time interacts with atomic-based structures, and also with non-atomic-based structures (for lack of a better word), the latter group being a bizillion times faster and higher than the former.

So the characteristics of time variantly interact with finite objects, yet the types of time themselves, are absolutes by nature. Which makes sense, given that time itself is neither matter NOR energy. Type 1 Time is both intrinsic and extrinsic to matter-energy, lest there be a vacuum. Type 2 is wholly extrinsic but is 'inserted' when 1Jn1:9 is used (not a good description, but it's the best metaphor I can think of). Type 3 is, like Type 1, both extrinsic and intrinsic, but the latter is temporary, to balance as needed. Type 3 when localized probably accounts for how the sun could stand still for Joshua (or how the Red Sea could stay apart), IF God had chosen to do it via law He invented, rather than by an ad hoc act of Will. Type 4 is wholly extrinsic, except that it 'runs' and is the 'source' for the other types. Also, if you became a believer, Type 4 is part of your "born again" spiritual nature, which is why you can live in Type 2 Time simultaneously.

Alternatively, you could say there is only One Type of Time, #4, but the way it 'plays' in the life, follows the four paths above. That would actually be the more accurate description, better illustrating how it's finity which is affected. If we were to use the spacetime construct of a grid, you'd probably best depict this as two parallel grids that intersect at all coordinates, but the problem is God is non-spacetime in nature. I don't know what kind of diagram would best 'picture' His Infinity. Still, the parallel grids' idea demonstrates the dynamics of the relationship. You can see these dynamics play in real life via the "490" year system of promise God granted to Israel (and thus to the world): Mirroring.htm has the details. Shorter treatment is in Godindex.html's "A Question of..Time?" link. Don't read it if you have anything important left to do that day. It might be too shocking to work after reading it. At least, that's how I was affected by writing it.

So the popular idea that time does not exist extrinsic to an object but is artificial, makes no sense. Rather, the opposite: Time is an absolute, which a finite (object or) being experiences in 'dots'. Consequently, just as you can compress and unzip a datafile, so also time can be 'played' faster or more slowly from outside the entire mass-energy universe, within any part of it (yet not affect the other parts), or in any number of parts of it (contiguous or no) at once. We know of type 3 and 4 time from mathematics, as mentioned above about 2a+x=3a. What acts upon "a" and how it acts upon "a" varies formula output, yet the variables within the formula retain the same ratios. Type 1 could function like that also, since Type 1 is dual in nature, not solely intrinsic to the object. The difference between Type 1 and Type 3 time is major. The former is a pair of values which might not be equal, nor constant, but rather operate to maintain equilibrium; Type 3's temporary action(s) therefore impacts the relationship between extrinsic and intrinsic Type 1, even if only acting on one of them.

Example of Type 1 and Type 3 interaction: granite. Supposedly, granite is an anomaly of time. It contains a polonium (?) halo inside much slower-developing rock. The polonium (if that's its name, brain may be out) is supposed to have a half-life of 3 minutes. In which case, no halo could form in the other slower-developing minerals which make up granite. The "Startling Proofs" video often shown on TBN made a big deal of this: some scientist wrote a book on this anomaly. But it's not an anomaly if the universe was created in a nanosecond but the internal time of what became granite, varied.

So also, if the universe took even longer than is popularly deemed true — again, because the internal time may be different for different elements. The external time may have acted to slow what passed for three minutes, to the polonium, kinda like cancer can be dormant; yet, that same external time may have acted to speed up the sequence of the normally-slow rock. Again, like a metastasizing cancer. In short, the nature of time matters so much to the theory of evolution (not to mention geology, space travel, etc) that you can only guess.

Example of Type 2 and Type 4 interaction: the Cross. What a conundrum this has been for me. By understanding Hupostasis, after all these years of wondering how God could make the Cross work, I finally 'get it'! Really, this example needs its own webpage, but I've no time for that (heh), so will make a too-short explanation, here. First, here's the conundrum: how can all the sins of history be imputed and judged in only 3 earth hours, ON His Body? For that's what the Bible says happened. The conundrum is that hell exists forever, so sinning there goes ON forever: so how can you impute, what never ends? The answer: create a counter-thought process which also never ends, such that every thought in hell, has a counter-thought in Him. Since He goes on living, His Thinking is forever occurring, too. And, forever occurring in those who will eventually live in Heaven (so to speak), starting with their being "born again" (anagennaw, sired again) down here; and especially, in those who believe in Him and get in and stay in God's System to Pleroma completion (Eph3:19, "finished the course", as Paul puts it in Timothy) — they are living forever, too. So the solution is to set up two ongoing processes of sufficient value to make the ongoing sin processes, desirable: Isa54:1. Qualitative solution. That solves another conundrum, that of our being inferior forever, even once perfect and made a bizillion times more beautiful and powerful, than we are now. The process goes on forever. Of course, the requisite counter-thought Quality must be incredibly high, to satisfy Infinite God. But Infinity is qualitative, so change the quality of a counter-object, and you solve the problem. The process of transmutation, then, is the only solution. First in Him: then, begotten immaterially, to us. Wow. Couldn't be more important, to learn God's Book! [Mathematically, you could calculate the requisite offsetting present values much like you would for a sinking fund or defined benefit retirement plan; here, the future 'lump sum' would be that moment when eternity begins. We will each be 'worth' a definable, 'thought-capital' amount, negative and positive, at that point. So it's fairly easy (for God) to calculate what developments-of-Divine-Thinking are needed before that date begins. Even though, that beginning date is technically in flux, because Omniscience knows how our choices will result in a final ending date being the right one. God, of course, just plain knows all the answers, doesn't have to think them out, because by nature He is Infinite and hence Omniscient. In short, just as the Bible says a bizillion times and in a bizillion ways, from most mundane expression to loftiest.. God is making sons, not works. You are to become someone you initially were not.. and whatever else you or anyone else do en route, is but cannonfodder 'womb' toward this goal. So nothing in your life is small. So everything in life is designed to make you grow bigger in Him. Your choice, whether you want that to happen. If "yes", get in and stay in God's System.]

The analogous secular counterpart in the universe, is quantum mechanics, with focus on the functions related to self-annihilation of particles and changeovers of polarity. That tells you everything about how the Cross worked, and how never-ending sins and inferiorities, are made productive — even to the satisfaction of Infinitely Holy, God. Awesome! So now you know why there are two universes in eternity, and it doesn't compromise Righteousness (God didn't want hell — those who reject Him, want it as an alternative to Him). Whew: these conundra have bugged me for over 20+ years, and now they are resolved! Awesome!

So we need to revisit ALL the canned notions of time which are extant in science. The whole theory must be reworked, and the key to finding the truth about how time works, depends on finding the hypostatic relationships between relatives and absolutes. This isn't to say our current ideas about time are wrong; lots of very brilliant folks have all found 'pieces' of the answer, but don't see the hupostasis between the opposites they find. Einstein, for example, rejected quantum mechanics; yet his own constructs unknowingly PROVED that quantum physics is the cause of general relativity, via the vacuum of space (the hypostatic unifier), the vacuums of black holes, etc. Well, proved to me, anyway, as I read about his constructs in Dr. Hawking's book and Encyclopedia Britannica.

Look: that quantum physics is one of the 'parents' of general relativity, is demonstrated by the uncertainty principle; in general relativity, that principle is the reason why you measure in "spacetime" rather than either space or time. So also, big-bang and steady-state opposites are both true, and they unify. For the way they interact, is simultaneous; there wasn't first the big bang and then steady state: they were born together, twins. Gen1:1 says the whole universe was created altogether in one instant of 'time'. So the universe is just like life: opposites co-existing, opposing and coalescing. Expanding and contracting (maybe, probably). In a dynamic equilibrium.

So clearly, our canned notions are way too incomplete for us to go running around claiming we know how old the universe or even man, is. It's time "the data suggest" went back to being a mere suggestion. Obviously what I'm writing here isn't claimed as the truth, either — though I'm giving it my best shot. Point is, when you have so many material and fundamental unaccountables, you have to stop claiming a thing is scientifically 'proven'. Even a critical variation in radiation could so speed up or slow down the actual birthing process of the universe, we'd not know now, how long it happened, then.

Of course, all this talk about the type of Time, inevitably becomes a question of speed and intensity acting on Life. So, you've got those Lorentz formulas which are predicated on moving clocks. Clocks have MASS, and so if the 'time' on the clock slows down or speeds up, it doesn't mean Real Time is doing anything at all: the clock's mass measurement of 'time', is affected. Of course, since mass IS affected, what is the 'normal' aging 'time' would not be happening. So yeah, if you could zip around space faster than the speed of light, when you came back, to you less time would have passed. But you can't zip around faster than the speed of light; you can't even get to the speed of light, unless you STOPPED BEING mass. So you gotta die, first. Heh.

But look! Lorentz' discoveries tell you the effect of time ON mass, thus proving time itself, is unimpacted, and hence extrinsic as well as, severally intrinsic (to the mass). So the former acts on the latter. If a flying mass is sped up enough, its internal timing slows down. So the converse could also be true, theoretically. So a guy could theoretically go zipping around the universe for a few years, but his body will age only a few seconds. So a God could speed up OR slow down the internal timing of anything, and we wouldn't know how long it really took. See: math always illustrates the unseen, so you need to beta-test a theory using math.

So in the larger sense, we're talking about how we experience speed and intensity, maybe not about Time, at all. In which case, it becomes even more impossible to date the age of the universe, since we really can't tell the birthing speed, development speed, etc. of all those supposed eons before we got here. We should still try to know. How often, have you gone looking for your car keys, only to find that stupid receipt you forgot to give your accountant — just in time for him to do your taxes? So when on a quest for "z", often many other things will be learned. And in the quest for God, you can learn all things: He guarantees it, in passages like Eph3:15-19, end Romans 8. For God is all about, Relationship. He doesn't need praise or obedience: we do. Those things are necessary for our happiness, and they are compatible with Him, so.. we can get a relationship. It's not the childish or primitive idea of 'appeasing' God, being a good boy or girl. You talk to a child AS IF it were, but when the child grows up, he can see in the same words (The Word), the higher meanings. And that, is the only reason to want Time: to see, and be with.. God. Every other reason for time, is too.. um, boring.

Nonetheless, it seems conceptually easier to talk about different kinds of time, especially since by now most people fancy the sci-fi ideas of it. Well and good.

So you can think of the truth as, God 'plays' different kinds of time; or, plays His Time, acting on finity at varying rates: many verses on that. [Instantaneous creation of the universe, Gen1:1. (Gen1:2ff are not initial creation.) Sun standing still, the shadow-on-the-steps; Cross only lasted three hours yet all sins were paid for; Bema completes within a very short span of Earthtime, probably less than a day, in Rev4. Angels' bodies are made of light, so travelling way faster than light speed — does not turn back time. That polonious-30 in granite and other anomalies. Really wish I had time to research the topic, more.] Moreover,

• all these types of time NEST;
• they all derive from the Timeless Nature of God;
• the relationship to matter-energy is Hypostatic, and
• the connections to matter-energy are at what seems most impossible.
• Finally, all Time relationships are top-down, not bottom up. So start your accounting for time with the uppermost truth (God's Nature, existence): then all else will be corollary, and fit the secular universe you know.

  "Most Impossible" takes some explaining. Think of the Cross: the impossible connection was, to impute and judge all our sins in Him Who Knew No Sin (2Cor5:21a). That very connecting, which Isa53:10-12 explains blow-by-blow, was an inter-transmission of thought (sin is essentially thought) being 'answered' by His "Mastery-of-Thinking" (suneisis, Isa53:11 LXX). The result was, judicially, a "sweet savor" (KJV) to Father; but in terms of Divine Physics a real bonding occurred. So the actual property of sin, which itself doesn't change (hupostasis), nonetheless has the effect of His Thinking. So it's good that the sin existed! No wonder Paul starts out Romans 6 the way he does: it's shocking! So I can't escape the conclusion that the cost had been "sin", but the Cost is Now.. Him. On Purpose. So His Continuing Thinking literally transforms the meaning of, though not the essence of, sin. But that's like continually finding a million dollars in your ugly couch each morning! So will you hate that couch? You'll have to think over this paragraph's import if you are inclined. It's staggering, "What God hath wrought". Marconi was right!

  Now let's take this new telephone invention down to earth, where we punies live. That Same Thinking, called "treasure in earthen vessels", has the exact same result when it happens in us. Not the same scope, obviously. Not as much Infinite Quality, obviously. But since the Holy Spirit is the One running the show, and we DO consent, then HIS Infinite Quality produces 'dots' of That Infinite-Quality Thinking, IN us. As a result, all 'attached' to us, 'partake'. So God doesn't (judicially speaking) 'hate' the ugly couches in our lives. Nor, us. Just like the two definite articles in Romans 9:13 denote justice scales tipped in Jacob's favor because he was positive (not works, but attitude and learning), so also, they tip in our world. Impossible, huh.

Our 'scientific' time concepts, in turn, are dependent on our definitions of LIGHT PROPERTIES. Einstein's theory of relativity is used as if time were measured with reference to the speed of light, a constant beyond which nothing else can go. But when it comes to deciding how old the universe is, and how it got here, you can't really use the theory of relativity. Time doesn't have anything to do with speed: speed is something that occurs within time, and the apparent fact that the fastest speed in the universe is the speed of light, tells you zippo about time, whether you're hitting a barrier of time (and hence 'slowing') or not. Time has neither mass nor energy, so cannot be intrinsic to the universe, but is rather independent and extrinsic, acting on the universe; as a result, internal time gets 'put' into matter-energy, so Time Extrinsic goes to Time Intrinsic, interacting; and the matter-energy, 'responds'.

So it makes zero sense to claim that the lights we see in the sky 'tonight' aren't the stars themselves, but leftover images of them — light which 'travelled' from eons ago! I've talked with people and read encyclopedias, and even Dr. Hawking's A Brief History of Time, and find this incredible claim in all of them. Is the claim a mere figure of speech, oversimplifying the truth? If so, it really needs to be more aptly stated, for many people actually believe that they're being told the light they see, isn't really but leftovers. How they can believe that, well.. once we thought it was healthful to bleed people, too...

For it cannot be true that ALL the light leaving a star takes X amount of time to reach man's eyes. Understandably, a lightbody throws off particles of itself when it travels, since it is essentially burning. These particles, tiny bits of mass, themselves are energy, so are light, alright — but still bits of mass. Very small, no doubt: that's why the wave is able to travel at the speed of light (duh) but the large lightbody from which it came, cannot be travelling at the speed of light, and most of the light, is IN that body. So we're looking at bits of mass travelling, as well as at the main body of light travelling, and it's that real lightbody we really see every night when we look up at the sky, and in real time. The distortion would be due to angle of view, and the time element of distortion, would be minimal. We'd not be able to see the bits, but we would be able to see the large body from which they broke off. So when we look at the sky, we are looking at the real large bodies, which themselves are in the same 24-hour slice of time as we are: but, in a very far away 'time zone'. Then, the bits which do travel, we measure. So what we are calling the "speed of light" is really the speed of those mass bits, light itself being part of their nature.

Like Aristotle noted, it's rather the angle of vision and what's obstructing, not the time light takes to allegedly travel, which renders a thing seeable; including the timing of visibility. The light would have to be bright enough to see at such a distance, but it must be real time, not a delay. The object might be 92 million miles away, but IT is there now. So, I can SEE it now. Moscow is in a different time zone from Chicago. So too, a distant object in space is in a different time zone. But to view the object is not dependent on time, for the relationship ratio between viewer and object, is alone determinative. So travel distance doesn't matter, unless you are travelling there: else, only your current position vis · vis the object, and its brightness, matter.

It's also been said that the Sun's light takes eight minutes to reach us. That has nothing whatsoever to do with seeing it in the sky. It is there now, and what it throws off.. yeah, that takes eight minutes. So when an eclipse happens, it's happening in real time; and yes, it will take some minutes for the earth to be affected by it. But you can SEE it, immediately: that is, if you are in the right POSITION to see it.

So the reason why Roemer saw the Jupiter's moons' eclipses later, could equally be due to him being at a different earth position relative to them; which, he even knew; but (fortunately for us) he drew the wrong conclusion. The angle meant it would take longer in time to reach an equivalent viewing position; not, that light had to 'travel', in order for him to see the eclipses. This is even more obvious, since the moons reflect light, so his angle, the moons' angle to the Sun, etc. would be material to WHEN Roemer could see it. Surely the Sun didn't "travel" differently to the moons, nor to earth. Nor vice versa. So there are two discoveries here, not one: the idea that light does travel, but also the idea that the main view is of the lightbody moving in the same timeslice as the viewer's; such that the angle of view requires more or less time, to see the same 'picture'. Of course, we know this nightly, for the constellations don't show up in the same quadrant of our hemispheres, all year long. Of course, that's why we needed a theory of general relativity, since ANGLE affects PERCEPTION, and if you're measuring mass and speed, you better be able to adjust out perceptive distortions; particularly, at different dates and positions.

So light's visibility has to also be a current OPTICAL thing. Light has three properties, but the "luminiferous" quality need not 'travel', to be SEEN. Its actinic property may not need to travel either; clearly the calorific property moves (or at least radiates in decreasing intensity). If light did have to travel to be SEEN, then its light would get BIGGER the closer it came to earth, and you wouldn't see a constancy of light.

Of course, then we'd all be dead, for the light travelling say from Sirius, which is twice as bright as the Sun, would have fried us by now. Of course, it would be argued that heat dissipates: but if the optic quality is tied to the dissipation, the speed of dissipation must equal or exceed the speed of travel, for the SAME BRIGHTNESS to be maintained: which we know is not true. Also, light leaving Sirius 8 years ago would be added to by light leaving 7 years ago; six years ago; yesterday. So in any event, unless there's an offsetting dissipation of light in the travelling, Sirius would be much brighter each day than the day before: because, all that light is allegedly getting closer, and it's CUMULATIVE. For we know that Earth is not travelling at the speed of light, nor is the mass of Sirius travelling at the speed of light.

Also, we'd see light streaks, not light-points. Granted, if the angle of view fits within certain parameters, one would see points: but at some of the angle(s) of vision, streaks would be visible: since if light 'leaves' at second 0, the next light 'leaves' at the next second (really, faster than that), etc. so by a year you'd have 6 quadrillion 'points' of light in a SWATH, since the star or planet itself is moving. In short, we'd see NO darkness if light travelled, but each 'leaving' light would occupy a point in the sky relative to how long ago it 'left'.

Moreover, if all those lights were but leftover pictures as science contends, with no real star now giving off the light in that spot — you couldn't even travel in space. You'd have to use the lights for navigation, and the stars, if not really there, would actually be somewhere else — so could hit you in the face. Science claims that these stars are moving away from us because the universe is allegedly expanding; so of course we won't get run into; moreover, since they are in the future from us, we can't reach them in time to actually collide. Well, then we couldn't travel very far, and our maps would have to be extremely accurate, lest we collide into something. [I don't dispute that the universe is expanding, and it would be an elegant way to illustrate what Bible says about the devolution of mankind and the insertion of Church Age 'time'; but I'm not yet sure it's true. Here's the problem. If the universe were expanding, then each of the bodies would be farther apart every year. Would we know for sure, if the way we measure movement, ASSumed that more redshift meant farther away relative to earth? How do we know it doesn't merely mean the movement is going ahead of us, kinda like the front engine of a long train? So: if redshift really meant that the object was merely moving ahead of you, rather than moving away relative to you, then it isn't necessarily telling you whether the universe is expanding. Maybe science has other proof. I'd sure like to know what!]

Then there's the problem of even the provable fact that energy travels (the optic issue being separate and related to the main light body from which the energy is expended). Technically, We'd be MORE bombarded with more energy, every day it travelled. So: why haven't we fried by now? Because the star itself is a mass body, and IT travels; the light of it, actually radiates. So most of the radiation, is 'attached', as it were, to the burning star. What we call 'travel' is really only the perimeter of the radiation outside the optical spectrum (which is in the middle); which radiation, we can't see apart from special equipment. So what we can see, must be at the CENTER of the radiation: hence, in real time. And we can be sure of this, because if the lightbody didn't travel far slower than the speed of light, with most of the radiation 'attached' to it, all that 'leaving' radiation would have killed us long ago. [This ends up being an argument for universe expansion, from an independent angle: positing that we really would have burned up long ago if at least some increase in distance wasn't occurring relative to all those other lightbodies, aha!]

So while astronomers look in telescopes and think they are looking at the past, by that 'logic', they should say they are looking at the future; since, that distant object in the telescope IS so far away from us. Which also makes no sense. So we must be looking forward across a Large Slice Of Time, everything in it happening within the SAME relative period. The entire universe is experiencing the same 24 hours as we are. So just because OQ172 is 20 billion light-years away doesn't mean it's 20 billion light-years older. Maybe it is, and maybe it's not. That being the case, it's impossible to date the age of the universe, let alone, Planet Earth. Of course, some version of a steady-state theory of cosmology would necessarily claim a big series of timezones stretching across billions of lightyears of space: the distance tells you nothing about how old the universe is. So when some telescope 'spies' Halley's comet or a far-off supernova, it's Really Happening Now. Not, a time-delayed image.

Bible's explanation about light: it's a total balance equation for the sake of maintaining earth's creature viability: Hebrew of Gen1:14ff. We needn't be sheepish about anthropic theory, either: since if God, and God bothers to make man, God's very making man, therefore makes man that important. So now we don't have to pretend to be humble. We are too awestruck to be arrogant. Heh.

Bible distinguishes between LIGHT itself (Hebrew: "or") and what bears/ generates/ reflects/ holds light ("ma-or"). Angels' bodies are said to be made of light. So they don't need all that balance, and can spend as much time as they like on Venus or Sirius, or wherever. They can just blink themselves to a location, don't have to spend travel time going to it. [Yes, there is life on other planets: angelic life. They were here first. We're here because there's an Angelic Trial going on. So one more reason to be awestruck rather than arrogant.]

In Revelation, Bible makes a big deal about how everyone will simultaneously see Christ coming in the sky at the Second Advent. So God's saying the universe is one big timeslice of the same 24 hours, too. Wow, think of the time researchers would have saved if they checked Bible (oh, looking at Luxor is historical research, but Bible is for foolish people). Oh well. But then, we also chucked Aristotle's explanation concluding the same law-of-optics rule about seeing light simultaneously. See how it's important to go back to ancient ideas for resolving modern middle-data conundra? For we all know that we have imperfect knowledge.

It would thus be a valuable scientific inquiry to learn what effect of all this radiating and reflecting light has on orbits and other motion. How life viability depends on the balance between the movement of heavenly bodies and the light they reflect. This balance issue is very like the role of displacement, it seems. You know, for a boat to be stable it must have particular dimensions relative to displacement (of water) so it can stay afloat. Same, for an airplane. Proportionality is all-important to displacement, and here the biggest displacement issue is radiation. If there are so many stars giving off light, they are giving off radiation: which as we all know, has a very long half-life, varying by which type of radiation is given off. We need radiation in a very precise balance; too little, and we die (i.e., bone disease from too little sunlight); too much, and we die. And it's cumulative. Which argues for an expanding universe, to keep all that radiation, in check. Balanced.

In his book, A Brief History of Time, Dr. Stephen Hawking remarked occasionally that it was a conundrum to cosmologists that there wasn't more mass in the universe: according to their theories, the universe needed more mass to hang together as it does. So, some posited dark matter and even anti-matter, to come up with an balancing answer. If I understood him properly, Dr. Hawking thinks something in quantum physics would resolve the matter question, with the result that the matter we think we know is there, is the right amount. I didn't see him say much about how radiation itself could be a 'unifying' reason for the integrity of the universe, if in balance at all times. After all, energy is just a different form of matter. And we know energy has holding or splitting properties — which have to be held in check, balanced: or there couldn't be any matter, at all.

In short, the 'balancing' is done more by the positioning and movement among lightbodies, not by mass per se. Light then would be the determining factor, not mass; so you wouldn't need much mass; whatever mass there was, would be very important, but it itself, isn't causing the balancing. Rather, what's done to mass is what makes for the balancing. Conversely, if you had a lot of mass, the light itself could 'rule' it better, than mass-to-mass. Orbiting material must be a lot smaller around a mass, than around a star. And there' no competing with a black hole, except for a lot of Light. Else, everything would collapse into the black hole. As it is, black holes function as the garbage disposals of (probably) most galaxies, so that new stars can be birthed. Recycling. Yet the hole itself, is but a vacuum!

Bible is always saying that God is Light (i.e., in 1Jn), so it makes sense that light would be the governing dynamic of balance. Light for the soul, balancing the life. Salvation is what God does to you. Your consent isn't the power, but how God 'responds' to that free consent of His Own Free Will — that's Power. See: by knowing the secular is supposed to always illustrate the spiritual, and by knowing first the spiritual, you can correctly deduce a whole lot of scientific fact with far less effort and expense.

Moreover, we know we can speed up or slow down radiation. So if we can do it (i.e., to make atom bombs and nuclear reactors), then why can't God do it — in which case, maybe the earth isn't 3-5 billion years old (per Encarta, article on half-life), but maybe far older or far younger. So, the same can be said about how light's 'travelling' rays work: they might not be constant, at all. Maybe for what we know, to call the speed a constant of 186,000 miles per second, works: but that doesn't mean everything only operates that way and at that speed.

When getting the exegesis of Genesis 1 from my pastor's audiotapes, I was surprised to see God is quite adamant about this balance, repeating the idea in verses 14-18, and passim all throughout Scripture. When God repeats a thing, He's stressing its importance, as well as providing more information. In the New Testament, this same idea is ported over to a "Body" analogy, and stressed: after all, it's a Body for THE BODY, Christ. Heavenly bodies, get it? Greek words oikodome and oikodomia and oikonomia stress building and economy, meaning a system which is synergistic. Just like the 'heavens' surrounding earth. So Bible makes a big deal in Genesis, to forecast the big Eternal Relationship: "God is Light: in Him is no darkness at all", 1Jn1. So science can only profit by investigating the idea from a secular point of view. Everything in nature is supposed to represent something spiritual, as a mnemonic aid and clarifier. So, an intended future of people who obviously aren't constants, argues for a hugely dynamic universe not made up of too many constants. Rather, the picture both then and now, is more like quantum physics: where the particles can actually change nature depending on what relationships they have, with the surprising result (for now) of homeostasis amidst chaos.

So, then: we stress constants too much in science, thus missing valuable data about the relationships which exist; so we shouldn't then make constants into unchangeable 'gods'. Einstein's theory is based on a constant, still — but to get to that place, the 'constancy' idea we had, needed to be pitched. Ok: but what if our new 'god' also isn't constant?

We now know that black holes balance a galaxy, with so many of them being 'centered' by at least one black hole. The latter keeps the stars which are moving away from it, in a kind of 'cage'. So the whole galaxy moves, staying together. That phenomenon rather well demonstrates what Bible says about counterbalancing. The Greek word "mataiotes" would be best rendered "vacuum" in modern English (but is too often translated "vanity"). So we were told about black holes, because sin creates them in us, as well: evil results from sin, and IT is the big danger, not sin itself. For evil is a substitute holiness; sin is merely a type of disobedience. Evil is needed to justify the disobedience with a replacing rationale. Hence religion, is the most evil of all. Even when, calling itself 'scientific'.

And Bible taught all that, in 1440BC: millenia before we humans ourselves discovered black holes. Still, it's great we did discover black holes, so to understand both Bible and the phenomena of black holes, better. See how synergy results? Look at what you learn!

• What we see, is 'caged' by what we can't see (God protects us, evil cages us);
• Balance consists more of energy (away from human power's black hole, choosing God's Power) than mass (works);
• What we are in Christ, is veiled (each 'star' can't see itself, sees the other stars, but only in a limited 'window', is gravitationally slow);
• Infinity is far bigger than what you can see.

Of course, the parallel analogies are in the millions. Kinda like, stars. The ancients made these parallels to the unseen spiritual, routinely, which is why so much natural law is discussed in holy books (esp. the Bible): but we moderns, deeming ourselves as gods, don't make such parallels.. unless it makes US even more 'godly' (i.e., astrology, spiritism, etc). [Nerd note: Evil cages, not sin, because the power of sin was broken at the Cross: see Romans 6-8. Evil is white to our eyes, i.e., all religion. So we need the Light of the Word, to escape the gravitational pull of what we can't see, and would mistake for 'good'.]

By the way, there were no initial black holes; they came about later, probably as a result of Satan's and/or Adam's fall; because it was Satan&Co. who created darkness: that's a theme threaded throughout Scripture. In eternity there will be no darkness, either. Quantum physics itself illustrates the interplay of God acting on chaos, even as Gen1:2 et. seq., using our native tohu wa bohu as black holes: wombs for the Bright Morning Star to be made in our souls, via learning Bible in God's System. Star is a synonym for angel in the Bible, by the way. As a result of which, you know a lot about stars. Even, some millenia ago. See what can be learned, if one doesn't laugh off the Bible as a tool for a fool?

Balance can be autonomically designed, kinda like a washing machine which you just click on, and leave alone. Then again, because the design is intelligent, maybe an Intelligence actually operates it, too. We humans always assume too much absent proper homework. For how do we really know it's "the laws" we think we see operating, or operators who do what we call the 'laws'. If I pick up my pencil, but you only see the pencil; or, if you really can't pick up the pencil but when you go to pick up the pencil 'invisible me' enables your hand to do that, you wouldn't know the difference. Ancients of course believed that the gods did those things, rather than believing there were impersonal laws (even if invented by the gods) at work. Aristotle, like many before and after him, saw a kind of system at work, and naturally concluded the impersonality of laws. Which makes sense: why should "the gods" do repetitive, meaningless, tasks?

Even so, what if "the gods" wanted to do certain things over and over? We eat over and over; we engage in our favorite activities over and over. We even work over and over, and often (dare we admit it) we like to work. So, since the child is not greater than the parent, but rather reflective of the parent, then.. what if God has the angels run the weather (which Bible claims)? What if they actually run either selected or all functions we see as "laws" of nature? I sure would enjoy making the Aurora Borealis each day, no matter how many times I did it. I would love to go into a black hole and make the quantum mechanics dance in order to birth a new star. Wouldn't matter if I were 'condemned' to do it forever: those impish quarks and anti-particles are fun! Moreover, my pastor constantly stresses, whenever he revisits the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union (God-man), that one of the worst pressures on Christ while He was down here, was that as God He had to keep on willing to hold the universe together. So that means His Humanity had to know that, and also will it, yet not peek into His Deity: since He is One Person With One Will And Two Natures affected by that One Will. Who of us could withstand that pressure?

When we decided that there ought to be laws to run everything, we prided ourselves on not having silly views about some god inhabiting a rock or creek bed; on not worshipping the sun or moon. Ok. But now we are making a god out of these laws. So we've run to the other side of the boat, still immature. Mature people appreciate a balance between personal involvement, and impersonal law. That's good, too, allowing for maximum synergy and freedom. So: do we really need to be so insistent that everything we call "natural phenomena" must be explained by a law?

So there seems to be much more to the properties of light than we are accounting for, and one of the BIG factors we don't account for in light, is that of Balance. Like Christianity, cosmologists sometimes view stuff bass-ackwards. Christianity always assumes a works-based relationship with God, which immediately tells you a hostile relationship with God is assumed. So, only the differential between its works and God's Nature, is called "grace". Which definition again reflects a hostility: you only get the "grace" in exchange for the "works", in which case grace is no longer grace, but debt. See Romans 11:6, 4:4-5. But the Truth is, it's All Grace, and no works. What we get are all Gifts. God doesn't need, anything. So Churchinanity dominates our thinking, and in the process, cuts out grace. Similarly, cosmologists tend to assume matter, not energy, is the balancing factor in the universe. They do this, because the energy is bigger, and it's faster — so what stops it from annihilating everything? Like the Churchinanity crowd, the cosmologist puts up barriers where there aren't any. Matter is what's the matter, so needs light to make matter, matter less. Same is true in the spiritual life. The Light of the Word gradually renders all other interests, matterless. Because, only He comes to matter. It's not an obligation, but an all-consuming preference. Aka, Love: "we love, because He first loved us", 1Jn4.

Certainly we all know that everything from our cells to our atmosphere is in the most awesomely-precise Balance: one little jot different, and death occurs. Try stopping breathing, for example: you can't, because there is a balance between inhale and exhale. Of course, Balance is the sine qua non of hupostasis. Moreover, we know well how light affects the SPEED of either development or degeneration, in which case our notions of development time could be way off depending on our assumptions about the impact of light on development (i.e., radiation, evaporation, decomposition, etc). Since we now effectively base all of our ideas about time on light, if we mess up the definition of light, we mess up the definition of time. So not only evolution, but a whole slew of 'scientific theory' is not properly tested for sense. This is not good.

So the definition of "transmutation" currently used in the 'theory' of evolution needs to be reworked. For, it ignores not only the first law of math, but also the essential dependence of life on things/organisms outside their own natures, and instead attributes ALL the power of superior change to something inside the organism itself. This, despite the glaring fact that the organism is totally dependent for its very breath on extrinsics. The trigger must therefore be external, and must have the seminal characteristics of the transmuted change; or, the combining of one or more superior external triggers with the organism creates (i.e., seminal) characteristics of the transmuted change. In all events, the organism itself is dependent and inferior. So it never 'transmutes'. Rather, it is birthed by something superior to it, so isn't, strictly speaking, transmutating: "hybridization" would be a more apt term. Always. In which case you have adaptation or mutation going on intra-organism, but never transmutation.

Again, a claim will be made that externals do cause transmutation, but when you pin down what these externals are, you realize that the internal beingness affected, would have to already possess the necessary target genes, for such a 'transmutation' to occur. You can't create a talking ape from a bolt of radiation, though surely the ape (if he lived) would mutate. So there has to be something in the brain and in the vocal chords, for the necessary mutation, to occur. In short, there are many externals, and yes they have effects; but for TRANSmutational effects, something internal to the organism must match sufficiently, for the right kind of mutation, to occur.

Moreover, the transmuting agent must be animate, for superior TRANSmuting animate characteristics, to result. Animacy can make/become inanimacy, but not the other way around. superior animacy can 'beget' a portion of its superiority in an inferior animacy; no inanimacy can do such begetting, nor an even-more-inferior animacy: radiation, for example, cannot 'beget' the faculty of abstract thinking in a life which didn't already have it. So external triggers/ improvements which build on what's already IN the organism are mere mutations.

That's why apes don't become dogs, nor amoebas, poets. No couch ever laughs, and Venus won't smile if you read that planet a poem, and people can't flap their wings to fly. There are real genetic boundaries, and they never 'transmute'. Because, the number set of attributes for a real species, is wholly dependent on its parents' attributes. Maybe many generations back, but still, the parents. So if a number of bird 'species' develop from one bird, you must ask if you are classifying as 'species', artificially. And they are all still birds. Not birds becoming dinosaurs. Maybe birds came from dinosaurs (which is doubtful, since dinosaurs couldn't fly); certainly, they could have come from any dinosaurs which could fly — depending on the other facts. But you are still talking differentiation within a 'grand' species, not really transmutation. A bird is still a bird, whether ancient or modern. Man is still man, whether old or new, and once he stops being man, then and only then has he become truly a different species. It's all in how you 'name' the animals, whether you claim transmutation. But no matter how you name the animals, no transmutation actually occurs, without some past parent who had enough of the 'transmuted' characteristics, to engender the change. A rose by any other name, is still only a rose.

In sum, to rise to the level of TRANSmutation, the transmuting agent must have or be able to cause the transmuted characteristic(s), and thus be superior to the object, at least in that respect. Thought is just such an agent, and is demonstrably immaterial. The thoughts written on this webpage don't jump off the page and go into your head, nor do they effect any kind of energy/mass exchange. So there must be an immaterial and animate agent in order for 'thought' to be 'fathered'; this agent cannot be either energy or mass, since both are by nature inanimate; this agent is, therefore, superior to both energy and mass, since it requires neither of them, to propagate.

Of course, another cardinal rule of math is oppositeness. If there is immaterial, finite thought, then there would mathematically and logically be the opposite: immaterial, infinite thought. So there could exist a beingness which is both immaterial and finite, or immaterial and infinite. People have observed the existence of immaterial; math itself is both itself immaterial and demonstrates the immaterial, predictably, completely apart from human opinion. Science involves observation, so to repeat here an old observation that thought is immaterial is not out of kilter with the role, objective, and history of science.

Similarly, we see everywhere that matter/energy is acted upon by immaterial laws. These laws we seek to scientifically define and use, but the laws themselves are just there, and are always there. They don't change, but what they contact, does change. So, there is a set of laws/thought which has no mass, no energy, needs neither, but affects all. Can't be more obvious. It's just a question of properly defining what all this immateriality, IS. That definition will greatly affect our understanding of how and if "transmutation" functions.

People mix up tools with attributes. The tools are energy and mass, viz., the computer, internet, etc. But the actual propagation, though through the tool of reading, is itself non-energy/mass. For, no change or movement of any kind whatsoever is effected in the 'father', the thought on the page. Your brain might record the thought, but the actual propagation itself in you is not the recording of it. The recording, by contrast, is both evidence and result of the propagation, not the propagation itself. If you cut the brain hemispheres in two, the interaction of the thought process is observed to change, but at no time is the actual thought itself readable; only the bi-directional recording effects are discernible.

So we know there's a mistaken lumping of immateriality as a subset of materiality; that is, claiming that these laws are inside matter-energy, rather than what's true: the immaterial is separate, therefore superior and 'outside' matter-energy. In short, we have in reality one always-superior transmuting agent, "immateriality" (for lack of a better term); and one dependent agent, matter-energy (if defined as a continuum, spectrum). Now the first law of math isn't 'violated', anymore.

So once transmutation is correctly defined, will prove to be far more common than supposed, and of a far different origin than supposed. At long last, the "missing links" will be found all over the place via Hupostasis. Because, "hypostasis" can be mathematically proved to be the governing dynamic of this universe, so something about its nature or function must be the parental triggering mechanism, such that some of a population of organisms remain the same, but others transmutate.

This mechanism can be best observed, and will be most illuminating, at its bend points. To illustrate what "bend points" means, I have to use Scripture again. We all know Christ died on the Cross: the transmutational effect of that action on those who believe in Him is called "born again" in John 3:16; "kaine ktsis" (new-in-species creation, consummate transmutational term) in 2Cor5:17; "sons of God in Christ Jesus" in Galatians 3. If you look into the context of Scripture verses like these, you find out that the Cross broke down the barriers between God and man via this Mediator/Messiah/Christ/Word of the Cross; so now the connections with man fulfill (big Bible keyword), "complete" the circle (another big Bible keyword), and Infinity can cycle (another big Bible concept, usu. pictorially/ metaphorically expressed by words like "heart", "mind", "run", "walk") inside finity without compromise.

In short, the Cross is the Hypostatic Bend Point at which all the fractious, failing, frustrating (sin) connections, Flip Into Fulfillment: into being positively synergistic with Infinity. Enhancements, now, within homeostasis, compatible with it, in "equilibrium"; no longer derivative rebellers (Rom8:10), barren. Isa54:1. All this, by means of Christ's thinking on the Cross in association with his bearing the imputation and judgement of all sin. Isaiah 53:5 (or thereabouts) depicts this bearing as our being "sewn up" in Him (Hebrew verb "raphah", surgical sewing-up in order to heal). Other verses depict what happened as a payment for a bride. So:

• His Hypostatic Union, one hypostasis, was the necessary structure for
• the second hypostasis, the hypostatizing of us IN Him; which fractalic child process occurred by means of
• His Thinking In Response to the imputation and judgement of our sins in His Soul and body, thereby Bonding His Thinking to sin.(Cf. also "sweet savor" verses, i.e., in 2Cor2:14-15.)
• That sets up a whole series of hypostases, wherein Christians get filled up with His Thinking while down here, and thus
• the eternal hypostasis of absolute, Infinite-Spectrum Equilibrium lasts forever.
• Because, God Is Absolute Thought. Genesis records how all God need 'do', is will a thing, however complicated (even a whole completed universe, Gen1:1), and it exists. Instantly. This means THOUGHT is the ultimate power. We know in psychiatry that what a person thinks can completely destroy him. We know from religion, marriage, and politics that what people think causes history. Our power of thought doesn't extend to imagining bread from stones and thus they exist — but what power of thought we can observe argues for the other mathematical 'end' of the hupostasis, Total power.
• So the trick is to spot the point at which this hypostatitizing power causes a Change in its Object. When we can identify that point, we can identify the type of change.

To avoid saying "God", you can again resort to the secular: and no longer just math. For, the secular reflection of this spiritual meaning is pretty much everywhere. Economies-of-scale, demand-and-supply, multiplier effect — all these economic doctrines are known to have measurable bendpoints. In physics, there's inertia, momentum, vector analysis, derivatives, each loaded with bendpoints everyone looks for, to check the moment of changeover. In math proper, there's fractals. In biology there's population dynamics (people, organisms, disease, growth). In short, you have bendpoints everywhere: each bendpoint tells you why the bend works, how important and what variableS there are, etc. So, by looking for these bendpoints, transmutation can be better distinguished from mutation, from adaptation, from mere individual genetic variance, etc. in all the causes, conditions, successions and relations.

And science desperately needs to go through this Exercise of separating genuine transmutation, from mere long-term change due to other reasons like mutation and adaptation. For "evolution" is not mere 'progress' over eons of time, but a particular kind of change dependent on transmutation. It's the transmutation claim which is wrong.

And, it's only the transmutation claim, which Bible refutes (well, it refutes that man is progressing at all by any means except via what God does to him; but science needn't worry about that latter refutation). So if a Bible believer doesn't know only the transmutation claim is refuted, then he'll hate science for saying things 'evolve', the term being too-often used by science, in the loose (wrong!) sense of any long-term progress. For, nowadays people use "evolve" to mean any ol' long-term change, and the Bible doesn't refute that. Most other religions have creation stories, and they don't refute the idea of long-term progress, which after all is supposed to be the goal of pursuing a spiritual life. It's only "transmutation" which is the problem.

So if you care at all about science, you'd want to be more precise. If you care at all about avoiding religio-political wrangles, you'd want to be more precise about what transmutation actually covers. Which, frankly, when you examine the results, would end up causing a whole lot of reclassifying, and far better true scientific understanding. Robbing the religious, of their demonizing claims. There won't be a demon to pick on.

Each hypostatic bend point, moreover, will have one salient characteristic to distinguish it from other kinds of joinings, as previously noted: the two items joined, should not be joined. It should be impossible to join them, but here they are, joined! For example, with respect to a unified theory of time, Dr. Hawking explained that he needed some third item to act like a unifier of the opposites, general relativity and quantum physics. So he explained the search for a pair of pants, as it were, in string theory. The theory waxed and waned in popularity among the scientific community, but didn't really constitute the unifier mathematically needed. So here — how ironic — everyone is looking outside the natures of the two antithetical theories, instead of whether one is the 'parent' of the other. Which means, you need another parent, which is the opposite of the other 'parent'. Well, what's the opposite of both, but a vacuum? As in, black hole. As in the biggest black hole of them all, the vacuum of space.

Hence the 'unifier' is the vacuum itself, and you already have plenty of information on black holes, to illustrate how it works: at some point, a spark becomes a raging fire, because it has 'touched' enough matter. At some point, enough matter has entered the black hole, for all those interacting particles to coalesce, to form a big whole (pun intended); at which point, they take on aggregate wholeness characteristics. When those impish quarks etc. multiply enough, they become a kind of Borg, which is essentially why the black hole ends and a star begins. Having become a Borg, they then behave according to general relativity at the Borg level, but remain the imps they are, at the subatomic level. Since the cause of a black hole in the first place is that a star collapses upon itself, eats itself up and everything else which can't withstand its collapsed 'pull', this elegant reversal well depicts salvation and spiritual growth: 'born again', to the Bright Morning Star (aka DayStar).

How one comes up with the mathematical formulas to prove and predict all this, well.. is for the experts to spend years hashing out. But with the big vacuum of the universe, housing a bunch of little black-hole vacuums, you can see the answer has to be that general relativity's behavior is a child of quantum physics, even if you can't yet see the specific formulas. Again, the universe itself is a vacuum, really; and because it is, there is an outward-pulling balancing against the native inward-pulling, depending on the mass and energy of the objects; since everything is in motion/state of change, matter converts to energy or energy to matter; when enough of this conversion occurs, the aggregate nature becomes opposite to what it was before. So, here, it should be impossible to join quantum physics and the theory of general relativity, yet you can see by the very laws of both, the former converts into the latter when enough mass is produced. From inside a vacuum. It's just a cycle, and eventually the aggregate breaks up again. Very simple, really. Just like disease, an idea which forms, the learning of Bible. Magnificent, awesome, shocking — but simple to understand.

Now back to the spiritual parallel which this secular reflects. God is infinite. To create finity is a separatist act, and all the properties of finity are opposite those of infinity. So, finity by nature is essentially an emptiness: it must be filled up. Being separatist by nature too, it's a negative derivative (bouncing away from God directionally, in order to be independent). So if it gets filled up (for us, this means Bible Doctrine, Romans 8), then the tendency to fling away, is checked. So, that finity is filled up with balancing and discrete particles which eventually break out of the vacuum, having coalesced to get that independence: becoming a star. At which point, any lesser bodies, will be illumined and nourished, even as we are nourished by our Sun. For the Son of Righteousness will Rise with Healing in His Wings; and we are designed, to reflect Him. Replacing, the burned-out stars who pre-Adam, rebelled. That's the portrait the Bible paints as the future for Church; more prosaic terms are political, i.e., kings (1Peter2:5, 9, Rev1:6, 5:10). But everything revolves around a king; and he himself, is to enlighten his kingdom by means of his wisdom. But to get there, a king must be trained long and hard, and accumulate much learning. Very subtle, not at all easy.

This is so much truer with respect to the spiritual life: Doctrine in your head must reach critical mass for you to grow out of the vacuum of spiritual ignorance. It's only the mass of Doctrine growing in you which enables you to have a relationship with the One Who is of opposite nature to you. Hence it is always a pulling-away, pulling-toward gravitational battle: temptation still wants to pull you away, and Doctrine's gravity pulls you back. Eventually with enough Doctrine, you reach a spiritual 'orbit' that is homeostatic. Then you get bigger still; and, eventually like a black hole, you yourself are so weighty, everything revolves around you. God does all this, even as He did it to His Own Son. Fake humility is arrogance; Christ IS the center of the universe and IS the Most Humble One. For humility is objectivity. But that requires homeostasis in Doctrine. Until that occurs, there is the chaos, lessening but a little bit each day you get in and stay in, God's System.

So you can see that the more you know about the spiritual life, the more you can discern in natural law, and hence be a better scientist. Conversely, the more you know about science and then look at the Bible while in God's System, the better you can understand Bible. Which is why, I guess, my pastor always stops for LONG periods whenever coming to a natural law principle in a verse. When he covered 2nd Peter, we had the Laws of Thermodynamics for something like a month! Almost Daily. So, see? Learning Bible requires you to become like Adam, a scientist. All on God's Power, never your own. So human smarts are irrelevant. Case in point: I flunked the OCS exam, just out of college, because it was all on physics, and I'd never taken any classes — but I "get it" about quantum physics, having only just read what Dr. Hawking wrote on the topic. Go figure. Go get in and stay in God's System. To learn God, not to get smarter. What's the value of being smart, if there's no God to be made smart.. for? All smarts will do in this world, is get you into one disappointment after the next. So go for the gold: Bible Doctrine.

Ergo: presuming this Biblical concept of impossible joining in hupostasis to be of the Real God, you should see it reflected in the Real World, so Father can 'look' at it everywhere depicted. So: look at biological structures, cosmological ideas, physics, economics, etc. and find the two most unlikely linkages — which should not go together. Impossibly Incompatible, that's the key characteristic of a hupostatic joining. Either seems impossibly unfair, impossible to do, impossible to want, too shocking to contemplate, too silly to contemplate. At those junctures, you'll find the unity which makes for equilibrium. Just as, at the Cross. Oh: usually some third 'actor' will be needed to effect the unity, analogous to how Christ depended on the Power of the Holy Spirit on the Cross, instead of Christ using His Own Nature as God. But you might not always seem to need a third visible actor, because it might just be a Law God invented to Join the Two Impossibles.

Here are some tentative Examples, to illustrate this impossible-opposites joining, hupostasis. I call this "oppositeness". You could call it the law of opposites. Not necessarily that they attract, but that they need to be bonded in order for equilibrium to occur. Their stability depends on that particular bonding. It's not always pretty, either.

• Biology: male-female. We are so used to those opposites for mating everything from people to keys and locks, we never think how impossible it is that the two antitypes, could even get along. But many a divorced person would easily call the pairing impossible...

• Cosmology: black holes and galaxies, quantum physics and general relativity. Frankly, you can see these things taught in the Bible, but the expressions are so well-known, we don't extrapolate out the ramifications at a math-like level. A time to be born, a time to die; Greek word mataiotes to describe a 'black hole' of a person you should avoid; how the Son is like the Sun, around Whom everything revolves; many more analogies from everyday life.

• Economics: the rich benefit the poor, not vice versa. No matter how the rich guy spends his money, no matter how evil or profligate he is, his spending buys jobs; and even, whole industries, because everyone wants to cater (or take from) the rich. It ends up meaning that the worst thing you can do to the poor, is to tax the rich. Perfect analogy of Christ. Perfectly unacceptable to the world, too! It's not rocket science to test this. Get yourself a SIMMS (sp?) game, and play with the various tax ploys. Or, just do it in your head. Capital formation requires concentration of wealth, and without that, you've got no capital base for a growing economy. Government can't be the holder of capital; capital must be in private hands who have complete freedom of use. Communism, socialism, any kind of communalization of property never works. It's not a political thing, it's just basic math, basic natural law (law of dissipation, how stars form or die). No one can go against the laws of gravity.

• Interpersonal Relationships: the weak always control the strong. If the strong are noble, the strong will be ruled by what the weak, need. If the strong are ignoble, they will be ruled by what the weak, approve. But there's a flipside: the weak can never hurt the strong. You can only hurt yourself. So all the interim injustices and abuses, are equilibrating. It's no accident that evil nonetheless blesses: it's a law. Run from the outside, obviously (so don't go looking for evil/trouble, like Satan tempted the Lord to do, in the 2nd Temptation in Matt4).

• Politics: What's mediocre, always wins. What's good, always loses. What's done to improve, always wrecks. Less is more.
• Religion: What's apostate, is always popular and venerated as "right". What's silly, is always worshipped. What's loud, is always praised; but what's quiet, is always despised. The greatest evil is white in color, not black.
• Spirituality: Doing nothing is more spiritual than doing something.

So where are we in terms of crafting an alternative theory for "evolution"? Well, since we have proof that thought itself is immaterial, and can test that fact at any time in any way and see it operate every time, we know we have a 'law of life' for science to REdefine as 'outside' and superior to matter-energy. So, we can call it "life force", and then have it hypostatically act upon matter-energy, to transmute the latter into the various lifeforms we see. Again, all the laws we see independently operating, which alike themselves are neither mass/matter or energy, nor require either to BE laws, further demonstrate this 'law of life' is a real, immaterial, and observable superiority. Acting ON, and thus WITHIN, matter-energy.

---

EndNote on Universe Expansion: "Hypostasis" is also key to correctly apprehending the claimed 'anomaly' of the universe expanding yet dying at the same time, which was the cover-story topic in Time Magazine in 2002. If you know math, if you understand that infinity necessarily means that its play upon finity results in an ever-ongoing expansion at 'both ends', you can see the 'dying' displays the negative end, and the expanding, the positive end. Of course, what science currently means by expanding-yet-dying is an increasing trend toward ending altogether. Kinda like, cancer.

As noted earlier in this webpage, the assumption that the universe is expanding is based on the supposition that light travels, and hence we conclude from what we call lightwaves' redshift, that the stars are moving away from us. When instead, the redshift just might indicate their direction is forward of us, and we might all be moving (relatively speaking) on the same 'sheet of paper' (curved or not, doesn't matter). Maybe the whole 'paper' is moving through another universe, kinda like a plane moves through the sky. We'd get the same readings as we do now, if that were true. But if the universe is truly expanding, then it's a depiction of the aggregate 'life' going from babyhood to maturity to old age, to death. Or, more properly speaking (the way Scripture puts it), ashes to ashes, dust to dust. A corpse expands with gases before it dries up and then disintegrates into dust.

There's a lot to argue the universe is expanding from the Bible, especially with respect to Time. The Church Age is an insertion of time, designed to develop the Body of Christ so the rest of time (1057 years) can be 'redeemed'. So if time were a constituent part of the universe, or acting like one, then the universe indeed would have to expand at the perimeter (so the center can stay stable), allowing for the necessary time to pass. You could say that it even started that way (big-bang theory), or that it started out as a nice sheet of maybe-circular rubber, but in equilibrum (steady-state theory, sorta); the Church Age's insertion of time thus increases either (or both) the expansion rate (big-bang) or the size of the rubber sheet (steady-state, sorta). Because, the universe wasn't supposed to last beyond 1144AD. You can search on that date in Part IVa and Mirroring.htm.

That Time Magazine article ended on a conjecture that the universe would end with a whimper. Not so: it ends with a big bang (or big implosion), which also constitutes the impetus for yet another universe, which we lay folks inaccurately call 'hell'. Planet Earth's destruction will be used to trigger a chain reaction (not sure if fission or fusion is depicted). All this is in 2nd Peter; my pastor taught it to us years ago, explaining in passing some of the Laws of Thermodynamics to help us get what Peter was talking about. [Nothing in Gen1:1 says "bang". One nanosecond, nothing; next nanosecond, whole universe. 2nd Peter, by contrast, depicts a fireball chain reaction ending the present universe. Could be fusion or fission, since 'fire' can cause a sucking-in, rather than an explosion out. So you know we believers and elect angels are then in a separate 'dimension' (for lack of a better term) to not be affected by this future occurrence.]

So science should be able to find some kind of mathematical/physics rules about the position (and mass, etc.) of the Earth to help them better understand both the universe's expansion, and upcoming demise, especially since life on this planet is, according to Genesis, sustainable only due to the balance of heavenly bodies around Earth. If as Hubble claims all the most-distant galaxies are really moving away from Earth itself, then you should be able to prove that Earth is ground zero for that chain reaction. Although, since the universe is in flux, maybe the future position (etc.) of the Earth relative to the size and other characteristics of the universe then would be the right formula. In short, I don't know if the 'Earth-is-ground-zero' formula is a constant, or not; I bet not. Maybe a formula of relationships sufficient to cause this reaction could be developed to start a working hypothesis. It's probable, though, that the correct mathematical relationship-of-position (etc.) to result in such a massive trigger will have an imminency characteristic: so the trigger is easy to set off at any time, but is not automatic. In any event, while trying to develop/find the formula, much would be learned (and maybe discovered) about physics.

Then again, it might not matter at all where the Earth is relative to the rest of the universe, if the idea that the universe is the same everywhere you look, is the real controlling factor. Thus any body which deviates too much from its rightful nature and position relative to the rest, would be the trigger; so it's not the position of Earth, but what happens to it, that could trigger the destruction.

For the real nature of the universe, is instead a 'mix' of 'big bang' and 'steady state'; these two are but two parts of a whole answer. For, Bible doesn't say there was a big bang: one second the universe wasn't here, and the next second it was completely here, verb tense of Gen1:1 in Hebrew or Greek. So it wasn't a 'big-bang', but rather, the essential vacuum which IS the universe, suddenly having matter and energy 'fill' it. So it's the essential vacuum nature of the universe, which explains why it holds together, even as a black hole is a vacuum, which is why stuff gets sucked into it; so until that stuff is so BIG it explodes the 'bag' of the black hole (think of your vacuum being overfilled, and you get the idea), it stays within. So the emptiness and the radiation of the universe is what accounts for the holding together, not the matter. We'd need less matter, if we have more radiation; we'd need more emptiness, not less, to avoid a complete breakdown. That's why I think implosion (fusion), not explosion (fission), is the likely description in 2nd Peter for the mechanics of the demise of our current universe. Well, it's expansion, or an imbalance of sufficient mass-energy to overcome, as it were, the larger holding vacuum; as a result, a ripping-of-the-vacuum, hence implosion to return to a vacuum state, then explosion: a cycle.

In sum, a unified theory of the origin of the universe is just like the Hebrew and Greek tense of barah/ktizw (to create ex nihilo), in Gen1:1; so its suddenness, is what 'big bang' theory is based on, and the filling, is what 'steady state' theory is based on. both are observing parts of the answer: they are not contradictory. By the way, Gen1:2 begins after an undefined interval, during which Satan &Co. trashed up the earth, so God the Holy Spirit 'dawdled' six days in restoring it, so to teach man a basic lesson about time. So you have no primordial (pre-Satan's fall) black holes. [The darkness depicted due to Satan's fall isn't necessarily due to their conflict creating black holes. I'm not sure how you could try to detect it, but there was a period during the Ice Ages where NO light penetrated the planet. Whether that is an earthbound problem, or a darkness throughout 'our' segment of the universe, or portions of the universe, I don't really know from Scripture, so I can't guess as to the secular counterparts. All we know from the Biblical description, was that an Ice Age had been going on; and we don't know, when the lights-out period, began. The area given to Adam for his 'park', is roughly Asia Minor, the Middle East and the Caucasus — so that doesn't help pin down which Ice Age is in view. No new Ice Age is mentioned after that, since with Adam's fall, he and the woman immediately were able to propagate for the first time. So maybe the time they were in "Eden", was roughly 6,000 years (ending time of last Ice Age, and estimated fall date of 4106BC)? No, that's not necessarily true either, since the glaciation we know of, didn't necessarily reach Adam's 'park' area in the first place. So he could have been there a lot longer, and the ice melted relatively slowly (which would be necessary, for his area to not be inundated). I need to do some more homework on it, someday.]

So: what seem like competing theories, actually comprise a hupostatic whole. The "big bang" means a suddenness, whereas "steady state" means an 'always-was'. Hence because they are both parts of the whole answer, the resulting universe can be dynamic, expanding and contracting, with some ultimate demise. So the unity, is this: suddenly the vacuum was filled. At least, enough for the homeostasis, to result. So whether the universe is really expanding again I could justify Biblically, but I doubt whether redshifting only means that the distant galaxies, etc. are actually moving away relative to earth. Redshifting seems rather to mean simply that they are out ahead. Maybe I don't understand the explanation of redshifting enough, but there has to be other significant evidence, if it's really an expansion.

---

EndNote on God's Hypostatic Evolution/Transmutation Plan: By the way, if you are a Christian, you shouldn't be anti-evolution, but only against the stupidity of the current evolutionary construct in science; and that, only because the construct violates even math. Frankly, even the current flawed theory of evolution proves God exists, if you like. You can say, "yes, it proves God exists, for how did the big/little/gradual-evolving-universes "bang" get here in the first place?" You can also say, "no, it proves God doesn't exist, because things can grow bigger on their own, and the big (etc) bang just WAS." See, you can use Gen1:1 or say the bang itself is genesis. For, God isn't into bludgeoning you with the reality of His Existence. If He were interested in that sort of thing, He'd not have bludgeoned Christ with our sins. [Technically, they are called javelin stabs, in the Hebrew of Isa 53-55, passim.] So instead, Matt7:2/John 3:16/2Cor5:21 is the free-will matrix God instituted, which every other verse in the Bible constantly and deftly reflects.

Here's a bigger reason why the Christian shouldn't be anti-evolution: God's entire plan can rightly be said to be evolutionary, though by God's definition, not man's. (God's definition is in 2Cor5, esp. v.17, in Greek: "kaine ktisis" means new-in-creation-species, not new-in-time.) God's plan of transmutation is accomplished spiritually, by His Truth being poured into you with each discrete consent; and it is direct between God and you. There is a macro component to this Plan, which basically operates via the progressive spiritual covenants to mankind. Christ is the ultimate transmuted Person, because He BECAME "The Way, the Truth, and the Life."

Hence, over the eons of man's existence on earth, there are two evolutionary trends ("evolution" by God's definition, not man's). The first is progressive, illustrated by the fact that the Church has the greatest spiritual life in history; the second is regressive, in that rejection of the progressive covenants eventuates in an increasingly-worse disbelieving mankind. This rejection, being a rejection of God, is a "derivative" caroming off Infinity, so has an EXPONENTIAL effect. Ergo the Tribulation ends up having to occur; that's why man's biological life expectancy has dropped so much since Adam's day. That's why the universe is expanding, yet dying at the same time, because the initial perfect environment is getting steadily tainted by ever-worsening rejection (see last half of Romans 8). That's why, though science is puzzled about it, you find two spiritually-degenerated populations of humans living like animals during the same slice of geologic time, one slightly more human than the other: Cro-magnon and Neanderthal. Cave man. But Adam didn't start out like that, as we all know. Of course, we see the same sort of phenomena today: the primitiveness of the world remains, and alongside it, great advance. How is it that the primitives STAY primitive, despite all the advance?

Because, THOUGHT is the real power, and thought either purifies or taints not only your soul, but everything else. Just a little bit each time. So, in aggregate, over eons of time, all this negativity in mankind has made living steadily shorter and more "brutish": meaning, more like animals. Even though we humans have an increasingly-civilized veneer to cover that fact up. Just as, Adam covered his genitals thinking his nakedness shameful, so also we humans have built on that sin-nature skill and are thus far more adept at covering up our DEvolution into animalism. Animalism is lusting for the fight, for being a survivor, for being king-of-the-hill. We've greatly refined and expanded, 'evolved' animalism since the days of the Neanderthals, have we not? After all, back in the days of Job folks were far better at thinking: yet folks today have trouble reading and understanding the Book of Job.

The second, DEvolutionary trend is ironically demonstrated by the insistence on impersonal causes for 'evolution'. Degeneration is always marked by an increased demand for, and appeal to, outside impersonal 'forces' which one can control or manipulate. All the astrology and spiritist/ channelling movements, Wicca, etc. are of this type. By learning some mantra, lighting some candle, chanting some invocation you can control the powers. It's all the rage, now. Very mainstream. Would have been laughed at, even a generation ago. So, too, in politics, science, interpersonal relations we are constantly developing 'laws'. Even sex is religified on video, a thing you must learn to 'do' it right! I'm not kidding, it's an ad in respectable magazines, not the kind sold in porno shops! So we are really degenerating, when we march on Washington, etc. One idol or another.

So in our quest for learning all the 'natural' laws of the universe, we forget that any natural law, would be there only for inanimate objects. Animacy would have a 'law' about its structure as well, but if a soul, then will can choose. So if we are truly evolving, we'd be wanting fewer laws, not more of them. For if we are truly evolving, then the role of will would be more important than impersonal laws we can't change. In which case, the idea of angels maybe running much of what we call natural law, would be something hopeful, not fearful.

And, logical. for if Will can choose, it can choose how to act on the inanimacy. We humans constantly make choices and constantly act on inanimate objects. So, then: what are the angels doing? What inanimacies can they interact with? The universe was instantaneously created. Whether the angels, who were all created at once, were at that moment all instantaneously created, I'm not sure. But whenever that angel-creating moment was, surely the universe was a gift to them. Being as angels' bodies are composed of light, then all in the universe would be impacted by their own natures. God is always making a point of this: because of Satan's fall, darkness came into being. (The Holy Spirit restored the earth, but He didn't erase darkness, since the Angelic Trial isn't yet over.) Because of Adam's fall, "sin entered the world". So, planet earth was directly affected.

So how much more, is the universe decreed to be affected, by what the angels do? Acquinas spent a lot of time trying to figure out what they were doing, i.e., in The Treatise on the Six Days. So we actually have one law operating at the universe level which, as we all know, operates every day in our lives: animacy acts on inanimacy. Animacy has its own 'internal law', the properties of its nature; also, the properties of Will. Inanimacy, has its own 'internal law' of its own nature, but no soul. In between, are non-soul lifeforms such as plants and animals, microbes; some of these have limited properties of will, hence limited intelligence and limited self-awareness. Animacy and inanimacy exist in their own spectra; each form, having its own native properties. So in sum, "the" law is the interaction of all these properties, some of which, are affected by a Will choosing that effect. How efficacious that will is to achieve the result, is in turn affected by the properties native to the one willing. Very simple. Same essential structure as our own lives. Couldn't be more provable.

If I were looking to prove God's existence in one way (and I'm not, it's self-evident He exists), I'd pick the fact that all this existence, is suffused with aesthetic qualities. There's a whole lot of stuff which has almost no worthy intrinsic function, but which is just plain beautiful. Most of the useful stuff, is ugly in some major way. "Unpresentable parts", those which reproduce — quipped Paul in 1Cor12. So, see? Takes an immaterial nature, to appreciate aesthetics. If an entire universe is aesthetically configured, then "God" did it. For who could appreciate that large an aesthetical construction, but "God"? I mean, it's downright humorous, the kinds of animals and plants which exist, especially with respect to eye, nose, and mouth shapes and placements; humorous, the way the stars and the planets fit together. You have to be human, to appreciate the configuration of a constellation. So you have to be GOD, to see it all; every day we find new beauties to admire. So God exists. I don't care how many supposedly-intellectual arguments are advanced anti-God, none of them can defeat the fact of big aesthetics, which only "God" could see.

Of course, we now feel intimidated by the idea that what we thought was this impersonal force of weather, for example, being consciously enacted, withheld, etc. And the ancients would naturally want to talk directly to, whatever 'gods' were managing stuff which impacted them — having rejected the Real God, they go to those inferior to Him. So the orbits, the dynamics of a black whole, etc. — some of what we see happening, is 'natural' law. But the rest is God's or angelic volition acting on the inanimate. Just as we humans do, so also those above us, do. For surely the angels aren't just sitting around twiddling their thumbs, any more than we would. See how simple and provable and logical, is the answer? See how it's only prejudice against God, which doesn't 'see' the answer?

Satan, of course, is more urbane and prejudiced, than anyone. Satan's transmutation plan is succinctly expressed in Isaiah 14: "I will make myself like the Most High". Which, of course, is exactly what the current scientific definition of transmutation seeks to do: to vaunt itself over the first law of math, a law which no one invented, and no one can change. That's why the true scientist should want to fix the 'theory of evolution', whether he believes in the God of the Bible, or not. So now the hypocrisy of wanting 'objective proof' of God is exposed, for even the claimed desire for 'law', is violated. If you gotta wreck the first law of math to maintain evolution is valid, then you don't want law: you want rebellion. It's that simple. This webpage shouldn't even have to exist. The flaw is too obvious. And yet it has to be explained! Yeah, we're evolving, alright. And for decades, I didn't notice this math flaw, either, even though I didn't believe in evolution due to Gen2:7; so it's gotta be a satanic blinding, for millions of people to not see what is so obvious. Same problem, as with Bible translation, and with the exact same 7 signature characteristics (in SatStrat.htm).

Now, evolution nor devolution cannot come from the creature itself. That violates the first law of math, which is part of God's Attribute of Truth. (Math is essentially truth in math-symbol form.) So, we know God's Power is superior. Ah, but so is Satan's, since he was created the highest of the angels. So, all man's religion and transmutation ideas are Satan's transmission of his own superior hypostatizing thought (see 1Tim4:1, 2:26-3:7, 4:1). Also, via this transmission he satirizes God's Real Transmutation Plan. The idea is as old as the Garden; the temptation to take the so-called 'forbidden fruit' is a transmutation temptation. Oh yeah, Isha baby, you'll transmute into being as smart as God, if you but EAT this fruit... Notice that the Tree was called "The Knowledge of Good and Evil", not "the Knowledge of God". So notice also that Adam and the woman did not have the "Knowledge of Good and Evil", but did have some of the Knowledge of God, from God Himself. What a sorry exchange, then, to transmute yourself! See how Satan transmutes our thinking into devolution? Like Adam and the woman, we can choose the Knowledge of God, Bible Doctrine, or.. the knowledge of good and evil, fantasizing that such knowledge makes us like the Most High. Just like Satan, really. Ooops.

Then there's Genesis 6, the promise of which was also transmutation, becoming half-god (really, half-demon) if you were the kid of intercourse between a god and a human. All polytheistic myth is based on this 'promise'; most notably, Greece and Roman culture. Which, if you read the Appendix to the "Thinking Out Loud" series, you'll learn that Greco-Roman polytheistic values are constantly played upon mankind. To make us transmute into a god, you see. Animism and reincarnation are just other versions of the same thing, but they neatly de-personalize "God" into an amorphous thing. But with plenty of Satanic bite. In one such book, the reincarnation process is described as "drinking orange light" in "Paradise". Yeah, that's what Hades is like: fire! And Paradise is dark now, since it is empty. Gives new meaning to the Koranic catchphrase, "In Paradise there will be shade", uttered about 600 years after Paradise became empty. Yeah, Satan has something to offer for everyone who wants rebellion. And we all do!

Of course, acceptance of God's Plan has an exponential progressive effect, culminating in Pleroma (see Eph3:15-21 in Greek; read the whole book to see the macro context). The believer really really really transmutes, by means of all those deposits of Truth, Scripture. God's Plan is to Transmute you by means of the Spirit and the Word, and has zippo to do with works, magic, ritual: God's Plan is rational, because His Attribute of Truth is infinitely rational. Works are of the same nature as the body, so can't 'transmute' anything. Wood, hay, stubble (1Cor3, Heb9:14, 5:11-6:6). Much more about this topic of God's transmuting plan, including Satan's satirizations of it, is in the "Thinking Out Loud" series, accessible from the Home Page.

---

Preamble, continued: why we shouldn't impose our ideas of God or science on anyone, but instead, keep on stressing LEARNING.

All "God" questions are between God and the individual, never among individuals. To make a "God" question a condition of human approval among individuals is to interfere with the individual's freedom with God, and is worse than murder (since God is bigger than man): see Romans 2. So "God" questions should never be a condition of political or social structure: for, then man commits the worst evil, making belief about God also a loyalty 'oath' to man. A greater hatred of God cannot exist, than the one which says, if you don't believe as I do, then you are bad/ I should punish you/ society should punish you/ law should punish you.

If a society wants to use religious models (i.e., the 10 Commandments) as a guide to its structure, well and good, but only as secular ideas. For, if that society then imposes the religion on its people — it will crash and burn. Even the only true theocracy to-date, that of the LORD for Israel, separated the spiritual code from the civil code: the "ordinances" ("dikaiomata", in inspired Greek Old Testament, aka "Septuagint", LXX) were never civil or criminal laws. The 10 Commandments ("entole" in LXX) and the "judgements" (krimata, in LXX) were never spiritual laws. The spiritual and civil dovetailed; and yes, as a good believer you obeyed the civil, but you obeyed to God voluntarily. Civil could never punish spiritually, and vice versa (parallels are in 2Cor5, 1Tim2, Rom13, Heb13).

If you search the Gospels on "adultery", you find this distinction employed by Christ to remove non-criminal sexual sins from the civil law. Adultery was in the 10 Commandments, so all other non-criminal sexual sins, not being listed, are regarded as lower and subsumed (i.e., consensual homosexuality, prostitution, etc). So to remove adultery, which requires consent, removes all like-category sexual sins from the juridisdiction of human law. Note how He does it: because even thinking of the act is a sin, it is a worse sin than the law can adjudicate, and no law can sentence a thought. So only God can adjudicate the issue. The act follows the thought: but Christ did not condemn the adulteress, so no one else can judicially condemn like sins. How deft of God to show us how separation between spiritual and civil, works. Notice also how deftly violent and non-consensual (i.e., one person too young) sexual sin is still under human-law jurisdiction (i.e., rape, pederasty, etc).

So if you are a Christian, you should adamantly support the separation of church and state. Which is the opposite of what the 'Christian right' does (nearly everything about the Christian right is neither Christian nor right, so far as I can tell). So if 'science' ideas are anti-Bible, we shouldn't use Bible as if it had political jurisdiction. Using Bible to determine ideas, fine; using Bible to show origin of an idea, fine; but the idea itself should be evaluated on its own merits, secularly, since the individual has his own relationship toward God and that relationship is inviolable. To politically crusade in the name of Bible is ipse evil. Doesn't matter how right Bible is, God Himself has always separated the powers of church and state.

Given the need to keep church and state separate, I don't know if it's a good idea to teach "creationism" in the schools. For one thing, many religious people find it offensive to consider any other idea than the ones they think right, so would be very upset if not only evolution is taught in the schools, but other religious ideas, as well. On the other hand, maybe a cursory mention that 'evolution' isn't the only possibly-valid theory of man's origins, would suffice. Maybe a course summarizing the central tenets of the world's religious ideas would be okay, since religion is in the world, and being familiar with it helps a kid in the same way as any other broad-based learning is helpful. But parents might not like that approach. Frankly, the child could better learn in the home any creationist accounting. Each school district and its voters should decide stuff like this. If people would stop trying to claim godlike authority, and just teach information in classifications, like 'commonly accepted', 'other views', etc., children could learn to think sooner, and wouldn't be so influenced by what parents consider 'heretical'. Yeah, that pipe dream will never happen...

Bible's original languages leave no doubt about what God liked to do, but it takes some years of daily digging in the inspired original-language Scripture, to even know what God really says. Then, you have to think over what you learned every day, all day, all night. Just like Moses told the people in Deut6. Cry all the way to the bank, you Word-blessed Christian...

Translations are so ambiguous and inaccurate, particularly on any politically-sensitive topic, you can read anything into Bible that you like. So everyone has his own 'take' on Bible. On science too, for that matter. Who the heck cares? Don't we have more important things to worry about, than our own interpersonal agreement on topics none of us can completely know? Heck, you can spend years researching something or accounting for something, and one teeny missed speck can destroy all those painstaking years. One drug taken the wrong way, can paralyze you for life. So to bludgeon each other over what we think the truth is.. what a waste of time.

More importantly, you really hamstring maturity if you don't teach a child to think. You can't teach him to think if you don't expose him to counterthought. Parents who 'shelter' their children from disagreeing thought, shouldn't. It's true children need a firm hand, and authority is a security to them. But the ones in authority should use that authority to early introduce a non-stigmatized recognition that many of our ideas are tentative, have been wrong, God is bigger than all of us so even daddies and mommies don't know everything; and no, not all cultures are equally good, but they are all equally free to learn. So, it's not wrong to be wrong — but only wrong not to correct what's found wrong. The sooner adults can teach children this most-valuable skill, the more peaceful they make the child's future. Of course, this pipe dream will never come true either, because adults are too insecure, so hoard their turfs.

Background, The Problem, Proposed Solutions

Synopsis: France was quickly overrun by Germany in World War II partly due to a blind insistence on the impregnability of the so-called "Maginot Line" of defense fortifications. Every nation, every discipline, periodically suffers from like-intransigence. Example: Religions today, due to dogmatic refusal to admit error, suffer mass defection/apathy/hostility. Evolution, too, needs non-religious revaluation, lest it become an ossified "Maginot Line" for science, blind to error.

I. Introduction

Evolution, like religion, is a family of theories on the origins of life and the nature of (i.e., man's) existence. Like religion, evolution observes and draws conclusions from these observations. In the case of evolution, the possibility of the existence of deity is not considered. "Pure" scientific inquiry does not deny, assert, prove, or disprove anything outside the realm of its inquiry (i.e., deity).

Any theory has three parts to it: premise, data, conclusion; these three must be united in a non-contradictory way (i.e., logically). To be valid, a theory must not be contradicted. If contradictions arise, the theory would need to be modified or discarded in favor of a revised theory which resolves the contradictions. So, to derive a theory properly, one must be careful not to exclude data which might contradict the desired results, lest the theory become tautological, and thus valueless. On such principles is science based.

Evolution seeks to exclude religious explanations on the grounds that religious explanations cannot be empirically proven via some laboratory-like test, to obviate subjectivity. Such a criterion makes sense, for if a thing is true, ideally that truth will be demonstrable apart from human bias.

Therefore, any contradiction-clues offered by looking "underneath" the rhetoric of religion go unexamined.

Do evolution's theories live up to the standard of being demonstrably true apart from human bias? The answer is "no". This "no" does NOT mean the theory should be discarded, denied exposure/teaching within a school's curriculum, or mocked. However, it does mean that those who believe evolution is a correct theory need to do a lot more work.

II. The Evolution Construct and its own origins

First, let's review what "evolution" is regarded to mean. What, in essence, is the theory of evolution? It is a claim that the observed similarities in nature are causally-linked such that the more "primitive" life forms of similar structure mutated into "more-advanced" forms over long periods of time. This long process is called "transmutation", and is the heart of evolutionary theory.

"Evolution" is really a group of competing transmutational theories, not just one.

A. Some proponents maintain this causal linkage starts with inanimate matter, and the interaction of matter and energy gradually gave rise to what we would call the most-primitive life forms (e.g., the amoeba). Further interaction followed the same patterns, mutating into more-advanced life forms, albeit not universally, such that the variety of life forms seen (for example today) arose, over long periods of geologic time.

Perhaps the reason for this rise in differentiation of life forms was due to some cataclysmic events (meteors, radiation, heat, chemical processes, earthquakes) which affected only some of the primitive life forms; so that they were changed while those not so affected remained unchanged. Or, perhaps the environment, itself affected by these developing life forms, gradually changed in a non-uniform manner, such that some of these forms adapted to survive; whereas, the others did not (did not need to adapt), or could not (died out). Thus, man could eventually evolve, but the less-primitive forms of life would continue to exist.

B. Other proponents hold to the idea of transmutation, but circumscribe its origins and scope. For example, some hold that the most primitive life-forms were there at the beginning (did NOT evolve from the random inanimate combinations of matter and energy), so their evolution was from simple-life-form to more-complex-life-form.

C. Still others would restrict "evolution" to certain groups of life forms and call any change in the others, "adaptation".* For example, certain one-celled organisms adapted or  evolved into flora, but never fauna. So, flora never evolves into fauna, and vice versa.

There are other variations in the evolution group, but these three help illustrate what "evolution" means, generally.

Again, "evolution" is a conclusion that certain observed similarities in nature are causally-linked, such that the more "primitive" life forms of similar structure mutated into some more-advanced forms over long periods of geologic time.

Evolution as a theory is mistakenly regarded as a recent discovery, made popular by Charles Erasmus Darwin's Origin of the Species. In fact, the theory of evolution is as old as the theories of religion, and is an offshoot of them. Some metempsychosic (aka "reincarnation") religions related to animism, in which "life" is an impersonal force and so "god" is the sum of this force, these religions are all evolutionary. Like the group of evolution theories, the metempsychosic religions likewise vary by what is deemed the starting point of the transmutation. Their idea of a "soul" is really life going on, changing material form or inhabiting existing material forms. Some versions ascribe god-ness as the sum total of this life force, so everyone has some of "god" in the self ("self" includes plants, bugs, not merely rational beings). Other versions ascribe god-ness as one vast Person-ness, but again all the "souls" are bits of (as it were) this vast Person-ness.

So, evolution first differs from these reincarnation religions in that it does not assign a godlike title (be it force, or Personhood) to the life-source. Second, these religions focus on the development/evolution of the "soul" (synonym for life) over the long millennia of corporate existence. Evolution's focus is on the development of the outward matter observed as being "alive", again over the long millennia. Third, evolution does not separate "life" from matter, but rather deems matter and energy two sides of the same coin of being-ness: the one gradually or quickly recycles into the other along some spectrum, at the one end of which is "pure" matter, and at the other end of which is "pure" energy. The latter is what those reincarnation religions would call the "soul" or "god-ness", and life is basically a cycle (or struggle) between material and immaterial existence.

Thus we know that mankind has been observing the similarities in nature and concluding a causal linkage of an evolutionary nature for thousands of years, not merely the last two centuries. It is surprising that the current definition of evolution, then, is so narrow.


*"Adaptation" used to mean that a life form might change radically, but not so much as to become a new species. Evolution, by contrast, stipulates a transmutation into a new species, in a generally upward trend over the millennia, from simple life forms, to complex.

III. The Problem

There can be no doubt that these similarities exist. Further, we do know that life-forms change in amazing ways to (at least) adapt to sudden or gradual changes in the environment. The question is, what is the true range of these changes? Does all life possess within it a common DNA-like code (analogously), which is so vast it triggers transmutation? Or, is there some external force which imposes such a range of change upon the organism? Or, some other cause(s)?

Obviously the way we define what constitutes "transmutation" will impact our conclusions from the data. "Transmutation" depends upon the following definitions' INTERLOCKING accuracy:

"Life", "Species", "Mutation", "Transmutation".

To the extent there is subjectivity in any of these interlocking definitions, empirical experiments and observations will be inconclusive. Which, of course, they are. In what follows, we'll see that each definition creates tautologies, just as religions' definitions are so often accused of doing.

"Life" is basically defined as that which "breathes" in some manner and is capable of reproducing itself (or being propagated; individual sterilities need not invalidate the criteria). These things are observed, so are called "life". The idea that there might be more to the property of life which is not deemed observable is excluded; so the idea that what we see might be due to what we cannot see, that we see the unobservable through its effects on the observable, is likewise excluded.

For example, the idea that the atomic structures we see are the only types of atomic structures there are, hinders inquiry. Granted, science must operate based upon the knowledge it has; must such a limitation preclude the existence of other structures, which by our current standards are considered "immaterial"? Of course not. Science hasn't yet discovered any alternate atomic structures, because its tools are geared to the current structures we think we know. Therefore the teaching on the subject should make that fact clear, rather than tautolgically assuming what-we-see-is-all-there-is.

Next, to say that "life" must be propagatable is one part of its definition for many forms of life, but need not be a criterion for all forms. The reproducibility requirement is of course long-debated. It was established to be able to categorize the obvious (rocks don't "live", etc). So, if there is life which doesn't die, science doesn't include it in the definition of "life", either. Again, it is hampered by a paucity of test mechanisms for such possible forms. This also should be disclosed, lest inquiry be hindered into how testing mechanisms might be created.

We have here three potential contradictions to the evolutionary idea of life: 1) that some types of "life" may consist of characteristics we think we do not (or cannot) observe with current instruments; 2) that life of (supposedly) unobservable nature creates/affects life in observable ways; 3) that some types of "life" may be never-ending and observable. Moreover, we say our testing mechanisms preclude conclusions on these three potential facts. Thus, our "results" are tautological. Clearly the premise of what constitutes life needs serious reconsideration.

Sadly, as it stands, any "life" which doesn't meet evolution's criteria are excluded from the definition of "life". Worse, only evolution's definitions are presented in classrooms as "the truth". This criticism is not to say religious ideas ought to be taught in the classroom. Rather, the criticism is that science stultifies its future practitioners' "universe" of scientific inquiry: because we don't treat evolution's definitions as tentative, we propagandize. We craft definitions tautologically to fit the expected data, which we of course "find", rather than base our definitions logically upon all the data there might be. What would be wrong with teaching "here's how much we think we can explain life", rather than "we evolved"?

"Species" likewise suffers from tautology. Were the classifications of "species" different, "transmutation" might instead be "adaptation". Or, the opposite, transmutations which are occurring might be improperly classified as "adaptations".

This problem is well-known. So, there have been many attempts to reclassify, and many debates about where a given species belongs: how much of a difference should be used as the crossover point (to a different species)?

Again, the reproducibility factor tends to be the dividing line of what is deemed a "species". If life "A" cannot mate with life "B", or cannot produce nonsterile offspring, "A" and "B" are deemed separate species. It's an understandable dividing line, but it is also tautological. This dividing line may mask a contradiction in the data: 1) certain conditions under which life forms non-routinely reproduce with deemed-incompatible forms. So, perhaps they are indeed of the same species, but not capable of routine reproduction. 2) Alternatively, perhaps certain external conditions create abilities to reproduce which did not before exist, conditions which "tap" some latent genes within the organism and make them create the reproductive capacity.

Since "species" are divided by like-power-to-reproduce, if these two types of reproduction likewise exist, then "species" which have been separated might need to be joined. So, these two possibilities could be "unmasked" by a reassessment of existing data and/or the "species" classification. So a transmutation of "species" would need revaluation.

Thus, experiments which seem to indicate transmutation in plants or lower life forms may merely be adaptation; in which case, the change is within such a species, whose definition needs revision. Yet such possibilities, instead of receiving critical attention, are propounded as empirical proof that evolution is true. "Reproduction" capabilities go insufficiently tested. So, the definition of "species" in these supposed proofs is insufficiently reconsidered.

"Mutation/Transmutation" does not fare much better. "Mutation" as a term tends to focus on some extrinsic cause radical enough (even though the result may gradually proceed) to develop the species in some hitherto-unnatural direction. "Transmutation" means this development has become so vast that the species in question can no longer produce offspring with less- or non-mutated relatives. The cause must be abnormal, and the change it effectuates must be permanent (i.e, creative of an offshoot, but reproductively-incompatible, species).

Thus we have our first "transmutation" tautology: the assumption that this change is a result solely due to some unnatural cause, versus something natural (yet perhaps latent) within the denominated species as a whole. Unnaturalness is needed to justify how some segment of a species breaks off, as it were, and becomes so radically different that it cannot mate with its formerly-compatible relatives.

So, if the mutation is not unnatural, we may be looking at adaptation or degeneration rather than evolution, even if (for example) members of what was once an intra-procreatible species have so differentiated as to preclude fertile offspring from those not so differentiated.

Again, active or latent powers of reproduction, and their "triggers" may expose contradictions. In the "species" reproduction question, the issue was how "species" might be incorrectly classified by ignoring non-routine or special  reproductivity: here, we shift to scope-of-change in reproduction, rather than frequency.

It's not as though we lack data to expose this possible contradiction to "transmutation". We already know that when a species adapts to its environment sufficient to produce some trait which serves the species, it may limit itself to those within the species having that same trait, in order to preserve the trait. So, either the reproductive power "shuts off" those without the trait, or mating-choices are suddenly exclusive to it. What we don't know is the scope of this limitation, nor do we know the scope of the effects.

Of course, "environment" might be biological, not merely extrinsic. For example, a species may be under- or over- reproducing, and such a trait's development compensates for the problem. Indeed, even some of the pathologies in various life forms have been concluded to exist for the macro-level sake of population control/improvement.

So, we might be looking again at an error of human bias in classification. How many of these massive changes in reproducibility are incorrectly deemed "transmutation"?

The second tautology (due to human bias) in "transmutation" is this: once some "unnatural" variable(s) is posited to explain the cause, the allowed universe of deemed-causes is illogically restricted.

To explain this tautology requires an example. It is presumed, based upon skeletal evidence, that the so-called "Neanderthal Man" was in fact human, and his co-existence on earth with "Cro-Magnon Man" illustrates a split with overlapping developments. The split is deemed to occur by various hypotheses concerning environmental changes. The idea that maybe "Neanderthal Man" was really another form of ape-primate, and the origin of "Cro-Magnon Man" might be wholly different, is excluded from consideration.

Moreover, we are assuming that the skeletal remains we have of both types are indeed representations of whole groups of hominids. We don't have a statistically-significant amount of remains; we don't have a statistically-significant set of cultural links to these remains. Nonetheless, evolution assumes that what we have is representative of vast populations in the past. Thus, it illogically excludes the idea that a causal link may not exist (i.e., between the two types of "man").

Moreover, even if both types prove(d) to be "man", other explanations for the same data go unexamined. Suppose "Neanderthal Man" is a hominid, but aberrative, or an adaptation downward? 'Previously civilized, which suffers (maybe macro) mental degeneration? We know man can retrograde en masse. How far might negative adaptation extend, both mentally and physically? Psychiatrists observe that strong mental states cause astounding physical changes. What about a "strong" bestial mentality? Of course, larger populations of remains (etc.) would be needed, to know more of what is normative, and what is aberrative. 'Point is, these possibilities are brushed aside.

In short, the idea that an "unnatural" variable might itself be of some other material (i.e., bio-mental) nature, or of even an immaterial nature, is likewise excluded. Instead, "unnatural" is presumed (never proven) to be a particular data set of possible causes.

So if the true unnatural cause(s) is due to variables outside of the allowed data set, we may not be looking at "evolution", either. The alleged progenitor might be wholly unrelated to the deemed transmuted progeny, or the deemed-progeny might instead  be a progenitor.

A third tautology is the idea that simple life transmutably "advances" to become complex. How do we know that is evolution? Is a being more advanced because it can do more, or is it more advanced because it is simple?

The data contradiction here should be obvious. Natural selection has not obliterated the simple and the weak; on the contrary, the weak persist and always outnumber the strong. The simpler forms of life likewise persist and often destroy the strong. Today's mathematics and physics propound a similarly-contradictive state: the universe is expanding, yet hastening to its "end".

Granted, the theories of evolution do account for the persistence of varied life-forms. However, is the evolutionary accounting of change truly one of "transmutation", or are we looking at mega-adaptation? What if the "few strong" in a society of a deemed-species are there to serve the needs of the "many weak", rather than the other way around? This "many weak, few strong" persistency isn't what "survival of the fittest" should produce. So maybe the purpose of natural selection isn't really the survival of the fittest — maybe it is the protection of the weak. Whatever the purpose, "advance" via "transmutation" is contraindicated. In short, the data might better depict other, nonevolutionary theories. Of course, such theories, if proven, might thus point back to and validate evolution in a different way. 'Point is, the contradiction goes unheeded in the evolutionary idea of "advance" via "transmutation".

To sum up, we have three arguable contradictions to the evolutionary idea of "transmutation":

1) that a species' reproductive "triggers" might account for a much greater scope of change, which has thus far been mislabelled evolutionary, or "transmutation";

2) that "unnatural" factors beyond the scope of evolution's (illogically-narrow) view might prove that what was mislabelled "transmutation" is really a) bigger-adaptational advance, or degeneration; and/or b) change without progenitors;

3) that what is deemed "advance" might be neither "advance", nor "transmutation".

Clearly such contradictions indicate the premise of "transmutation" needs serious reconsideration. As it stands, "transmutation" is tautologically-defined.

---

The foregoing examination of evolution's basic definitions ("life", "species", "mutation"/ "transmutation") but partially accounts why fundamental definitions in evolutionary theory are formed based upon tautological criteria: so of course they "prove" true. Next, the relationships between the observations are assumed  based upon these definitions, and assumed  proven due to the existence of plausible causes — which is alright, so long as everyone knows how tenuous such constructs are. Unfortunately, no warning label accompanies these constructs, so the hearer is given this "theory" as truth. In this, evolution is as guilty as those who so cast their particular religion.

None of the foregoing eliminates evolution as being possibly true. It does, however, show how those who would be its proponents have no stronger a claim to truth than religion might have. So, much more work on the theory needs to be done; meanwhile, evolution MIGHT be true, but thus far is not proven so. That is the proper perspective for anyone who would call himself "scientific" or "logical".

Indeed, the problem of treating evolution as fact is more prevalent among pseudo-scientists and would-be intellectuals who both wish to avoid the "taint" of what they consider (illogical) faith; scientists who daily work in their specialties are often much less certain. Unfortunately, for the sake of science, it becomes imperative to communicate this uncertainty better, lest science suffer the same stultifying fate as religion, which has become so entrenched in past dogmas, it cannot admit of error. Science cannot survive a Maginot-line mentality among the citizenry. I submit this line has already begun to form.

IV. Towards a Solution

Science might resolve such problems by testing competing theories/hypotheses. Here are three:

A. The species adapt, but do not transmute. The similarities between species are just that: similarities. The above-noted problems in the definition of "life" would not be resolved by this hypothesis, even if it were proven true. However, the problems noted with the definition of "species" might be (at least partly) resolved. One can run the current species-classifications through what-if permutations of reclassification. The long-running species debate would have a new motive, to see if there is a classification of life which exposes this alternative as accurate. In which case, the problem has been that of man's incorrect classification of the data. Finally, such what-if scenarios would perhaps help to resolve better what truly constitutes "transmutation".

B. New "species" arise due to: 1) natural hybridization mechanisms within sufficiently-compatible species; 2) unnatural causes; or 3) some combination of the two. This variation "B" thus admits of a greater role in the innate propagation mechanisms of each species than has been heretofore recognized; and much of what has been called "evolution", would instead be the triggering of these mechanisms. So it may help resolve the above-noted problems in the definitions of "species" and "transmutation". Again, the "life" definition problems would not likely be resolved much via pursuit of this "B" hypothesis.

"B" includes both species extinction, and the rise of new ones, as being explained by (for example) environmental changes, or by intra-population changes (inbreeding, disease, changes due to over-/under- population). Again, the focus is on change which need not take place over long periods of geologic time.

In "B", the focus is on latent reproductive mechanisms which give rise to mega-adaptation, not evolution. Because reproduction occurs, the seeming-transmutation is not actually occurring. That this reproduction is not routine would be accounted by seldom-occurring internal biological or external processes/events. Known causes which trigger unusual reproductive rates might offer clues to a "B"-type answer.

The A and B alternate theories don't require much change in evolution's definitions, yet offer competing assumption matrices to explain the same observed data and phenomena. They may well turn up more evidence to warrant evolution. They may instead reveal contradictions hitherto unnoticed. They have the advantage, over the evolutionary arguments, in that they don't require evolutional change to be true. Such a flexibility is more sensible, in light of the data we have. (Transmutation is so based upon assumed near-magical relationships absent proof, it strains logical credibility.)

For example, "A" above, rather than requiring prolonged "transmutation", assumes greater intraspecies diversity. So, there is less need to assume unprovable transmutations. So, instead of merely believing that matter and energy "just always were", the belief becomes, "the diversity just always was." This switch in the starting point focuses on the latter two evolutionary "branches" summarized in "II", above.

For example, "B" (which could be added/combined with "A"), means "transmutation" is instead merely a reproduction feature; which, like recessive genes, does not occur except in rare events; unnatural causes may constitute one of the subsets of "rare events".

To some extent, these two explanations have long been a part of biological science, but have not been perhaps sufficiently evaluated to see how extensive their roles may be in causing the changes currently assumed to belong under the "evolution" mantle.

What alternate hypothesis or theory could help resolve the above-noted tautologies in evolution's "life" defintion? One could add a "C", which, as reincarnation religions have long done, assumes that "life" is some kind of impersonal force, a bundle of coded instructions distinct from, yet affecting all it "creates": a sort of "cosmic DNA". Here, we admit of immateriality (or atomic structures we've thought we couldn't measure), without needing to say "god". Immateriality would be defined, thus, as a sort of life-principle, that which is the uncaused-cause but itself has neither mass nor energy. Perhaps time is an inherent property of it; so, matter and energy, being the "children" of this instruction set, thus become subject to time. (Vector analysis need not be affected by time, still; current theories of spacetime would not necessarily be invalidated, but rather are better-explained, versus "'time' is but the name we give to 'relative motion'.")

Two related types of analysis might help our search here:

1) a requestionning of whether our "universe" is solely composed of matter and energy (i.e., might some third element exist we've incorrectly lumped into the prior two); and

2) Quantum theory and the theory of relativity (although they clash). The idea of independent or absolute time, now discarded, might be profitably re-examined.

None of these "A", "B", "C" alternatives requires religion in the laboratory or the classroom.

As it stands, evolution rests on faith, as does many a religion. Evolution believes that its definitions and assumed functions of "life", "species", "mutation/ transmutation" are sufficiently correct. So, evolution is just as much a faith as any religion's "God [whoever "God" is] created life." Both sets of faith do rest on logics. Neither is proven nor disproved.

That evolution has become the queen explanation, admitting of no rivals, is a dangerous trend, which threatens to catapult science back into the "Dark Ages".

V. Conclusion

Transmutation is the heart of "evolution". Unintentionally, its tenets recast the essence of reincarnation religions (absent a title of "god"); yet evolution claims to be non-religious, and on that ground, freer of human bias. It refuses to examine religious concepts to see if there may be, underneath those concepts, testable truths (including ones which may contradict evolutionary tenets).

Moreover, evolutionary theories rest upon tautological foundations: circular definitions of the components to identify (life, species, transmutation), and circular definitions of assumed  relationships among the observed data. This circularity is composed of:

1) a too-narrow definition of the nature of the components, and

2) a too-narrow insistence that the observed similarities MUST be causally-linked transmutationally from more-primitive to more-complex.

Thus, all the observed data are deemed "fit". This "fit" gives us the illusion that evolution is correct; instead, this "fit" may mask classification errors in "species" and "transmutation", with regard to 1) reproduction, and 2) intraspecies adaptation/ degeneration. Such a masking can have very detrimental effects upon other scientific disciplines.

Further still, this "fit" waves away gross contradictions, such as the fact that life-form societies continue historically to have the structure of "many-weak, few strong", and the weak not only survive, but prosperously multiply.

Worse, this "fit" is claimed based on data which is not statistically-significant, so we don't know that what we think we see even characterizes ancient populations as a whole. Even if the data were statistically significant, evolution requires so much interpretation that its "theory" is really a string of educated-guesswork to account for origins.

Finally, evolution's dogmatic hold bullies: it does not allow for alternative theories which might explain the same data as well or better, or expose hitherto-unrecognized contradictions in evolutionary tenets.

Human bias thus very much skews the meaning of the results, just as "believers" skew the meaning of their holy books. Evolution, too, once (wrongly) the pariah of belief, fortunately triumphed in the Scopes Trial's effect on public opinion; but by now has joined the ranks of man's many "sacred cows". The alleged exclusion of religious arguments, claiming such arguments can't be objective, is not only silly (for who knows what testable truths might be under the rhetoric), but hypocritical.

So, just as many sects competing the more exposes/fixes/refines some religious "truth", so also science would be better served if the underlying assumptions were tested against competing scientific theories/hypotheses. Science would likewise be better served if it opened up its standards of inquiry on evolution to include testing religious explanations (especially since "evolution" currently is a nondeity form of reincarnation). Such pursuits need not be religious; in fact, such pursuits would be for the purpose of discerning "beneath" the religious rhetoric any human observations which might prove worthy to science.

Meanwhile, evolution's guesswork is necessary. It should be disclosed as such, rather than represented as true, to the public at large. (Many a scientist laments the misrepresentation of evolution as "the truth", so this article's exhortation is not new.)

In sum, evolution, like religion, is a construct which has some internal cohesion, but is not of itself (as yet) conclusive. To insist it is "the answer", as if any competing answer were thus illogical and unscientific, is to be dogmatically religious on evolution. 'Which, of course, is fine; but let us not pretend that evolution is the more scientific; let us admit that, for now, evolution's theories, like religions', still rest on faith.

Such an admission will thus motivate more-objective revisions, and hopefully rid science of what seems to be an ossifying, self-destructive trend.

Does God Exist?

Ways to determine Divine Existence and Nature

---

Jump Links: [Ways to analyze if 'God' exists]   [A Question of.. Time?] [Determining Divine Nature]  [Metempsychosic/ multiple/ evolving 'gods'] 
[Monotheism] [Christian concepts] [Other God Ideas]

---

A Modest Introduction, pick one: Illusion, Insanity.. or, Intelligence?

The chair in which I'm sitting doesn't know it is an illusion, so supports my body anyway. The sky doesn't know it is an illusion, and keeps on holding both stars and planets in some fixed relationships, even while we sleep. So we aren't holding them up while we sleep, are we? In short, reality exists, because these things physically exist apart from man's desire concerning their existence. They don't know they are but figments of our imaginations; as if we were gods and thus smart enough to imagine so realistically, star, sky and seat supports! Whatever we sit on to imagine all these things so well, must be.. our brains; for if we can imagine them so masterfully we can sit on our imaginations: why is there so much trouble in the real world?

People imagine that if you talk about God and they listen, they somehow do you a favor (though you could save your breath and go elsewhere); that you gain something from "God" or from them, if they agree with you; that if you believe, you are something shy of a rational person; that if you don't believe in God, you are somehow superior; that if people disagree about God, well — it's all the same God idea, so it doesn't matter which depiction of God one believes. Just being sincere, nice to people, is due some reward from "God". Yeah, people who imagine all that, would also consider it right that if you pay your phone bill, the grocery store is supposed to reward you...

Yeah, and we imagine that the rich hurt the poor too; though it's obvious, no matter how the rich guy spends his own money, someone else poor immediately gets it for food, rent, clothing, etc.; and we imagine the Government bureaucrats who get the rich guy's taxes, who then eat up over half that money with paperwork, hearings, and endless speeches — that stuff! better helps the poor who thus wait longer and get less?

How many rich people do you know, who themselves cut the wood, cure it, and then polish the wood on their own yachts; mow their own huge lawns; dust all those art treasures which they rarely even visit, but 5 minutes a month? Don't the poorer laborers do all that? Kinda cushy circumstances, too: much nicer, to mow a nice lawn, than a scratch patch on the south side of Newark. So, then: don't you think a whole lot of people immediately got paid the $260,000 it cost Donald Trump to buy his bride's wedding dress? rich people don't sew dresses themselves, you know. So if he'd given that 260K to charity or the Government, the poor would be waiting years until the laws and speeches and hearings, finished — and finally the poor would get maybe what.. 10 cents on the dollar?

Who do you think paid the lawsuits of those people who sued the airlines for ferrying the terrorists on 9/11? As if the airlines were to blame? Do you think the airline presidents get up in the morning and say, "Gee, I'd like to crash a multimillion dollar plane today, and be tied up in court over it for 20 years (i.e., the disaster in the Everglades), so I can make my customers afraid to fly, and nearly bankrupt the company"? So what had to happen? Well, every traveller paid for part of the lawsuit fines via higher fares, less service! And the job loss in the airline industry is so bad because people are afraid to fly: bankruptcy characterizes the industry.

Closer to home: how else do you think McDonald's was able to pay that stupid woman who sued them because her coffee was too hot, though she was too dumb to wait until it cooled? And who really made it too hot, in the first place? Some poor minimum-wage employee who was in too big a hurry to get the order right and get the coffee in the bag. Probably, because the just-previous customer, complained about the coffee being too cold. Companies are groups of people. Mistakes are made by people. No employee gets up in the morning and says, "Gee, I'd like to burn some old lady's tongue, so she can sue my employer and get millions of dollars, so I can be out of a job!"

So now think: how did that woman get those millions? One way: all those poor people who eat McDonald's products (poor people eat more junk food, it's a treat for them) — all those customers, were the ones who paid her, millions! How else could the company get the money? Think hard, now: MacDonald's makes hamburgers. We buy them, so we can eat them. So we the customers, no one else — we the consumers, are the only ones who paid for her lawsuit, as well as for all other company expenses, employees, etc. So with what brains do we imagine, that this "rich company" got its comeuppance? We got shafted! Can't be another way, unless we don't buy the product. In which case, there would be no company to employ anyone, and thus no lawsuits, either. See? Every dollar spent pays for the poor.. except, when we pay taxes or sue, we fritter away the money on political posturing, paperwork and pontification: so the poor wait longer and get less. Even Donald Trump's bridal gift, did a better job serving the poor.

Yeah, we imagine a whole lot of things, while sitting on our brains. Trouble is, mentally ill people do that as well...

So, is God an insane figment of our prodigious imaginations, too? Or does God really exist? It's a fair question. Surely it would be insane to expect "God", who by definition must be invisible, to be measurable with 'scientific' instruments, which by nature can only measure stone and bone and dust; and even that, by ASSuming constants, like the rate of carbon decomposition, the rate of tectonic drift, and other very long timeline items — though nowhere in nature, do constants operate (just try reliably predicting the weather like that).

This "God" question's kinda important, really: if God exists, what if it matters to know which 'kind' of God He/They/It.. is? And shouldn't it matter?

• If your name is John Jones, but someone insists you reward her for repeatedly claiming your name is Yucky Gertrude Cheese, should you be impressed?
• Is it even right to pretend that's your name, if you're the Divine Repository of Truth? Is it ever right to lie? Would you want "God" to lie to you?
• Ok, then: it's logical to suppose, since you yourself don't like being lied to, mistakenly identified (and expected to reward the person who does it);
• it's logical to suppose, that what some other person gets from a third party, and you're not at all involved in that transaction..
• it's only logical and right that you don't owe either of them.
• You didn't ask for those two to cook up something together, so why should you reward them for what they do to each other?
• Moreover, if you did do something, and you are to be paid in money, but..
• well, you are 'sincerely' given a pile of rotten potatoes in repayment — should you accept that? Of course not.
• Then, why should whoever the Real "God" is, accept what you do not accept?
• Common courtesy even among humans would lead one to the logical conclusion that God isn't some amorphous mass, but one or more definite Persons with real thinking going on. Hence, real "tastes", for lack of a better word.
• And if you want a relationship with this Person or Persons, well.. wouldn't it be a colossal waste of time, to just ASSume how deity is? Would you buy a car, unseen, knowing nothing about it? So buying a 'faith' (and even no faith is a faith in "nothing"), whoa: kinda matters more, to kick the tires...

So the purpose of this webpage is to help you think out the question, for yourself. I don't get any Brownie points for writing it; you won't get a gold star if you read it, either. And no bolt of lightning is gonna strike either of us, in any event. But a bolt of Intelligent Insight might be welcome. So this webpage, and its links, are organized in terms of broad concepts: forests, not trees. Dunno if you've noticed, but all "God" arguments tend to degrade into "tree" questions (my-god-is-better-than-your-god, does the trilobite population disprove the Flood); with everyone wandering aimlessly in the Ardennes.. but the panzers are coming! So: you can worry about the trees when you find which is the right FOREST, first. Kinda like using a map: if you don't know where "Illinois" is, you don't concern yourself with the desert highway in Hesperia, California.. right?

So this page is not to sell you on a particular idea, but instead broadly paints the basic ideas about God, or other macro-level stuff you can use to see what you want to analyze next. Obviously I'm convinced of a particular "definition" of "God"; but I could care less if you buy it, since I cannot be you, nor you me: don't get me wrong, I wish you the best, but — it's YOUR life. And mine, is mine. Again, neither you nor I get any "reward" if I convinced you — and I don't even like the idea. People convince themselves. It's called "free will", and it's a wonderful, sacred thing. The Real God, whoever They/He/She/It is, shouldn't need salesmen: but man likes reading explanations. So, the next section succinctly lists unusual ways one can come to realize God does exist. After that, you can start to think out how to narrow down the field to "which type" of God, by examining questions of Nature. You don't need a Bible (or what you consider a holy book) to do this, but it might help.

Of course, the fastest way to find out if God exists, is to Ask Him. You know, like this: "Hi, God, if you're up there I'd like to know you". It's not tautological. If no God exists, you won't get an answer. But if some version of God exists, then you will. It's always right in mathematics, to first assume a postulate, theorem, etc. True. So do that. Assume you'll get an answer. Then, sit back, relax, and watch for the information to come in, piece by piece. Flooding you with proof will kill your humanity, so God presents the data to you a little at a time. And, don't expect some genie-performance, asking God to to be a dog and "go fetch"; you know, asking Him to fix something and if He doesn't, well that's it! No God! Sheesh: Gideon pulled that trick twice, and he never got over it. [Read the whole story in Bible, sometime, not just the happy part. Start in Judges 6, but pay close attention to Judges 8:27-end Chapter 9. Gruesome story.]

God gave you a brain, and THAT is how you'll be able to perceive Him, ok? Why do people waste years and dollars agonizing over the Does-God-exist question, reading what other PEOPLE say, and focusing on a whole bunch of irrelevant data? Honestly, do you think any relic or age-of-earth data proves anything, pro- or con- "God"? All you'll get from it, is a headache and more questions. Instead, you could just 'call up God' and ASK. He likes science even more than we do, since He invented it, for crying out loud. So, since He more quickly knows what is relevant to answer (relevant to you, relevant to showing you how the relevant data connects).. um, ask the Expert, Him. Seriously: if you wanted to ask me a question, wouldn't you write an email or pick up the phone? So if you want to ask God a question.. just ASK. He's everywhere; so needs no phoneline, lol. And if you don't get an answer, well.. maybe you dialed the wrong number (called on a "god" which doesn't exist, but another version of God is a Real One). People misdial God all the time, and the Real God shouldn't lie, so.. doesn't answer 'prayer' (fancy name for the phone call), either. You don't answer to a name not your own, and for good reason. So try a different 'version' of God, if you think you might have dialed a non-working 'number'.

But for those who want to feel smart cogitating on their own, you have a number of brainstorming options in this page. The first "Intra-page" link at pagetop takes you through 14 unusual analysis paths, which ought to help you reason out this epic question of does God exist. It's best suited to those of mathematical or philosophical bent. It's based on that Fundamental Principle of Empirical Science: When so many data pieces point in the same direction, some larger independent fact is indicated. So, I've had to organize the data pieces into numbered groups, below. Thus, it is easier to see the whole forest of meanings, and avoid entanglement with mere trees (e.g., which universe/evolution/lifeform/god is a "tree" problem, and easily obscures viewing the "forest").

In what follows, some of the "ways" might appear familiar, so one may be tempted to say, "ah, that's Anselm's argument", etc. Please resist the temptation, because the contents are absolutely not the same: I find those common arguments unconvincing, fuzzy, or just plain stupid. For this reason, well-known argument titles (like Anselm's, TAG, etc.) are not given here; because, those arguments are not used.

If you just want to skip over the other options and go there NOW, click here --> [Ways to analyze IF 'God' exists]

Alternatively, if your bent is to see something rather more spectacular and highly technical related to the Bible itself, well.. how about the question of how God of Bible, orchestrates Time itself? It's shocking material, not at all titillating; and you could lose hours in it, before you surface for air. Worse, the time spent could become pretty unpleasant once the meaning sinks in. If you want to go that route, keep reading. If you don't, hit Home Key and see if some link you find at page top, interests you.

---

A Question of ..Time?

---

Time doesn't know it's supposed to be an illusion; 'modern' science dubs it a fake component of reality, so it doesn't even get its own technical name: it's now called, "spacetime". Thus time serves no purpose but as an artificial measure of movement. Everything in "spacetime" is relative to everything else, so Time is not extrinsic to matter, but rather is a mere component OF matter. Hence, it really doesn't exist on its own, and all things are possible. So, sigh.. all this Bible and God stuff is just an illusion we 'moderns' think quaint: suitable only for political crusading, children and holidays; else, for the superstitious and foolish to believe and babble about. For if Time is not independent of matter, then there just can't be anyone like "God". We are on our own, whoopee! Lilliput, arise and conquer!

But Time doesn't know all that 'modern' information. So, with ignorant bliss, it keeps on ticking; and, keeps on being provably connected to the Jews in 490-year segments. Of course, the Jews themselves no longer know this about time, so you can't blame them for Time's ignorant obsession. But they used to know. We Christians, also used to know: lots of New Testament verses are based on that 'mirroring' of Time, because Time itself is an essential "redemption" issue.. all over the Bible. But we don't know that: believers, unbelievers, Jews, goy, you-name-it-artificial-division-to-rile-men-up-and-make-them-blind. We're also busy.. boycotting stores that put "Holidays" in lieu of "Christmas", on their window placards. Never mind, that the Real Christ's mass, is in the Bible. Where we can celebrate the sign of Him, anytime.

So even we who claim the Bible is from God, don't bother to check, for example, that what

• Daniel 9:26 said 600 years prior in a language which died soon after he wrote it;
• which Matt24 echoed 40 years beforehand (in another dead language);
• which Rev11:1 predicts will recur, who-knows-how-many-years-hence,

has been prototypically fulfilled, ever since 70AD. By people who didn't even know those Bible passages. Mostly, during times when no one could even get that Book to look at what it said, dead language or no. [Nerd note: Bible as a whole wasn't available for public consumption beginning sometime after 180AD, until after Gutenberg (which is why the Reformation occurred, so far as I can tell); though sometimes you could get parts of the Book, like a Psalter, part of a Gospel, etc. Even after Gutenberg, it was still so expensive to make a Bible, only upper-class folks had one. Common access to the original-language texts, versus the generally-poor translations, was not available until sometime after the 1850's. We are in a unique period of world history, for not since the first two centuries AD, has the inspired Scripture been so available: and never, so easily available. But no one cares. If you do, then you'll want to carefully study the Bible's history. It is very dramatic, like a kidnap movie: Christopher DeHamel wrote a history of its coming-to-be. You can get it at Amazon for about $50.]

The proof that time's orchestrated in 490-year segments around the Jews, is likewise ignorant of the 'scientific' evidence it doesn't exist. So the proof of fulfillment nonetheless faithfully and dumbly remains, as demonstrated in Jerusalem itself, by the non-disputed existence of two hostile stone structures: the Wailing Wall and the Dome of the Rock. You can link up to the camera facing the Wailing Wall and see it live, from any computer, anywhere in the world. Probably you can do it with the Dome, too. We humans soooo love our old buildings and relics. Never mind, what they might mean. Yet here's a synopsis, to decide if you'd like to investigate further — via the pagetop links. Because IF it were true that Time is being orchestrated like this, well.. Who but God, can orchestrate TIME? Ergo, not only would you have conclusive proof God exists.. but you immediately know, which "God", IS God. That sure would save lots of angst, huh. [Actually, I have no patience with the arguments which seek to prove God's Existence, so I'm not interested in proving He exists. But proof does become important, when evaluating which God is the Real One. Idea of detecting counterfeit, from genuine. The clamor of a bizillion different definitions of God, would make even the most pro-God person, dizzy. Hence the need of forest analysis, rather than trees. I call it, "due diligence". If it's important to get due diligence on a house or business you'll buy, it's vital to get/do it, about God! End commercial message.]

So Let's take peek at a capsulized version of this 'proof'. Don't worry, it won't be "conclusive" until you yourself spend lots of time on it...

The Stony Tale of the Times Like Charles Dickens' "Tale of Two Cities", for which he got paid per word (and thus it's a long tale), this tale of one City — Jerusalem — is a tale of Two Stones: one signals the worst of times, and the other, the best of times. "BEST", if the Temple is standing; for then God is Dwelling With His People; for only God authorizes the building of THIS Temple. The Temple depicts a future Dwelling INSIDE each person, once God ADDS Humanity to Himself, and pays for sins. This future was depicted by a box patterned after Noah's Ark, but smaller: acacia wood (the main material) depicted Humanity; gold overlay, the Deity (depicting Infinite Perfection, immaterial). So it's a promise of Full Fellowship, not the limited togetherness Israel had, via the Law and its rituals. The rituals were likewise metaphorical, depicting various aspects of this future promise of Full Fellowship. That's what Judaism is based on. So the Temple is the heart of Judaism. It's like losing your life — no, even worse — to lose the Temple. Means God has 'left', not totally nor forever, but the fellowship is BREACHED. Now you know why all that bobbing goes on at the Wailing Wall, which is the only Wall Left Today, of that Temple. So if the Temple is razed, as now — or, far worse, again like now — if non-Jews possess the site, it's the worst of times: Jews should Stay Away. So the "worst of times" is forecast and explained, in those Bible passages bulleted above. We're all stone-deaf to them, of course. So let's look at what these Stony Structures 'tell' us by their silence. Which means, we need to take a brief history tour, so we get what's called in theology, "isagogics" (fancy word for relevant histo-cultural information). The two Stony Structures are really one; except, the later of them is an impostor. Therein lies the problem, and the reason for the claim that time is orchestrated by God in 490 'sets', revolving around the Jews: for, God has promised them Time, accounted in 490-year sets. A few paragraphs down, you will be able to empirically test this claim. For now, just get oriented to the meaning behind the claim: this orchestration plays in the "best" category, only so long as there is no impostor; else it plays "worst", if there is one. Anything between the two extremes, gets Time Debited or Credited, accordingly. At the extreme "worst", the Temple itself will not only be destroyed, but an "impostor" will possess it, and oppress the Jews who live near it. At the other extreme, Israel not only possesses the Temple wholly, but all her enemies are defeated wholly, too. That's quite a promise, and we've all heard promises which are bombast. Let's see if there's any bombast, here. Further definition of "impostor" clause: Fake gods are impostors, but so is fake spirituality (i.e., faking self out that one loves God, is pro-God, etc., the bane of religiosity). So if the Jews are involved in too much fake spirituality, they get an impostor to take over the One Thing They Recognize As Truly Holy: the Rock in the original Temple's Holy of Holies. This, to mirror back to them, so that they can see their fakeness, and "nacham" (change mind and turn back to God genuinely, usu. mistranslated as "repent"). Everything God does, MIRRORS. It's yet another way of stating the Bible concept of "redemption" (buying back what was lost, damaged, stolen, dedicated, etc. — perfect picture of what "salvation" means, of how it got accomplished). So here in 2005, we have an impostor, the Dome of the Rock; it's Islamic, not Jewish, but it's sitting atop that very Rock which was the centerpiece and foundation for, the Jewish Temple. But claiming that Rock, for Islam. [Now you know everything about why the Arab-Israeli conflict, is really happening. It has zippo to do with politics, freedom for one group or another: this thing has gone on for about four thousand years, and it's a never-ending INHERITANCE fight. Cousins fighting cousins over an old inheritance snub — the Arabs got a lesser promise, than the sons of Isaac, so they feel.] Back to the historical background: at the time of the Exodus in 1440BC, the first Jewish Tabernacle was a huge moving tent; it represented God's contract with the nation of Israel, among other things. It had this huge box called an "Ark" (legal pledge, proof of a binding agreement, precedented upon Noah's Ark), which was the very essence of what the "Holy of Holies", meant. So 490 years later, this temporary structure was replaced by a permanent one: the firstTemple was built by King Solomon, in 950BC. Just as promised, and at the promised time. King Solomon, moreover, was a promised King. Whose father, was the beginning of promised kings. This father, King David, was born 400 years after the Exodus, to pay back 'time' for the 400 years of slavery, just prior to the Exodus. So this David, becomes King 430 years after the Exodus, which was exactly the same length of time as the "sons" of Israel spent, combined, in Canaan and Egypt (not all the time was in a state of slavery). So as you can see even thus far, this matching of real historical dates to set times which mirror past periods, is rather surprising. But, back to the historical background... God (of Bible) had previously told King David exactly how He wanted this Temple made, kinda like He told Noah how to build that Ark — in great detail. Central to His blueprint for this permanent Temple, was to make that Rock the center of the Most Holy Place in the permanent Temple; the Ark would sit on top of that Rock, and the entire Temple(!) would be built around that Rock. Why? Well, Abraham almost-sacrificed "his only son", Isaac.. right there on that (flat-topped) BedRock. So God wanted to use that Same Rock to pictorially represent, His long-promised (since Gen3:15) salvation: that God would in the future, add Humanity to Himself, and pay using only that Humanity, for the sins of the entire human race. So this Rock, on which Abraham almost-sacrificed his promised and only son, is a paradigm of the future "Son" in His Humanity being sacrificed by "Father", to potentially save the entire human race (i.e., last clause in John 3:16). Hence this Rock is the center of the Temple, the Most Holy Place, aka "the Christ" (meaning, Messiah, Anointed One, also Greek word Petra); hence the Rock of Salvation, is a moniker for this Son. Who, at the time, hasn't added Humanity to Himself. So the Rock Itself, is a kind of legal Pledge of a Future, Self-Imposed, Obligation on God's Part. Alone. Man has the option of accepting or rejecting this future Action (last clause in John 3:16, again); but man doesn't do anything to help or hurt or forestall or negate it. The action is unilateral, on God's part. That's the "salvation contract", so to speak. Bible likens it to a will: the testator wills a beneficiary to have an asset, but the beneficiary has a right to refuse. After too much time has passed, the refusal becomes permanent. It's a right of refusal, because Love does not coerce free will. Abraham freely and without coercion was willing to offer his promised and only son, just because God asked him to do so; even though, he knew God didn't want human sacrifice. So it seemed to make no sense, but Abraham knew somehow He'd restore Isaac to life, Gen22. Pay close attention to every verse, especially when he tells the servant that Isaac will come back with him. (It's one of the great chapters in the Bible, when you think it over. Awesome faith.) Thus God 'mirrors' this action so all Israel, founded on Abraham through Isaac, could understand better how God would pay for the sins of the entire human race. All Freely. No coercion. Isaac, who was in his 20's at the time, likewise was not coerced. Christ, would likewise not be coerced. Love never coerces free will. God, being immaterial, can only be paid by Divine Thinking, since only Infinite Quality Thinking can compensate for offense. Technically, the 'occasion' of sin is met on the Cross by 'occasioned' Divine-Quality Thinking in 'reply', so that the whole 'memory' of the Latter, makes the former, 'smell' good ('beautiful' is another metaphorical description for propitiation). So, like the heart circulates blood, so the soul with this Thinking — a Human soul! — His 'heart' (metaphor for soul, emphasizing BELIEVING IN the Truth He knows) will 'sprinkle' the sins, thus sanctifying them (making them set-apart-to-God, beautiful to 'smell' and 'hear', because of the 'sprinkling' of thought on them). Love thinking, at Divine Level, essentially. Hence all the blood sacrifices and especially the Day of Atonement, on which the High Priest sprinkled blood on the Ark, acted as mnemonics of this Promised-Redeemer-Messiah-Rock-of-Salvation.. to Come. But can such Divine Thought occur, in a human being? Yep: that's the promise, and it's real bald in flagship passages like Isa53, Phili2:5-10, Eph4:11-16. You can't see how bald, in translation. Pretend, for the moment, that this promise is really in the Bible. [Other websites like the "Isaiah 53" and "RightPT" on Home Page, cover the topic in more detail, but they are very technical.] "God" in the Bible, is really Three of Them: we know only their Titles, by which They communicate their Love and Choice of Corporate Relationship (like a family): "Father" (He'll do the judging), "Son" (He'll add Humanity and in that Humanity pay), and "Spirit" (He'll empower the HUmanity to the extent of the Latter's continuing, free-will CONSENT). [The entire mechanic is explained deftly in Isaiah 53:11, but no one translates the entire verse (not all of it is in Hebrew). So just 'trust me', for the moment. This piece is about time, and you have to just get the background, before we can get to the time issue.] Now that you understand the Jewish meaning of the Rock as a Salvation Pledge and Contract of Relationship with God, let's return to the problem of an "impostor". The much-later Muslims, based on their "Koran", claim it wasn't Isaac who was almost-sacrificed, but Ishmael (the latter was 13 years older, so too old, but hey). The rest of the meaning above, they likewise dispute: to them, Christ was a sinless person, but still a mere herald (akin to John the Baptist), who spent His Time Here merely announcing the coming of Mohammed, 600 years early; Mohammed is portrayed in Koran as a sinner; he pays no sins for anyone; Koran is strident that God has no partners and needs no payment. So for Moslems, this Dome is probably the holiest shrine in all Islam, and people seek to be buried near it, for good luck. You don't make a good hajj (pilgrimage) if you don't go there once in your lifetime. [I don't know why this issue about Abraham is so important, since the Koran never promises the Muslim the Jewish territory, nor is the sacrifice on that Rock ever alleged to save them; nor does it depict divine propitiation. In short, in the Koran, absolutely nothing of the meaning in Judaism, is the same; so why the Rock is even important, I can't figure out. The eternal promise in the Koran is to live in Paradise, a compartment both Koran and Bible note is under the earth. Koran doesn't promise heaven. Bible says only believers were in Paradise, and that only until the Ascension, viz. verses related to Eph4:8-9. So the only people under the earth, are UNbelievers. So the frequent Koranic promise, "In Paradise there will be shade", sounds derisive and mocking: "shade" is a well-known Hebrew and Greek term for folks in Hades, which in Bible, is where people destined for the later Lake of Fire will go. This is a blatant demonic satire of Moslems, and it's very petty. No human is smart enough to get this, even today, without exposure to the original-language texts of Scripture. Which, in 610AD, were under lock-and-key. Only a few portions in translation, were available to Christians. Mohammed certainly couldn't recognize all that wordplay.] So in the Bible, this Dome qualifies as an archetype of "abomination", a technical term for "impostor". It means an unholy takeover, by the wrong people. So now we are ready for the role of those 490s, and how Time Revolves Around The Jews. But first, why? Because it's a promise that Messiah Will Come, and On Time — so long as Israel wanted Him. So, time was MEASURED, and when Israel was negative, Time was deducted; when Israel was positive, Time was added. So God is Balancing and Accounting for Time, like an accountant would do a trial balance. The composition of this '490', then, is actually a bundle of subcomponents: "How God 'Mirrors' Time" link at pagetop goes into each of the major components (as best I can find them, so far). Let's start with the principle of the 490, as expressed most clearly in translation. Put yourself in 586BC. The First Temple had been destroyed. Israel was ejected from the Land; and a young believer named Daniel, of the Royal House of David, was praying for God to forgive the "divorce" (OT vocabulary is largely marital, but translations euphemize). So, via the angel Gabriel, here's part of the answer given, in Dan9:26 (etc). I had to fix the "New Living" translation here, where it differed too much from the original-language 'sacred' Bible texts (known as the LXX and the BHS, among the erudite): "NLT Daniel 9:25 Now listen and understand! Seven sets of seven plus sixty-two sets of seven will pass from the time the command is given to return and rebuild [first the Temple and THEN] Jerusalem until the Anointed One comes. It [Jerusalem] will be rebuilt with streets and strong defenses, despite the perilous times. 26 "After this period of sixty-two sets of seven, the Anointed One will be killed, appearing to have accomplished nothing ["killed" is "cut off", as in foreskin; so, CUT A COVENANT, cut off without descendants, are all additional meaning layers]; and a ruler will arise whose armies will destroy the city and the Temple. The end will come with a flood [of troops], and war and its miseries are decreed from that time to the very end." [Original-language Bible texts are elliptical; the "shub" is distinguished separately, and "shub" always has to do with the Temple — well, specifically, the Ark's return (i.e., after a battle, after a house is built for it). Hence the wording in the original languages is phenomenally precise and multi-level, taking into account what wasn't then known, that the Decree of Cyrus would be found later and as a result a second decree would be issued by Darius. It also takes into account the later decree by Artaxerxes for Nehemiah. This is all the more significant, since at the time Daniel got this, there was no Ark; Nebuchadnezzar's officials had melted it down to get the gold out of it. So the next "Ark" to be returned, is Messiah. Phenomenal wordplay: the people return so Messiah can 'return'.] If you have a Bible, notice that there's a sudden switch to the 70th week, in Daniel 9:27. In the original language texts, that sentence is cut off grammatically from the 69 "weeks" enumerated above. So you have no promise about how long an interval passes between Daniel 9:26c (the red text), and the beginning of Daniel 9:27, which is the Tribulation. There might be no interval, or — more likely, given the judgement nature of 9:26 — a 50-year interval (God doesn't have to mention it, all Jews know about the 50 years from the Jubilee precedent). Or, an "x" period. It's deliberately ambiguous (which is why no one can predict when the Tribulation will begin). Still, this passage tallies to the full 70 weeks (490 years), but breaks them into three segments. There's also a fourth segment, in Daniel 9:2, of 70 years, representing the missed sabbatical years, which is why the Temple was razed, inter alia: if you don't take your rest years, you're not trusting in God, so the religiosity is harlotry. Hence the Temple was allowed to be overrun. Since the Temple had 490 years allotted to it, but due to apostacy God had to 'punish' by letting the temple be overrun per His Contract Warning to Solomon back in 1Kings 6:12-14 and 1Kings 9:6-9, the Temple had 126 years remaining at the time it was destroyed (950BC-490=460, but 586-460=126). More about this Contract is in the Legatee Table of LvS4a.htm. Now, let's see how this 490 has played, in real history you can check, without spending time on the subcomponents (which are covered at length in the "How God 'Mirrors' Time" link at page top): Back in 586BC, when Daniel wrote his book (often in Babylonian court language), there was no such thing as Islam (which started sometime after 610AD). And Daniel was writing, because back in 586BC, Solomon's Temple, built 490 years after the Exodus of 1440BC — was razed by Nebuchadnezzar. So Daniel was asking God when and if they'd ever have a Temple again, in Daniel 9. God said yep, in 70 years; then, in 516BC, the 2nd Temple was completed on the same spot. But then, razed yet again in 70AD, by Titus ("frieze" of Titus in Rome depicts the event); which was another 586 years later. Does "586" ring a bell? Now the plot thickens: 30AD, was when Christ died; while He was still alive in Matt24, He warned of the Temple's destruction; so, everyone knew it had only 40 years left, after 30AD (40 years is a standard warning period, in the Bible). Now, look: 490 years before He died in 30AD, the last OT prophet, was in that 2nd Temple, warning everyone (Malachi). And 490 years before that, the First Temple was Built. And 490 years before that, Moses began to write Genesis; that was 1440BC, the year of the Exodus. And 490 years before that, Joseph was first enslaved in Egypt. Of course, there'd have been no "Joseph", had Jacob never left Canaan: which he did, 490 years after the Flood. He was fleeing from Esau, cuz his mom encouraged him to steal the blessing: Papa Isaac mistook the fake hairy hands for the other son, and gave Jacob primogeniture rights — but Esau had already sold them to Jacob for a bowl of lentil stew. You just know fleeing Jacob was unaware of being 490-on-time! God had warned about that Flood by causing "Muth-Shalach" — "Methusaleh", to you — to be born. For his name means, the Flood occurs when he dies. Which he did and it did, in 2450BC, for Noah's 600th birthday present. God gave about 1000 years' advance notice, on that event (Methusaleh lived to be 969 years old). Methusaleh didn't get any 490's, since he was nearly double that, already. The 490 starts with Noah, 100 years before the Flood (aka "Noahic Covenant", among the erudite). Well, ooops. I forgot another 490. (There are so many, I miss 'em!) See, 100 years before the Flood, Noah was also older than 490; God then made a covenant with him as well, being as he'd already spent 20 years being laughed at for building this huge BOX, roughly the size of a WWII Liberty class ship; so this prior 490 concerned his newly-born son Shem (as in HaShem, most sacred term in Judaism other than the Sacred Tetragrammaton). So, The number of years between Noah's first son's birth, and Abraham's son Isaac's birth is.. you guessed it, 490 years. Isaac, not Ishmael. You could date Christ's Death by the date the first Temple was destroyed, using Daniel 9. God did that on purpose, to warn everyone when time would end; because the time left for Israel was to be the time left for the world, and time was running out. So using Daniel 9:25, everyone could know within 3 years, when Messiah would be born, because He'd have to declare Himself at age 30 like David did, and would have to finish bearing sins (per Isa53:10-12) by the end of that 490. So the accounting went like this: 490 years in Dan9:25, which includes the leftover 126 years the 2nd Temple had (950-490=460, but it ended 586, so 586-460=126); less 7 reserved years for the Tribulation (Dan9:26); and less another 7 years reserved in case Israel rejected Messiah (which played out during the 7 year, uneven seige of Jerusalem, 64-70AD). All this double-entry accounting is explained in more detail in the "To be or not to be" table in the "How God Mirrors Time" link at pagetop. So, for Christ's year of death, you'd follow the same procedure in the verse, but you'd have to 'mirror' the 70 years the Temple wasn't standing, since it was 'redeemed' by the 2nd Temple being constructed on time. Hence: 586-70 (Dan9:2) -49-434-70, -7 rejection reserve = what we would call 30AD, the year He died. (The 126=70+49+7 reserve.) That 30AD year was the 1000th anniversary of David's retirement as king in favor of Solomon: David died 7 years later at age 77. Christ is the 77th son from Adam. 77 in Biblical numerology is a mathplay on 70 sevens, the 490 accounting measure, and also signifies Perfection (Completion of an obligation). That's why Matthew 1 reconfigures the relevant progenitors in the genealogy to 14; why Luke 3 lists all 77 sons (only one "Cainan" belongs in that list, some scribe later messed up one of the manuscript copies). Based on David, "1000" is another Time accounting 'box' God uses (two 490's and a 70 are 'housed' inside a 1000 and a 50 as God's Basic Time accounting unit); you could more easily figure out His Birth as the 1000th anniversary of the time David became king over united Israel (which is why you get that second 7 year reserve, two bullets up). That's the outer deadline: else, the Kingship would lapse, for the 1000 is related to Kingship/Civilization, in God's Accounting for Time System. So knowing His Birthdate would be fairly obvious, though not directly from Daniel 9. You'd use Daniel 9 to audit your birthyear calculations. Everyone dated "years x" from an important event, so time was measured relative to that event. That's why this Time Accounting System is in sets of 1050 years (490+70+490, and 1000+50), not in our modern BC/AD terms. For that reason, our modern dating is usually off by 3 years, if we apply the Bible's counting. Moreover, Bible accounting intercalates a year, but over long periods like this the intercalation doesn't matter. (It mattered to know about the lack of intercalation for 30AD, to get the chronology of the week of His Death, correct. See PassPlot.htm for that info.) These aren't just arcane numbers, but real dates you can verify. Quite a lot of weird timing with reference to this Rock, huh. Daniel 9:26 says after Messiah is killed the second Temple will also be abominated and destroyed. Well, it is. So, any Jew knows that. Yet, who among Jews, Christians, anyone.. notices the faithful fulfillment of that prophecy? Verse makes it plain, doesn't it? Messiah becomes the Living Temple (see also Heb6, which references Dan9:26 allusively), having finished paying for mankind. So, since the Jews didn't want Him and He'd finished, He goes away.. then the Temple goes away too, Dan9:26. But He will come back to "regather" them after a very nasty 7-year period also promised them (Dan9:27), which we Christians call "The Tribulation". So, the Jews don't remember about that last 7 years; so they expect to see Him come back right about where the Dome now sits. So, you can wait and watch, if you link your computer to the camera facing the Wailing Wall: many Jewish sites on the internet, do just that. Here is one such site, at Aish.com (AishHaTorah):Click here. Since it is a live shot, you might get only darkness: Jerusalem time is GMT+2 hours. Back in the OT, if a Gentile believed in "Adonai" (but called "Christ" in the LXX, term means Anointed One, aka Messias), he was automatically Jewish. It's not racial, though the Jews are definitely blood-sons of Abraham, and get many special privileges as a result. Still, the larger promise is an eternal one, requiring faith in "Adonai", back then; full name now: Lord Jesus Christ. So, now, if a Jew believes in Christ (and many do), he's part of Church. Bigger spiritual benefits, actually. LvS4a.htm will explain all that. God keeps His Promises, and.. as we've seen in part — He sure seems to orchestrate even Time itself. Links at the very top of the page are all related to this Grand Design, so you can test for sense. For it's really faster to test the proposed Nature of God.. to see if He exists. Again, just like math: you presume true, then work through the 'math' (here, logic, sense, math, coherence, etc.) to see if the 'theory' hangs together. Quite a lot of "490" timing with reference to this Rock and its people, huh. This 490 thingy pops up a lot before the Temple was destroyed; many more times than the sampling listed earlier in this table. Suffice it to say, you get the hint that "something" is going on with these dates.. Dates which plot a provable timeline based on what seems like fantasy — until you compare them in history you can check. In which case, Time is not an Illusion; but rather, an Inheritance. The history of these two Stone Structures is well-documented in many contemporary records, and for centuries; being as, they have been the center of a lot of conflict, for over 3000 years. The most-disputed piece of real estate in history, with more written about it throughout history, than probably any other piece. With Two Stony Witnesses telling us what Time it is, Dan9:26c, Matt24, and preview of Rev11:1. Yet, quietly Hiding in plain sight, every night you turn on TV and hear what happened 'today' in that always-troubled, never-out-of-the-news, Jerusalem.

1. In the universe, there is cause-and-effect, which thus indicates God as ultimate Cause. It doesn't matter if one posits infinite universes which just always existed, a finite number of universes, the Big Bang, gradually-emerging universes, entropy, atrophy, expansion/contraction, evolution (any version), parallel universes, etc. All of these arguments rely on cause-and-effect, and necessarily start with an uncaused Beginning Point. Since cause-and-effect exists, the first (or uncaused) cause is more logically God than nothingness, aka "nihil". [Nerd Note: That Latin term is closer to the English "Nothing!" if you scream it (made famous in Cicero's speeches against the "Cataline").]

2. In the universe, there is animacy and inanimacy, order and disorder (apparent randomness). Inanimacy is less than animacy, so can never produce animacy. Disorder is less than order, so can never produce order. Animacy can die, and thus decompose, as it were, into inanimacy, but inaminacy can never progress to animacy. Order can dissolve into disorder, but disorder can never resolve to order. So, animacy and order are two properties of the cause of the universe, since the unverse has both. So, since disorder must come from previous order, disorder can resolve back towards order. So, animacy can develop/propagate/create, and animacy can devolve/become diseased/die. So, for inaminacy and disorder to exist, there must first be animacy and order. So, the existence of animacy and order more logically points to God than nihil.

3. Oppositeness exists in some kind of spectral balance-toward-equilibrium, no matter what standard of measure one uses. Male/Female, life/death, creating/destroying, health/disease, pleasure/pain, freedom/tyranny, competition/ harmony: these are but a few examples of paradox/irony all throughout both the structure and function of the universe. Moreover inanimacy is but a collection of components which also comprise animacy (e.g., organic elements without the "life" component). So, no form of inanimacy is a true opposite of animacy, but instead is merely non-alive. Oppositeness, then, is a function of animacy, not inanimacy. Forces which seem inanimate derived their "energy" from animacy, as we saw in Proposition #2. So, since the universe is known to be finite, and it exists by means of a hypostasis-of-opposites, infinity must exist, and it must be ANIMATE. "Infinity" cannot mean infinite progression/regression: rather, such progression/regression would be but another form of continuing finity. So, since animacy is known to be finite, its opposite would be infinite (non-progressing/regressing) animacy. So, the true opposite of animate finity must be nonspacetime, a big living-ness in an immaterial "dimension". So, it is reasonable to say: a) science doesn't yet realize it has discovered and measured this immaterial livingness dimension via its finite instruments, or b) science can't detect this immaterial livingness dimension by means of its finite instruments. So, the existence of oppositeness more logically points to Infinite God than to nihil.

4. A set cannot contain itself, but can be contained by a set larger than itself. The largest set which can exist would contain all other sets, but itself is uncontainable, since no larger sets can exist. The largest set which can exist consists not only of material reality, but also of all possible and impossible material realities, all potential and nonpotential material realities, and all of possible/impossible/ potential/nonpotential immaterial realities. This is so, because if the largest set did not also include the impossible/nonpotential/ immaterial, the possible/potential/material could not have existence/order/ change. The largest set which can exist thus more logically points to God than to nihil, since a null set by definition excludes all of the possible/potential/material. Moreover, because a set cannot contain itself, the universe cannot be its own cause.

5. Illusions (and illogic, irrationality) "exist". The existence of illusion is "real", in the sense that the one having the illusion (animal, human) acts/reacts based upon the illusion. The reactor, being real, thus creates real reactions based upon illusion, thus breathing "life" into the illusion and giving it real force in reality. For example, a dog might "imagine" that his tail is some other animal to "catch", so he chases his tail, thus realizing the catching process, just as he would if that tail were another animal. For example, a human might imagine that if he robbed a bank, he would be happy (the illusion being that money buys happiness), so robs the bank, and imagines himself happy, thus realizing via the imagination a pseudo-happiness behavior both he and others mistake for real happiness. For example, a woman can imagine herself pregnant, and as a result, her body will respond and appear pregnant, with all of the biological characteristics of pregnancy being evident except the presence of a fetus in the womb (psychiatrists call this phenomenon "hysterical pregnancy").

In each of these examples, the hallucinator lives in an imaginary world. That world is not ever real, except in the mind of the hallucinator. Moreover, his hallucination is contagious. So, the hallucinator affects his body and periphery via the hallucination; yet, what becomes real still is not as the hallucinator imagines it to be. Again, animacy demonstrates its superior power over inanimacy; moreover, the faculty of imagination which can continue despite contradicting reality must mean that animacy is essentially immaterial, for materiality does not prevent animacy from exceeding factual bounds. Thus we see that the capacity to imagine exceeds the boundaries of material reality, which capacity could not exist if materiality was the sum total of existence. So, the ability to make a reality upon nonreality, the ability to be irrational, to have illusions and act in the real world upon those illusions, more logically points to God than to nihil.

6. Neither thought nor will can be materially read directly in the brain. We can't find any subatomic "thought particles". We do know that the brain is used for thought; we know that when the hemispheres are separated, we can tell a lot about what hemisphere is connected with which types of thought/perception, but thoughts per se cannot be read IN the brain (like one would read DNA, binary code, or a book). Further, given the huge amount of thought in humans, and the smallness of the human brain, were thought material, it could not be stored in such a small space. Further, there are no subatomic "will particles" we can read. We can influence will (e.g., by separating the hemispheres), and we know that the body has an influence on will, but will can, if sufficiently strong, override all other influences against it (i.e., men-in-combat); so much so, that the body changes in accordance with that will. If you tell yourself you are tired, your body will become tired; or, if you are truly tired, but want enough to be energetic, your body will become energetic. So, since a) thought has no discernible material existence, yet is nonetheless demonstrably real, to have thought more logically points to God than to nihil. Moreover, since will, which likewise has no discernible material existence, can change the body, the existence of will more logically points to God than to nihil.

7. Other realities in the universe are demonstrably immaterial (besides thought). The so-called "natural laws" themselves are real, and their effects measurable, but the laws themselves have no mass or energy which can be detected. Thus, we have long assumed that the objects of these laws contain these laws inherently within themselves (imagining the objects to have such laws as inherent properties), but we cannot prove this assumption true, any more than we can prove thought, material. Time, also, has no discernible mass or energy. We thus consider time to be an artificial concept, a way of measuring motion/life, or we consider time to be a property of the objects in the "set" we call the "universe(s)".

All these traditional explanations are premise-level assumptions, rather than proofs. If the "natural laws", and time, are in fact separate and immaterial, all the data we have observed would behave in exactly the same way. Further, since these laws (and time) universally exist, such existence being demonstrated by the effects we can measure, the existence of these laws (and time) is more logically-concluded to be independent of the objects which are affected by them, rather than merely components/properties of the objects. For example, the seemingly-elastic "relativity" of time (e.g., in vector analysis) might instead be explained by counter-interactions among objects of mass alone; that real time is totally unaffected (so, time seems to "slow" or "speed up" between bodies-in-motion only because an independent real time imposes equilibrating force upon the bodies-in-motion). Thus our traditional premises about the nature of these laws (and time) being merely properties of the material universe, are weakly inconclusive. Because our premises are weakly inconclusive, to say that the laws (and time) are separate, immaterial  inventions from God is a superior explanation, since it takes the larger database (including immateriality) into account.

8. "Bad" exists. Typically humans call death, harm, disease, deprivation, war, conflict, loss, weakness, etc., "bad". It's easy to see how "good" and "bad" values have their roots in survival instincts, but if all life has survival instincts, and it does, how can "bad" be an intrinsic property of life? We might explain "bad" as a correction, hence not inherently "bad", improving the stock of life as a whole by testing (so to strengthen), or by destroying the weaker and-now-unneeded elements of it. We thus argue it is not "bad" when viewed on a large-enough scale. Yet, we see that the life-stock does not improve: whether in ants or in humans, there are always many weak/low in the society, and only a few strong/high. We consider man to have "progressed" because he no longer (mostly) lives in caves or must fend for his food, but man has never been able to transcend the universal animal-societal structure of many weak, few strong.

So it is not true that "the fittest" survive, but rather, the weak. It is likewise not true that the life stock actually improves; but rather, the fittest come to dominate, and are always relatively few in number (among the population of the species in question). Such domination always depends on the always-many weak/low of the society, yet at the same time the dominator group causes that society to have a continuing, organized life; and conflict abounds between competing dominators' groups. In short, by 'rising to the top', the so-called "fittest" become the MOST WEAK, for they can then only survive by receiving from the weak: by dominating. Differentiation, which makes for those exceptional 'strong', also makes those same 'strong' more vulnerable to the weak. (Man cannot live without plants, but plants can live without man; an amoeba ingested by man can kill him — but not, the amoeba.) So, it's not surprising that we never see the strength of the strong truly improve the stock of the weak. For example, disease continues. So those weak who carry the disease nonetheless continue. So, the strength of the strong at most acts as a balance against the the weak; at no time do the weak of a species disappear, until and unless they are all too weak. In short, the "fittest" — rather than improving the species by surviving in ever-increasing numbers — instead remain few. So the "fittest" instead have the function of merely slowing self-destruction: they do not improve the species.

This dichotomy (many weak, few strong) should be anti-survival, hence "bad". Instead, it is seen that survival requires "bad". So, survival depends on anti-survival; life, on death; prosperity, on poverty; "good", on "bad". Such a structure must continually move toward self-destruction, not toward improvement, despite any observed balances between "good" and "bad", for the foundation of "good", is "bad". In fact, we see historically, that once the animal/human group collectively gains dominance in an area, the growth of such group to a high-enough prosperity level "tops out" (reaches the top of some invisible, Malthusian, Bell-curve) and instead sows the seeds of its own destruction: tyranny/war tend to follow prolonged prosperity.

So we see that even "the fittest" are internally self-destructive. Moreover, what enables "the fittest" to survive is not only their dominance and hence dependence on the weak of theirs/other species — but also, the survival of even "the fittest" depends on they themselves being weaker than externals. Again, it's WEAKNESS, not strength, which is essential to survival. Any growth in "strength" tends to accelerate self-destruction, time and time again. Externals are what slow this tendency toward self-destruction, in either the weak or the strong: weather, natural barriers, natural disasters, geographic dispersion, human/animal limitations, and many other events over which the animal/human group in question has no or insufficient control. Absent these externals, a group self-extinguishes, much as a wildfire eventually burns out.

One can posit a randomness to these external limitations, surely. However, is it logical to deem these externals' salutary effects as merely "random" for such a long time? Billions of years? And always just enough to keep life going, despite its own internal nature of self-destruction? Surely the lifeforms themselves are not so conspiratorily organized; there must be some overall external 'prime directive' which not only keeps things in balance, but also makes "bad", good. So, the existence of "bad" is internally-contradictory, and the continued external preservation of life despite its internal contradiction more logically points to God than to nihil. Moreover, since for Infinity to remain homeostatic, bad would have to be continually converted to good, and since finity of itself would not have this converting ability (since finity is the opposite of infinity), the existence of "bad" more logically points to an Infinite God causing the conversion, than nihil.

9. Throughout the centuries, men have claimed the existence of one or more deities. Furthermore, all such claims have a remarkable similarity of "testimony". Virtually every faith takes into account the same information; so much so, it becomes obvious that all these faiths are related: one of them might be the 'parent' faith. Just as a linguistics expert can trace the origins of languages, so also (with sufficient time and diligence) one can trace the world's faiths to a common origin. It becomes a question of finding out which of the world's faiths is the most coherent and all-explaining. Of course, if one of these is also found to be wholly non-contradictory, maybe one has "found God".

Nevertheless, in all cases, deities are said to be creative/causative of man; man is said to have some relationship with these deities which runs along love/hate or reward/punishment lines, with varying degrees of intimacy/impartiality/ personality/impersonality; man is said to have some sort of afterlife; the world we observe is said to be only a portion of reality.

Here's the point: if we look at these claims en masse, the way a juror must evaluate eyewitness/ expert testimony in a trial, despite all the complex differences in these many "faiths", these billions of people throughout time nonetheless are united in their "witness" that some greater Being is "guilty" of existence. Now, let's switch metaphors.  Statistically speaking, when one has a large enough data-population all pointing to the same trend, the fact that individuals within that population might not belong (i.e., are hallucinating), becomes irrelevant, and the trend remains true. After all, both a jury and science operate by means of collected observations. What we have, here, is a gigantic collection of observations, across millenia, made by billions upon billions of people, from every cultural and educational level, from every society. Surely the overwhelming weight of so much observation for so long over so varied an innumerable group indicates some underlying validity to the existence of deity.

Moreover, the following subproposition must be admitted: if deity exists, science could not knowingly measure it by material means, since by definition "deity" is immaterial. In other words, maybe science is in fact observing the existence of (some type of) deity, but doesn't yet know that fact. Further, if man is partly immaterial, science can't yet "know" that, either. So, if man is indeed partly immaterial, HE can "know" of any superior immateriality, particularly if the superior immateriality reveals itself to man by (say) immaterial means. Thus, the welter of observations throughout time might indeed represent the only "measurable" way to know of deity; at least, until such time as science learns whether immateriality is demonstrated via the material instruments it has or will possess.

Such an huge population, taken en masse, repeated in every generation throughout all history, more logically points to God than to nihil.

10. For the relative to exist, there must be some absolute upon which the relative is ultimately based. The relationship may be many levels down/up from the item being relatively valued/evaluated, but the relationship must be grounded at some level into an absoluteness. A quick example: the type of food one eats may vary, so the variation is relative between foods; but the absolute necessity of eating to survive remains. Physical death, in turn, may be relative to physical life, so a different type of life may apply if the physical "version" does not, in which case the "absolute" of "life" is the underpinning of all forms of "life". Moreover, since we see physical life itself is but an unending cycle between matter and energy, it is logical to conclude that immaterial life doesn't really end, either. Thus if relative immaterial life exists, then it must be grounded in Absolute Life, aka, "God". However one defines, "God". Thus there is no such thing as "nihil".

Next illustration of relatives being founded in absolutes: "Truth" is often called "relative", particularly when measuring beliefs. However, whatever the belief is, such a belief is either factually true.. or false. One might believe "god" is made of green cheese, for example. Either "god" is, or is not, made of green cheese. The fact that one might not be able to prove the belief neither validates it nor invalidates it. Relative truth, then, is grounded to absolute truth in the sense of what-percentage-true. Such a relative truth may be more-true than another relative truth, or less-true compared to another relative truth, but all of them are individually grounded in some percentage to the whole truth. Were there no whole truth, there would be no relative truth; in fact, no truth would exist at all, absent a "1st-parent" truth. So 1) absolutes necessarily exist, and 2) these absolutes can be conceived, even if they cannot be wholly proven via the relative truths we think we know. If "God" is Absolute Life, then "God" must also have an Attribute of Absolute Truth, for any relative living truth to even exist. So the fact that any living truth exists relatively, more logically points to "God", than to nihil.

Last illustration: Numbers are always and only founded in absolutes. While "1" is relative to "zero", "zero" itself is an absolute (absolute nothingness) in the real world. The opposite of "zero" is not endless progression/regression, for endless progression/regression is never exclusive; the opposite of "zero" is true infinity (no beginning, no end, no progression); so what's excluded, is real-zero; and we know that in a real world of real numbers, "zero" does not exist. Negative relative values must "subtract" from what positively exists. Positive relative values must "add" to what positively exists. So, the real absolute to which negative/positive relatives relate is more logically true for infinity, versus "zero", and true infinity more logically points to God than to nihil.

11. Will/conscience/personality "overrides" in man cannot be reliably accounted for based on "Survival" or "herd" instincts. Whereas Propositions #5 and #6 dealt with the immaterial nature and superior power of will/thought, this Proposition concerns the sources for man's motives, and the impact of external "competitions" (so to speak) on those motives. Granted, survival and herd-bound instinctual behavior is seen in man as well as animal, but the function of these "overrides" is far more unpredictable in man; and often, based on attitudes superfluous to survival or herd-needs. Behaviouralists have tried to seek connections for these "overrides" in the individual's past or current environment with very limited success. The current Celera genome project cautions against using human genomic data, even once it becomes fully decoded, to predict human behavior in any individual, due to these "overrides", even though determinism is largely accepted to be the cause of human behavior.

One person's taste in behavior, clothing, art, versus another of the same family may be very different, and no cause within the environment or genetic makeup can be attached to account for it. Further, these tastes do not necessarily enhance or harm survival or group-belonging. Most of all, the assessment of importance, the degree of desire to "get right" varies widely for no apparent environmental reason. We humans generally disagree within ourselves, with each other, with our surroundings: the self must willfully override that disagreement. The person simply makes choices, and the environmental conditioning received may or may not influence those choices. Whatever the influence may be, it is only made effective due to the person's WILL that it be so.

This is not to say no correlations exist between will and genetic dispositions/environmental factors. Much research in (for example) politics, religion, criminology, and marketing are accurately predictive of "types" or "groups". An individual's seemingly-unexplained departure from the expected norm can often be traced to given experiences with largely-predictable reactions. However, even a long-conditioned individual can suddenly reverse course simply by revaluing past norms: a drug addict can decide "out of the blue" one day he no longer wants to be addicted, and simply quit; a bright student may suddenly decide that being bright is no longer valuable; a scientist may suddenly decide to become a singer. These shifts in conscience can be due to the simple insight/belief that another course of action is better, and the will then blocks the effect of the past, and the person changes course. Thus, despite the real correlations, the individual is not locked into such behaviors, despite long conditioning, and every influential factor "against" him.

From what sources, then, does man derive such powerful motives? Why can he sustain a will despite strong, material counter-influences? In short, these "overrides" are far more powerful and varied in man, versus animals, even if animals are someday proven to have them. Animals have yet to demonstrate such sheer overriding acts of revaluative will. Such ability to revaluatively override, in man, thus indicates his "personhood", unlike animalhood, is DUAL: that man's source-of-motivation is not wholly material. Thus would be accounted the cause for the incompleteness of material influence, on man. So it is more logical to assume revaluative will comes from God than from nihil.

12. Not only does man have Morality (and other forms of abstract thought), but he also can rebel against it. Of course, it has been long argued that morality is sourced in survival instincts, and that abstract thought is but the cognitive embodiment of the "natural laws" we see apply to all life. However, from what source did these survival instincts and "natural laws" come? Could a material and ungoverned universe "create" them? If we say "yes, they were thus created", why then is there so much rebellion against them, in man? For example, why does man usually rebel at the idea that he is soulless, or derived from primates? The rebellion is always accompanied by a charge that it is not right, so morality is the basis of the rebellion. Further still, rebellion against morality and abstract thought occur on a regular basis in each generation. How could a material and ungoverned universe "produce" the ability to rebel against its own prime directives? Especially, since such rebellion is rationalized, either way?

Man has rebelled against the idea of God, too. Granted, the evidence from Proposition #9 is that man has overwhelmingly concluded "God" exists — throughout time, in every societal/economic/ educational level. However, he has also universally rebelled against the idea of God. This rebellion ranges from simple, scoffing dismissivness to extreme hostility; from "my-god-is-better-than-your-god" bloodshed, to "Who cares?" In all events, whether individuals/societies are for or against some idea of "God", the idea that "God" is a moral Being Who is the Author and Mediator of Justice remains. Why is such a Being attributed with such qualities? And, in rebelling against whatever idea of "God", why such rebellion? Certainly, if a material and ungoverned universe's prime directives gave 'birth', as it were, to the concept of God so to assure survival and order, then no one would be able to rebel against at least some idea of "God".

It has been said, justly, that the that mere ability to conceive of God is no proof that God exists. Fair enough. It has also been said that if unfairness exists, God must not exist. It is quite often said that since God is (allegedly) not visible to man, then God does not exist. (What constitutes "visible" is of course defined in the mind of the speaker, no two of whom are alike.) Notice how all of these claims are based upon some connection to a reason, the root idea of which is that there ought to be a reason for saying a thing true or untrue. From what source does this standard derive? Where does man get the idea that reason should account for anything? For, even when man rebels, the rebelling is first justified in his mind based on some (correct or incorrect) reason.

In short, the idea of fairness reasoning is always at the root of any kind of moral thinking; always at the root of any kind of rebellion. The entire idea of fairness is an abstract, and no two humans have exactly the same conception of it. Disagreements abound. So, how is it that such disagreements, such rebellions, due to an fairness reasoning, exist, in a material and ungoverned universe? After all, we don't see any animals or plants debate or reason out what's fair: we only see them fight, and win or lose.

The ability to have moral norms/abstract thought; the ability to have them in excess of, or in rebellion to the supposed parent, argues more logically for a universe created by God than by nihil.

13. The universe must reflect its creator. We know that the universe must reflect its creator, since a thing made by something/someone necessarily is a child of the essence of its maker. This is true whether the "creator" is a bundle of computer instructions, a DNA-like "life force" of no personhood, or a person. Further still, the universe is not greater than its creator, so it is not possible for the universe as "child" to be equal to or greater than the (initial, highest) "parent", since the child cannot ever be 100% of such parent's essence. So, if the "parent" is a bundle of life-force instructions, with no personhood, then personhood cannot exist in the universe. Since personhood does exist in the universe, such a fact argues more logically for a universe created by a Personal God(s) than from: a) nihil, or b) a "life-force" bundle of instructions.

14. If God exists, and made man, He reveals Himself to man in a way which makes sense. This would have to be true, if God exists, because we have the ability to reason. If God gives man the faculty of reason, then God must want to reasonably communicate with man. If God wants to communicate with man, then God must want to have a mutually-cognitive relationship with man. For, if He did not want to communicate with man, there would be no way to know of Him, let alone know of him via reasoning. Further, since man is equipped with reason, God must have given man freedom to decide whether to accept or reject one or more aspects of this relationship. So:

• God must have a plan for man's life which
• He wants to communicate, and
• this plan must entail some kind of learning/acceptance, which
• God has equipped man to be able to "do".

If God has a plan for any man's life, He has a plan for each person's life. This plan must thus be communicable in a way which makes sense, else how can man learn and accept it?

Furthermore, it becomes evident that:

• emotion, signs/visions/wonders and similar demonstrations which do not require reason would not be the major means of communication, since man is equipped with reason. (We must need reason, if we have it.)
• Any human limitations in comprehending God need not hinder the successful receipt of this reasonable communication, since God created it.
• Thus, we also know that God would be able to transcend these limitations, so to reveal Himself to every human being in a way that makes provable sense. (A God who authors reason would obviously approve of reason.)
• However, we know that unaided human rationalism/empiricism would be insufficient.
• Therefore it would depend on the individual's need, as to whether emotion/signs/visions/ wonders were also employed by God to facilitate the transmission of any communication.

Finally, the variation in man's perception of God would be accounted for: the revelation given man is not accepted to the same extent and in the same fashion by all mankind. We see in Proposition #9 that the idea of God has always been universal, but the revelation accepted by humankind varies greatly, even though each faith has the same elements. We see from Proposition #12 that many totally reject any idea of God, BUT even the rejections reference the same elements as to what "God" essentially means. In short, the fact that man variantly accepts or rejects whatever revelation is made, is always based on some kind of reasoning process; is always based on an idea of "God" which has at some foundational level, an agreed meaning. So, it makes sense to say that God's plan for each person has been universally disclosed, but is variantly accepted or rejected by each human, at any given point in time.

So the question becomes, is this "God", and this "Plan", as mankind thinks of it, correct? Although every faith has the same elements, the variation and contradiction among the elements of a faith, compared with its siblings, is extreme. For example, does it even matter if one is an atheist? An agnostic? Should it matter that one knows, knows incorrectly, correctly? How should the relationship between "God" and man function? For how long, and with what results? Should the "God" be fair? Could "God" be "God" if not fair? Many would say "no". Should a God who authored an entire universe be non-contradictory? Can a Being called "God" remain "God" (whatever "God" means), if that "God" is self-contradictory by nature? Should such a God be only fair to what/who He/It creates, or should such a God also be fair to Himself/Itself? What benefit does "God" get for creating? What benefit does man get for having a relationship with this "God"?

Every faith in mankind, however ancient or simplistic, offers answers to every question in the above paragraph. Every faith has some definition of "God". In short, there has never been a normal human being who reached adulthood who didn't have some idea of "God". There has never been a normal human being who reached adulthood who didn't decide to accept or reject some idea of "God". So, the question remains: what version of God makes the most sense?

---

The foregoing propositions and their corollaries together constitute a superior accounting for the whats and whys of the universe we "see", than can be accounted for by nihil. Since the test of a theory is the superiority of what it can accurately account, and these propositions convey a superior accounting, it remains to evaluate "which version of God", to see if such propositions are worthy of being called "theory" or "truth".

Jump Links:[Ways to analyze IF 'God' exists]   [Metempsychosic/multiple/evolving 'gods']  [Monotheism]  [Christian concepts] [Other God Ideas]  [Back to Home Page]

---

In assessing the nature of God, there are basically three issues to evaluate. These "Existence" issues, as you evaluate them, will lead you to conclude Attributes of "Nature":

• Is God a Person(s)? If "no", then "godness" is some kind of life-force, with no will-driven intelligence. If "yes", personhood (will, intelligence,etc) is part of the nature of "godness".
• Is God Absolute? This question addresses the scope of "godness", be it personal, or life-force. This scope issue must evaluate what characteristics make for "godness" as distinct from some other being-ness. If God is not absolute, it is also necessary to see how many "gods" there are, and who/what "created" them.
• What kind of relationship does God have/want with man? This question addresses how "godness" and "man-ness" should relate. Answers to this question are largely determined by the answers to the first two questions, so one uses this litmus test after getting tenable answers to the first two, above.

All the religions/faiths which have ever existed offer their own answers to these questions. To simplify one's search, it is better to first reason out the questions generically, since if an answer is true, it would not require a particular faith to prove it true: such a faith would be confirmatory and elaboratory, but would not be the sole "witness" to the truth.

Is God a Person(s)?

If God is not a Person(s), the animacy, order, design of the universe is a bundle of computer-like instructions. Free will would not exist, since the universe must reflect its creator, and the creator here is absent personhood, hence absent will. In short, if God is not a Person, then we can't be, either.

Such a conclusion is problemmatic, in light of the data we have. Will, will-driven conscience/ intelligence, asthetics, emotion (required, in finite persons but not possible in infinite persons), irrationality (will choosing against reason), rationality (will choosing reason), faith (will choosing to believe): all of these should not exist. If God is not a Person(s), will-driven conflict also should not exist, since personhood should not exist.

Thus, to say God is not a Person(s) creates a jamming in the empirical data we have, and much of the data becomes unexplainable, since how can persons come from non-persons (no set can contain itself, and personhood is an advanced attribute necessarily present in the 'parent' set). So it is the more logical, based on the data we have, to say God is a Person(s).

Is God Absolute?

If God is not Absolute, we are faced with the issue of multiple deities, none of whom is absolute. Absoluteness might be in the sum total of all of those deities, but since none of them is absolute, how did each such deity come into being? To answer this question, we must first look at what "Absolute" must mean.

"Absoluteness" requires certain primary characteristics, each of which must be inseparable from the other(s):

• Infinity. No beginning, no end, not subject to spacetime. It's the Quality of Infinity which 'makes' all Attributes Absolute: Limitless, as well as Unchanging (aka "Immutable"). Further, the Being would be Unsustained (meaning, doesn't have to exert any effort to stay whole, or alive; further, that the Being is completely Independent). Also, Not Emotional (since "emotion" requires change to exist). Also, not corporal, since any 'body' is a beginning and an ending of some kind.
• Righteousness. Absoluteness has no value apart from Righteousness. This is a structural integrity attribute. Can the entity hold together, despite any and all pressure? Can the entity know what is needed to insure the integrity of anything it creates? Will the entity want this holding-together? In short, it's a competence attribute, and a standards attribute. If what's Righteous is not desired to some extent, or not known to some extent, the viability of the entity or what it creates/oversees would be endangered, to the extent of such willful, or ignorant, incompetence.
• Justice. This is the 'implementer' of Righteousness, so is likewise an essential component of the Being's Integrity. It's one thing to know and want what is Righteous, but how to carry out such a Standard? Justice insures against the Being becoming unable to implement, preserve, and maintain the function of Righteousness in relationships to Self, others, to anyone/anything the Being creates. Justice insures the structual integrity of creation without compromise to the Being's Own Standards.
• Love. Shouldn't the Being enjoy being? Lack of Love, to the extent present, would likewise be a threat to its Integrity, so Righteousness and Justice depend on Love. (Hatred hurts, and so, destroys; love pleases, and so, builds). Love cannot survive unless it is independent from externals. To the extent Love is not independent of externals, externals can adversely impact the Being's enjoyment-of-being. So if Love remains toward the 'internals' of Righteousness and Justice, the Absoluteness-of-Being remains a Happy, and Homeostatic Integrity.
• Veracity. This is not merely the quality of being Truthful, faithful, but the quality of "being" the Truth; without this Attribute, the Deity could not only lie, but could also be mistaken in any analysis or decisions. Moreover, Veracity would have to be Independent within itself, containing all relationship-formulas for all real or potential or non-potential variables: the largest number set, so to speak, of not only variables, but the formulas for relationships between them. So this Veracity would have to be Loved, for Righteousness and Justice to have the requisite Integrity, too.
• Omniscience, without which the Deity could make mistakes or be complicated by ignorance, absurdities. Veracity, of course, could not exist apart from Omniscience.


• Omnipotence, without which the Deity could not effectuate all that may be rightly needed or rightly desirable, with respect to Self or others.


• Omnipresence, without which the Deity could not effectuate any Other Attributes with respect to finite creation. Infinity must not only be "outside" spacetime, but must be superior to it. So, whatever "dimension" Infinity "occupies", as it were, spacetime must be wholly bisected, so to speak, by that "dimension". (Infinity suggests two things: 1) immateriality is finitely-intensive (not extensive at all); and 2) time is intensive, not merely extensive. Unfortunately this webpage shouldn't explore the tantalizing ramifications of these two ideas.)
• Sovereignty, without which the Deity is not a) a Person, and b) a Person able to choose.


• Eternal Life, without which the Deity is not a Person, because not Alive. (Infinity is what 'makes' for "Eternal".)

If you work through the above "Absolute" Attributes listing, you'll see that, absent any one of them — or, absent an Absoluteness in any one of them — "God" would not be Absolutely Perfect. Such a fact begs the question of what the word "God" ought to mean. So, let's next review the concepts of multiple gods, to see if Absolute Perfection should be a litmus test for "God". Further, such review will help to evaluate how many Persons ought to be "God": is it Righteous for there to only be One? 10? 10,000? How many? After all, as we saw from proposition "14" above, if "God" really exists, this "God" will help you reason out the truth.

"Metempsychosis" literally means 'Change-soul': these are all evolution-like faiths, in the sense that one can spiritually 'progress', gradually or quickly, by means following some lifestyle. (Contrary to a lot of poor scholarship on the subject, what's known as "Gnosticism" is really as old as mankind. It spans #1-#3, below, so it might be the 'grandaddy' of all metempsychosic ideas.) One can, for example, eventually evolve/transmigrate into higher-states-of-being via moral living, coupled with concentration-states (trances, intoned prayers, or chanting). The concentration-states are said to accelerate development of an inner spiritual-rapport type of communing consciousness (terms for this development vary by sect).

Metempsychosis is commonly called "reincarnation", but the actual term embraces more than that. Still, the idea is spiritual progression, and yes — usually the next plane-of-existence, if one has progressed, is higher. Like, in a different 'body'. So, even if one doesn't self-reincarnate, any potential change-of-residence for the soul would be metempsychosic. So, ALL gods deemed able to effectuate that change are included under this rubric.

Interestingly, modern science's 'evolution' is very similarly structured — without any moral connotations, but rather efficient survival. Some scientists would say that 'morality' is but a version of efficient survival, anyway. So, maybe these concepts are validated by science? Well, let's examine the idea.

One can basically divide Metempsychosis concepts of Godhood into three 'flavors':
1. Behind all these evolving-by-reincarnation beings, and presiding over them, is a Supreme Being who Himself/Itself did not evolve. Rather, this Being set in motion an evolutionary process for one or more lifeforms the Being created. This Being is benevolently involved with such lifeforms' advance over the eons of time.

2. Limited super-beings who somehow always existed or were begotten/promoted/'evolved' from past lives to god-status now help or hurt you in your attempt to 'progress'. Whether you know it or not.

3. There's no Supreme Being; instead, certain lifeforms gradually evolve on their own into gods. In this version, generally those now in god-states don't assist those below that status. In some versions, you don't even need to know you can progress: you just "do". Eventually.

In any of these versions, the potential claimed is that you might eventually become a 'god', over maybe multiple lifetimes and multiple lifeforms. (The word "god" might not be used — maybe "spirit", or some other word is used, instead.) An immoral lifetime usually requires that the next lifetime be more difficult in some way, to 'catch up', make up for the wrongs done in the immoral lifetime. However, in each 'flavor' there are sects which claim that libidinous pleasure (especially sexual pleasure) is the way to achieve this spiritual advance, so such pleasure-seeking would not be considered 'immoral', even if others are inconvenienced, hurt, or (sometimes even) killed in the process. Thus, for such sects, a punishing 'worse' next-lifetime would be one which is more ascetic.

It's never clear who 'gets' the value of the catching-up you do. Apparently you alone 'get' the value. That poses a problem, for it means that the others wronged are never recompensed for any wrong done them. So those wronged 'get' only the satisfaction of knowing you got punished. Why that's deemed sufficient, since those wronged never get restitution, I don't know. (However, I've heard it explained that there is some kind of law, like gravity, which acts to benefit such harmed beings. So far, that's about all I can get from anyone who'll explain it.)

All of these ideas have been around forever, so to speak.

• Historically and currently, this evolving-into-god concept (#1, #3) is the most popular. It spans a whole range of variations, from animism, gnosticism, some forms of Buddhism and Taoism, Scientology, New-Age, Hindusim (and its offshoots).

• Versions kindred to these (yet not recognized as such) span all of the simple, polytheistic god-myths of history: ancient Greco-Roman pantheons, African deities, etc. Some gnostic sects also belong here. All of these versions are essentially metempsychosic (#2): the "twist" is, it's often the god(s) who causes the soul-change, via 'begetting', rewards or punishments.

• Science's 'evolution', too, is essentially metempsychosic. Moreover, what we today call "evolution" has been discussed (under other 'titles') since ancient times. Science's 'evolution' technically considers life wholly material, so some individuals in the species transmute — which is but the material version of saying souls transmigrate (science doesn't yet know if it can "see" a soul). Still, the root idea is the same: progression.

So, if a) science evidences evolution, and b) man-becoming-god ideas have long been prevalent, might those two points prove such versions of "god" true? Let's see.

Let's start with #1, the version of metempsychosis which claims One Personal Supreme Being (i.e., Hinduism). This Being manifests Himself/Itself in various visible forms from time-to-time. Further, there's a wide spectrum of sub-beings who all are in various stages of progression, from nearly-one with the Supreme Being all the way down to the lowest of life forms which can evolve. (Avatar down to goat, for example.) This construction is coherent, given the premise. Evolutionary, even, but with a "Daddy" at the top, benevolently watching/helping the lesser ones reach the Goal of Oneness with Him. Creation is thus absolutely accounted-for: so, thus far, #1 is logical.

Well, maybe the Being is not so benevolent. Problem is, the nature of the Supreme Being is self-contradictory. Most of the #1 versions treat this Being as having in Him (It) some kind of evil as an attribute. This, because the self-contradiction is deemed necessary to the completeness of the Being. In short, good/bad, ying/yang, male/female are all deemed of the same balancing nature, so the Being itself must have the attribute of 'evil' or 'bad' to be complete, absolute. Thus evil in lesser beings is thus accounted-for, as well. [Hinduism in particular has much to say about the necessity of the Supreme Being having an Attribute of 'evil'.]

Therefore this Being actually practices/authors evil, doesn't merely allow it or withstand it. So any punishment meted out by the Being isn't necessarily 'right', nor does it have to be. Note well: this idea is not like the Biblical sarcasm in which God calls Himself 'evil' to point out the silliness of those who hate Him. In #1, evil is deemed a necessary attribute of any Supreme Being. Further still, the offenses by the lesser beings/souls to the attributed righteousness of this Being are deemed sufficiently atoned for by means of the subsequently worse lifetimes, until such atonement has been caught-up. The root idea, of course, is remedial correction in the errant being/soul(s), due to the Supreme Being's love for them.

Fair enough: but the Being never receives any recompense for what might be called 'sins'. Granted, it's impossible for the Being to be recompensed by any 'sinners', for the lesser-beings are all so much smaller: what do they have of sufficient value to offer? So, only punishment-for-correction is meted out to those who err, via the next-worse-lifetime. Hence, the Being never receives Justice for wrongs done to the Being. Hence, this Being, although depicted as Absolute Existence (i.e., in Hinduism), cannot be absolutely Righteous. Certainly, to forego one's own Standards in favor of love for some lesser-being is not wrong. Yet it is wrong for the Being not to love Himself/Itself as much: if His/Its Righteous Standards aren't met somehow, the Being is (perhaps unavoidably) masochistic. Masochism is never Love. Of course, it makes some sense that the Being is not absolutely Righteous, since the Being also has an attribute of Evil. Presumably, then, the attribute of Evil is not absolute, either. Even so, what's to prevent the Being from being capricious, sadistic? Especially since "evil" is considered an attribute necessary for completeness? After all, the Being is not compensated for any wrongs done to Him/It. That's consonant with the Being exercising "evil" with respect to Himself/Itself. So, why not also exercise that "evil" toward lesser beings? Especially since "evil" is necessary?

Hence, the contradiction: the Supreme Being, though claimed as Absolute (everyone and everything is a 'part' of this Being), isn't qualitatively Absolute. If not qualitatively absolute, then how can He/It be quantitatively Absolute? The two go together: infinity is infinity. So, the Supreme Being would not be Omnipotent, Omniscient, etc.

Thus, although this metempsychosic version of "God" does account for creation, it doesn't account for Absoluteness, despite the holy books' claims. So, either there's no good explanation, or, the version uses 'absoluteness' in the looser sense of "bigger than all the other beings/gods". Or — as you'll frequently hear from Hindu believers — God doesn't have to 'make sense', God just "Is". Root concept: This God is so Huge, no one can understand Him/It anyway. (There's a pretty Veda on that topic, but I can't remember where it is right now.)

Scientific confirmation of a Supreme Being would not be possible, if such a Being is infinite, for infinity has no spacetime characteristics, so cannot be measured empirically. Effects of this Supreme Being's 'work' of course could be measured, but the Being Himself/Itself would be beyond the scope of scientific measuring devices. If the Being is more limited, as the lack of absoluteness suggests, He/It still could not be measured scientifically, unless the Being had physical manifestations. Of course, religions which embrace this concept of an attributively-'mixed' Supreme Being (for lack of a better term), attest to manifestations. Science notes many unexplained phenomena: perhaps some of them are such manifestations. It's not clear, thus far.

In either #2 or #3 'flavors', there isn't (or need not be) any Supreme Being. Discussion will first consider both categories together, due to their similarities. Then, it will split off to consider #2 and #3 separately, for they also differ greatly.

Both #2 and #3 are similar with respect to these characteristics: there are multiple gods; they may be organized into some kind of authority-power hierarchy; they may act in concert; they may have no disclosed 'initial' state (i.e., some kind of 'birth'). Further, they usually are evolved or at least 'begotten' from some lower/higher 'parentage', if any kind of (at least middle-range) origin is discussed. In no event do any of these gods constitute a Supreme Being. More will be said about how #2 and #3 categories handle the creation story, after their differences are discussed.

Now to proceed to the differences. Let's start with #2, a category which is very familiar to people the world over. #2 gods are very personal, very much like human beings. So much so, people usually regard these god stories as allegories of human behavior, much like science fiction is a satire on current reality.

In #2, no one god is Omnipotent, although there is usually a chief (or most-powerful) god of some kind i.e., Zeus in the Olympic pantheon. These gods have a great deal of personality. They may or may not be organized into some kind of hierarchy. If they are so organized, there is a great deal of conflict among them. These gods tend to be begotten by other gods, as often as, if not more than, evolved. Further, an animal or even a mortal may be deified, as a sort of award for heroic living or heroic tragedy. Or, because it pleases the god out of whimsy to deify the person/animal. Often, gods can also procreate with mortals, thus creating half-god beings. In all cases, they love, they hate, they make mistakes, they do evil things, noble things. Writ large. Sometimes these gods war with each other; sometimes they are friendly. Man is usually caught between the gods' varying inter-god alliances/rivalries. Almost all god mythologies reflect the #2 versions. Some god-structures aren't as hierarchical as the Greco-Roman model, although there is at least some loose system of authority, with someone basically 'at the top'.

Offenses to the #2 gods are generally quite personal and even emotional: made up for by some sacrifice or heroic deed. More often, sacrifice: some kind of giving-up or loss, often of someone/something belonging to, or dear to, self. Sexual favors or sexual sacrifices frequently top the list of rewards or punishments. Sometimes, the erring soul loses some part of his anatomy — say, an eye — to compensate the wronged god. Sometimes, the erring soul loses his true love, his youth, his livelihood, or his life. Sometimes, even, after these payments/losses, the wronged god wants more retribution. Alternatively, other gods who war against the god might aid the 'guilty' soul — so to defeat or replace the god he 'wronged'. In short, there is always some form of punishment owed the god, but also some blessing one can get, in return for (say) dedication/sacrifice/good deeds. Moreover, a mere mortal can sometimes play these gods against each other, to get more out of them. However, the god(s) don't ever receive objective restitution for the wrong done. Sometimes they 'take' things/people as restitution, but there's no commonly-agreed standard which 'governs'. Any 'justice' is more dependent on balance-of-power alliances, than on 'what's right'. So, of course, no gods are Absolutely Righteous. Power seems to be the more-important 'virtue'.

#2's version is not particularly evolutionary, except perhaps in a broad or allegorical sense. A god might make a person into a toad for 'bad' behavior. The person doesn't evolve upward over time back into a human state. He has to be changed by some god. Similarly, a human might be begotten of a god, or instead deified by a god — once that change occurred, he can change himself into anything within his god-powers, or be changed into some other state (but usually can't lose his god-ness) by another, more-powerful god than he. Further still, you don't see folks in the afterlife ("shades") evolving, but they can a) be restored to life 'back among the living', or b) nonetheless be deified. You don't see the gods evolving, either. They usually conquer in some way to add to their powers. Or, lose to a conqueror. Still, in the broad sense of "promotion", that type of progression might be regarded with a similitude to evolution.

Some other versions of #2 are more proactive, more truly evolutionary, and the dividing line between 'mortal' and 'god' is fuzzier. Here, there may be competition, because the higher ones don't want new 'members', so to speak. In short, one can progress despite being evil. It's power, more than virtue, which makes for advance. However, virtue has its own power, so — basically a spectrum of good guys vs. bad guys obtains. Without the sharp demarcation of 'gods' and 'mortals' so prevalent in more ancient pantheons. Here, those who want 'you' as an ally will help you. Those who want to stop your progression will try to get in your way. Kinda like real life, but writ large. Oh — and you don't always know this is what's happening to you, either. You might have to advance enough, in order to get that 'disclosure'. Hopefully, from one of the good guys.

The #3 gods are markedly different, and conform much more to science's idea of evolution, plus a beyondness-quality science can't yet evaluate. Two characteristics stand out: these beings are harmonious, peace-loving — and, aloof. Often, the #3 versions depict the higher beings as benevolent; these beings almost always evolved out of war-like states into peaceful beingness. In such versions, these beings tend to be very impersonal, hierarchical-yet-democratic. They sometimes do get mildly involved in helping the lesser souls (i.e., man) to grow beyond their current lifeform/lifetime's limitations. Usually, the being helped had some unusual experience which more-or-less accidentally put him in contact with these gods, who are usually depicted as balls of light, or feel-good consciousnesses. Seldom do these benevolent presences have physical bodies. Seldom do they seek contact with lesser beings. However, in some other #3 versions, these gods in concert seek the betterment of man — still, though, with a prevailing 'aloofness' quality in their 'help'.

The aloofness represents a looking-up to the principles of Freedom and Will. Ironically, this looking-up translates into a hive-like, Star Trekkie 'Borg' mindset in these #3 gods. They almost always act in concert, and one gets the impression that they could not and would not act on their own — more could not, than would not. They share a sort of collective consciousness, which accounts for their jointly-peaceful nature. They even seem passive. They are not particularly creative, as a rule, although some #3 versions have them jointly creating. They are individuals, but function as a group. Only. In short, once one progresses into the group, he loses his self-ness, in favor of oneness with the group. Until that time, he's basically on his own, and may never have contact with these higher beings (well, some #3 versions' beings help those who are nearly-succeeding on their own).

Predictably, offenses to #3 gods are (generally) impersonally treated. Retribution often has the same character of aloofness as do blessings. Pity seems an important function, but it has no emotion. The idea of love, tenderness, Righteousness is absent, except (perhaps) in a principle-level way, although it is represented as sublime. However, in none of these #3 versions is the god-group recompensed for any wrongs done to them. The punishment is deemed sufficient. So, of course, none of these gods are Absolutely Righteous, either. Not even as a group.

Animism is thus in the #3 category, and it represents the ultimate in aloofness: it treats "god" as (basically) a lifeforce of which every being is a 'part'. This 'god' is not a Person, but the sum of all beings' life-nesses. Individualism is eschewed. Happiness consists of de-personalizing, in favor of 'oneness' with all life. Personhood is a version of animalhood. So animism is a religious explanation for evolution, plus some immaterial life-force concepts which science can't yet measure. Thus, animism comes closest to evolution. Animism merely uses religious words for the same description as science so far has derived. It goes beyond evolution, in that some versions of animism depict higher states-of-being which science cannot (yet, anyway) measure.

The 'afterlife' portrayed by either version #2, personal gods, or #3, impersonally-bundled 'lights', is not particularly different from the current life; although #3 (and #1, for that matter) promises an amorphous nirvana quality not typically envisaged in #2. #3 sounds the better, for at least there is a cessation of earthly pain; whether that cessation is worth the loss of self-identity, you decide. In #2, there is no real promise of release from pain, but only the hope of more power; through which gain, presumably, you can better fight those who would cause you pain. Troubling is the fact that one's progression in (#1 or) #3 might take eons: so yes, one doesn't 'die' really, but the exigency of successive lifetimes on (at least) planet Earth is rather cruel. Of course, since no one is Omnipotent, the poor soul who must metempsychose has no recourse to sufficient 'help' out of his hapless condition. #2 offers some relief from endlessly-repeating cruel lifetimes, but also capricious punishment abounds. Conversely, in (#1 or) #3 there is the promise of a harmonious future — eventually. In the name of Freedom, everyone basically fends for himself. (#2 is harder, because you also never know what god is going to pick on you.)

So, it's disquieting that there is no Arbiter to insure that this Freedom is beneficial. Of course, that would require an Absolute Being, which we've now seen can't actually exist, in any of the metempsychosic versions of God. So, is there ultimate Justice, somewhere? Not even the gods get paid back for any offenses. What's the value of being a god, then? Sure, love would account for some desire to forego pay-back, but what about the love for Righteousness? Punishment of the guilty party doesn't restore anything to the one wronged — unless, of course, the one wronged loves to see the guilty suffer, which is a strange kind of 'love', indeed. Sure, one gets punished in this life for wrongs he does, but ..is it all just some law, like gravity? Is every good deed measured by an impersonal force, along some abacus-like scale? What about qualitative differences? What about the person's thinking? Is an impersonal force the mediator among all these less-than-perfect beings? These (#1 and) #2 and #3 versions all have at least some form of justice, true. #2 is the more personally-evaluative, yet the #2 gods are capricious, too. The #3 gods have lost their individuality. Of course, by the (#1 and) #3 versions' standards, the goal of life is to lose one's individuality, so group justice matters: individual justice, does not. The idea that there ought to be some balance between the two would be deemed 'bad'.

In sum, an all-comprehensive, balanced Righteousness-and-Justice is lacking. So, a Love-for-Righteousness becomes self-punishing. Especially since the gods themselves are never reliably compensated for any wrongs done them. So what value is there in being a god? Is martyrdom or masochism a virtue? Conversely, one might reply that a god can exact any kind of retribution he likes. Fair enough: so, if a god, wouldn't that make for a lot of retribution — or, a lot of frustration? A god's displeasure is bigger than a mere man's. So, the wrong done the god by a mere man ought to end up meaning whatever the god exacted from the man couldn't be enough to repay the god for his displeasure. Alternatively, one might reply that gods are gods: gods don't need to be repaid. So goes the answer of those who adhere to the #3 or #2 gods-concepts. Again, to the adherents, it doesn't have to 'make sense' that this is the way things are. Some would say this is the way it should be, too. Whether it 'makes sense', or not.

Now we come to the origins/creation problem. Here we'll consider both #2 and #3 together. Creation is not absolutely accounted for in these #2 and #3 depictions. However, the natures of these gods are not absolute, thus such gods can and do have any and all attributes in harmony (#3); or, (usually in #2) at enmity within themselves or with other gods.

How such gods came into existence initially is not clear. Representing the #2 version, for example gnosticism and the Greek/Roman pantheons have creation stories which basically begin with some starter-god/goddess; gnosticism also has a contradictory beginning of an initial state of being "one" in some (#3-type) harmonious-light-state-of-togetherness.

• Usually, in the #2 version, some kind of conflict transpires between the 'parents' and their 'children'. Sometimes, the children win, and either kill or forever imprison their 'parents'. They then take over the universe/world and run it. One seldom hears of the 'parents' again, if the 'parents' are imprisoned.

• In the #3 version (i.e., per some gnostic sects), some kind of curiousity led to the initially-harmonious beings desiring, and thus taking on, bodies (a version of Pandora's box, essentially). As a result, there was conflict. In the ending-harmonious #3 versions, the conflict was resolved piecemeal (each one progressing on his own), and the gods extant are those who have evolved-to-date into such a happy state.

These origins are the closest the stories come to revealing any creation 'facts'. They presume some beginning-god(s), but absoluteness is not attributed to them. Almost all the creation stories start with a formlessness (i.e., Chaos). Initial creation (e.g., a big bang, etc.) is usually unstated or presumed prior to the formless state.

Some #2 and #3 versions depict creation much as nontheistic "evolution" does, with a few more steps at the beginning: the previously-evolved or extant gods, none of whom are (said to be) absolute, either assisted in creation, or jointly created the universe (no one of them being able to do it alone). The #3 harmonious union of the beings is said to constitute an absoluteness, in a Star Trekkie "Borg" sense. So, #3 origins are accounted for that way, if an initial #3 creation story is told at all.

More commonly, in the #3, the beings just always-existed, but yet evolved, too — owing to the Pandora's-box curiousity (typically). In short, the number of such beings gradually grew "back" to their former pristine condition, over the eons. There's no "Adam" story for them. The same problemmatic origin applies to the #2 starter-gods, who 'just were'. So they are attributed with some kind of non-beginning, yet can be killed, and can make babies who (at times) are even more powerful than the 'parents'. It's a curious combination of eternality and yet finity. No absoluteness, definite limitations on their abilities, yet no initial 'birth' — at least, not for the starter group(s).

So, excepting a shrouded initiality, we do get stories how these #2 starter-gods did things like create 'the world'. In #2, the chief god might have created some things, but other gods created other things: one creating the heavens, the other creating the sea, and so on. Kinda like a corporation, where each god has his own "niche" powers. Some of these #2 gods are begotten of men, of course. The more mortal 'genes' (so to speak) a god has, the lower in the hierarchy he is. Such lower-echelon gods don't seem to have had much role in creation.

So, the problem with multiple, limited (#2 or #3) gods remains: how and where did they originate? Who or what 'made' them 'begin'? In short, one is left with the same issue as in evolution: what's the uncaused cause? Of course, like many who believe in evolution, believers in these multiple gods say "That's just how it is." No explanation is deemed needed. In short, to these adherents, it doesn't need to 'make sense'. Often the adherents believe, as many in #1 category — because they have seen (or more often, felt) 'manifestations' of these beings. There are stories from all over the world, in every generation, of such 'manifestations'. Even today. Thus, I guess that is sufficient proof for the adherents — who thus don't need either the origins, or their gods, to 'make sense'. So, the depictions of these gods as just miraculously being there, often shrouded in the mists of time, with life everlasting, yet having limited powers and limited (often 'mixed-with-evil' natures) goes unexplained.

As with the Supreme Being, science lacks the instruments to test any immateriality, so to verify if there are any multiple-but-limited 'gods'. So, unless science can prove some manifestation as being due to one or more of these gods — which many 'gods' believers say are there to see — science can't prove any of the metempsychosic ideas true. However, the similarity of structure, especially the root idea that one 'progresses' over multiple lifetimes — is very much scientific evolution's construct. It's not surprising, then, that among believers in multiple gods, #1 and #3 are more popular than #2, in terms of the number of adherents. Frankly, evolution is far less logical, by comparison, since these #1-#3 presume a superior 'parent', whereas evolution is based on the insanity that a set can contain itself (i.e., the inferior ape set can produce the superior, homo sapiens set).

So, evolutionary science tends to most buttress #3, at least structurally. It might be said to also structurally buttress #1 and #2. Since science doesn't know it can measure anything which is not material — i.e., doesn't know if it's measuring immateriality manifesting in material ways — science and evolution can only 'suggest' deity by means of similarity in theoretical constructs.

So, what's troubling about metempsychosis is likewise troubling about evolution: the lack of trace-back to "Absolute". Without that trace-back, who's to say that the data seen can't be accounted for in some opposite-premise way? Until one can account for the premise (the uncaused cause), all the way down to the 'floor' (if you will) of Absoluteness, the data seen might well have an altogether opposite — and even superior — explanation. Of course, we may have proof of immateriality, but don't yet realize our empirical instruments are measuring it. Further, many argue that there is no such thing as Absoluteness, either, although proposition "10" (above) reveals the speciousness of an "everything-is-relative" argument. (Even Einstein was troubled by the idea, and kept trying to rework his "theory of relativity".) So, in the absence of 1) knowing if we are in fact measuring immateriality via material manifestations, or 2) better testing instruments, we are forced to use a sort of faith-logic to evaluate evolution or any "god" description: for immateriality is by definition, invisible.

"Faith" requires a justifying reason to exist, so "faith" is not a bad word. In fact, "faith" is merely the faculty of believing a thing true or untrue. No human being can learn without faith. Someone tells you something. You decide whether to believe it. You make that decision partly on information you have, and partly on information you lack. Hence, you make up for what you lack by deciding whether the teller is trustworthy. You thus believe or disbelieve in part due to 'faith' in the person giving you information you yourself can't verify (yet). This is how we learned 1+1=2 when we were 5 years old. Our teachers/parents told us it was true. We didn't really know — we just believed them. So: "faith" is merely a faculty of believing, the last step in deciding what information you want to retain as "true"..or, untrue. Nothing more.

So, faith and logic are bedfellows. You use logic to decide what is believable. It helps you determine "fit" among the 'facts'. Then, you conclude; then, you believe. Simple as that. Scientists use it all the time: faith and logic go together. Granted, some people believe without evaluating the logic of what they believe — and we all have done this — but whatever one believes, one first engages in some kind of justification-reasoning, in order to conclude, "I believe". In short, faith never operates in a vacuum. Maybe the 'logic' is faulty, or even pseudo-logic. Maybe the belief is solely based on the deemed-merit of the teller — but there is some 'ruling' the mind goes through in all events: "I believe" is based on some (real or alleged) reason. It thus behooves all of us to examine 'why' we believe what we do. Be it on a scientific matter, our work, our schoolwork — or, what we conclude about "God".

So: how logical is it to conclude multiple, limited gods? Socrates didn't consider it very logical. Socrates (according to Aristotle) and the Platonists insisted there was only the "One" (Aristotle would later revamp Socrates' concepts to the "unmoved Mover"). To Socrates and many others, everything had to ultimately resolve to an Absolute Being. Thus any "gods" which were multiple and limited would be created by some Absolute Being. Of course, Socrates also deemed Absolute Righteousness to be an Attribute of this Being. (The Greek concept called "dikaiosune" meant both Absolute Righteousness and Justice, all-in-one, just like the ancient Hebrew term, "tsedekah".) He'd say that those who didn't recognize the critical importance of this Absoluteness were still huddled in "the cave". Like poor ol' Glaucon. As you read The Philebus, in which Socrates was explaining the Greek word "elpis" to mean Absolute Future Confidence, he bases all his arguments, on the Greek concept of "agathos": Divine (never human) good. [Bible is horribly translated, mostly because the original-language words differentiate between Divine or human work, Divine or human love, Divine or human good. Translations chop out the Divine meaning in the original words, so when you read it, you think human effort is being discussed.]

So, we can see that the idea of Monotheism is by no means new. No faith has a monopoly on the idea. Sheer logic points to the existence of Absoluteness: many faiths of varying names from time immemorial have thus believed. Today, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are among the most popular monotheistic faiths, although historically there have been many others (Zoroastrianism, B'hai, etc). Technically, only some branches of Christianity are Monotheistic: it depends on whether "one" in the Bible is regarded as solely quantitative. Most versions of Judaism and Islam say "yes". Some versions of Christianity say "yes". Most versions of Christianity say "No, God is Triune", because Three Persons are depicted in the Bible, and the "one" moniker is deemed either qualitative, or 'a mystery'. Some (smaller) versions of Judaism also hold to Triunity. Moreover, some versions of the above religions hold to something like a Two-God union, rather than One, or Three.

For the moment, we'll just look at "Monotheism" as One Person being God, without any sectarian differentiation. Monotheism as a concept derives from the idea that God is Absolute, or else, not God. Like Socrates, those who believe in Monotheism depict Absoluteness as One-in-Quantityness, because (to them) "Absolute" cannot admit of more than One Absolute Being. To them, the fact that the Being is Infinite likewise precludes the idea of there being more than One such Being. (It's Infinity which 'makes' for Absoluteness.) That Infinity is not corporal, they know.

Important: Monotheists recognize that "Infinity" is non-spacetime. However, Monotheists all deny that because Infinity is non-spacetime, more than One Person can be Absolute God. To them, Absolute Quality requires an Absolute Quantity of One Person. To them, the One-Personness prevents anything being 'outside' God's control. So, Unitedness-of-Absolute-Persons is considered the worst-of-blasphemies, to Monotheists, because to them that means "God has partners", which thus would diminish Him. Would "Absolute God" be 'diminished' if there were more than "One" such "Person"? Let's see.

In monotheism of any version, the One Person is indeed Absolute. This One Person is usually called "He" to depict Total Authority, since almost all monotheistic ideas began in the days when women were little more than chattel. However, this One Person is a Spiritual Being, wholly immaterial, wholly Qualitative, so has no mass. So, strictly speaking, is neither male nor female (although some early versions of monotheism ascribe both masculine and feminine qualities to the Person). Thus, the Absolute Attributes mentioned at the beginning of the Nature Section would be deemed to apply wholly and ONLY to this One Person. No "evil" attribute is in this Being. "Evil" is forever unused. The Being, since Omniscient, knows "evil" but never chooses to exercise His Ability to BE evil. This foregoing is forever chosen because the Being's Attributes are such that to choose "evil" is forever repugnant (i.e., due to Righteousness). So the Being will never approve of, nor desire, "evil".

At this point the discussion must become more sectarian, for even monotheistic versions of Christianity differ markedly from all other versions of monotheism. So, Christianity's "flavor" of a Monotheistic God will be discussed last.

The other versions of Monotheism, broadly speaking, depict a God of varying aloofness, with an exacting sense of Right and Wrong which those who claim to believe in Him must strictly obey. Balancing this strictness, is Grace: the God blesses, too. So, this God made creation with some personal attention, and also created communication systems so that His Creation could understand Him, despite His Infinity. Note how this God differs from the multiple-gods concepts: He unilaterally chooses to make and have some type of blanket, all-encompassing relationship with His Creation, despite the huge difference between the Creator's Infinity, and the creatures' puny limitations. He thus overcomes these limitations by using dreams, visions, and — in later versions — writing. Furthermore, there is generally some kind of 'covenant' or agreement between the God and mankind, which 'covenant' is a list of behaviors that the God orders man to perform in return for a better life before — and most importantly — after "death". Generally, some group from among mankind is entrusted with the message of this 'covenant', so to evangelise the rest of mankind. The idea is, for all to come to share in this 'covenant'. Moreover, some kind of happy afterlife is depicted for the 'faithful', but it isn't necessarily in close relationship with the God, and it isn't generally a "heaven" most Western-culture Christians would recognize. Instead, the God is somewhat distant, although always hearing, always responsive. And — punishing.

Most versions of Monotheism posit something akin to "Hell", an eternal place of torment for lack of belief — or, variantly, sins so heinous the person cannot be admitted into the happier afterlife for 'believers' (aka 'righteous' or 'upright'). Some versions of Monotheism have, instead of a totally-separate "Hell", rather a gradient version of the afterlife, with the-least-faithful living in the bottom-grades. In all versions, though, morality and works are paramount. Thinking-sins do count, but body-sins are worse. Moreover, failure to observe particular practices, rituals incurs Divine Wrath. One can get forgiveness: either through some kind of punishment meted out by the God, by various works-pennances; or, simply by sincerely 'repenting' of the wrong. Restitution to the one wronged is stressed, in any event. There are usually many cultural laws as well, which cover daily tasks, marital relations, crime, and financial matters (like whether and how much interest may be charged on money lent out). Infractions vary in severity.

What's markedly missing from all of these versions is the idea that the God should be recompensed for any 'sins' committed against Him. Sin is spelled out, and so are punishments — but the God is never juridically compensated. He's not supposed to need to be paid, since He's God. This lack of compensatory provision is a problem, for if this God is Righteous, and sin is an offense — indeed the coda in any monotheistic idea has a long list of offenses — how does the God get propitiated? Shouldn't He be propitiated? If man sinning against man carries a long list of precise penalties — what about man sinning against God? Especially, if God is Holy? This question is never answered.

Thus all non-Christian versions of God depict a Holy God who never is compensated for the sins against Him by the persons He created. Those persons are merely instructively disciplined, to teach them. This action is of course merciful. Yet, the God is not being 'merciful' to Himself. That is a contradiction: a double-standard, if you will. Just because the God doesn't need anything, an offense is an offense. Justice, even in human courts, metes out punishment based on the offense, not solely based upon whether the person juridically harmed actually incurred damages. "Damages", even in human law, is "extra". A crime, for example, is a crime, even if the victim managed not to be damaged. So, what about the crime of sin against God?

Thus, God has the contradictory quality of being Righteous Himself, yet never is His Righteousness 'met' by anyone else. Granted, being God and being Righteous, He must be able to withstand any and all offenses against Him, or "Righteousness" cannot be Absolute. However, what is the value of a Righteousness which can't be effectively insured on behalf of the very God Who is Righteous? What value is there in Being God? If God can't 'make right' for Himself, how can He 'make right' for His creation? And if He won't 'make right' for Himself, is God-ness, martyrdom? For surely, the knowledge of any pain in His creatures does not compensate Him in the slightest, but rather is an additional cost, on top of the offense-cost of the sins themselves. So, "Hell" not only doesn't compensate Him, but is the worst-of-costs to Him. Thus, yes, He withstands all — but wouldn't all He creates be martyrdom, necessarily reflecting His Attribute of never resolving compensation juridically due Himself? So, life is to be fair for others, but not for self? Does that make sense? What's the value of living, then?

For surely, the nature of God totally affects the quality and nature of all He creates. Moreover, this God is One Person. Alone. Himself. All others are so far beneath Him, what kind of relationship can He have with them? Indeed, most monotheistic versions of God are aloof, fairly impersonal, even mystical. Based on works, yet sins can be atoned by works? — how can works make up for sins, if God is infinitely Holy? What do works do for an infinitely-Holy, Omnipotent God who can do the works better than all humans put together? Does that make sense? So, again, since creatures must necessarily reflect to some extent the Nature of their Creator, not only must humans reflect a martyr-like quality, but also they must be aloof, lonely. Is this the value of being God? Of being human? Certainly the works requirement is consonant with both martyrdom and loneliness. What does a Holy God get from works? Nothing, of course. This is a God who needs nothing, is Alone, and gets nothing. Does that make sense? Why make creation, then?

Most troubling of all: is this God really so Absolute? Surely a believer in such a God will say He's Love. That's why He wants no compensation, the believer will explain. Ok, fair enough. So: does this God Love Himself? Well He must, such a believer would reply, for He is Holy. He would Love His Holiness. Ok, fair enough: then why won't He compensate Himself? Is He unable? Unwilling? If unwilling, how is that unwillingness consonant with Love? Especially, for His Own Holiness? How can He even BE Absolute, absent compensation to His Own Beloved Righteousness? Especially since He is Absolutely Alone? If He doesn't compensate Himself, who else can do it? Well, no one — the believer will reply. Of course — no one. Then, this God is not Omnipotent, for He can't compensate Himself. Of course He can't, the believer will reply, smiling — that would not be Righteous, for Righteousness must withstand everything.

Which is precisely why this One-Person idea of God makes no sense: God can't Righteously compensate Himself, for indeed that would be a compromise to the Righteousness-must-withstand-all Standard. It's a STANDARD. Standards should be met. A Holy God has Standards which should be met. Like, the Standard that He shouldn't be sinned against. That is, if He Loves His Righteousness. And if He does not, then He can't be God. And if He does, then He can't get His Righteousness requited. So, He's not Omnipotent, after all, for the problem of Righteousness-must-withstand-all, which is a valid Standard, creates a 'stone too heavy to lift' — and God cannot be paid for the cost of creation. So Monotheism cannot be true of ABSOLUTE God.

Christian Monotheism recognizes the problem in purple font, above. It tries to address the problem by deeming "God" as "one" yet in Three 'manifestations', or 'forms', for lack of a better term (I'm trying to avoid theological terms in this piece). So, one 'form' is the Father; another, the Son; another, the Spirit. These 'forms' are all really One Person, says this version of Christianity. Sorta like 'functional divisions', these 'forms' all interact. For the express purpose, especially, of getting compensation for sins. Man is not able to atone for his sins before Holy, Infinite God. An Atoner needs to pay, Who IS sufficiently Righteous. As a Substitute. Just as depicted in the animal sacrifices and the Mercy Seat of the Old Testament.

The issue of God being requited for offense-to-Righteousness occasioned by sin, as a separate issue from any corrective punishment to the sinner, means the God has to do the work in a way which results in profit, not cost. Else, any such 'work' is yet more martyrdom, and Love does not sufficiently Love Righteousness. Further, if such 'work' doesn't result in pure profit to the God, then Omnipotence is questionnable. After all, as any monotheist would say, if God incurs a "cost", it would 'diminish' Him. Quite true.

Here, an additional "profit" occurs, because if Righteousness is requited for the offense of sin, cannot the God apply that profit to 'save' the very creation He must have Loved so Much, He created it? After all, this God could have created it as marionettes or pets which could have been denied free will — or, given instead a limited free will such that they could not sin. Of course, an Absolute God would not create rational beings with only limited free will, because the God's Free Will is not limited (creation must reflect its Creator). Free Will is not the same as Power-to-execute-will. So, it would not be a compromise to create full free will in limited beings. Therefore, it would also not be a compromise to apply any "profit" gained by requited-Righteousness to heal such beings from the effects of their sins — freely, upon their several consents. In sum, Righteous Standards could be wholly satisfied, in a manner profitable to the God — and, to creation.

There would have to be a Human Payor, of course. Thus the God receives the profit without expense.

• However, this Human Payor would have to be sinless, since any sinner would be too contaminated to become Righteousness of himself.
• Moreover, the Payor would have to be empowered by the God on a voluntary basis in order to be born sinless, and remain sinless. One refusal by the Payor of such power, one sin — and the requiting of Righteousness would be voided.

• Additionally, mere sinlessness is not Infinite Righteousness. The Payor must use the Divine empowerment to become Righteousness. The Payor must keep on thinking Righteously, even while being substitutionally imputed and judged for all sins executed upon the Payor by the God.

• The value of the imputation and judgement of all sins must include the knowing-pain cost the God incurs, even all the cost of "Hell" for any creatures who refuse to receive 'salvation' offered due to that Payor's payment on their behalf. So, the value of the Righteous Thinking which the Payor must always perfectly maintain is thus the sum of: the anti-value of the sins, the anti-value of the True Judgement for those sins, and the anti-value of all the knowing-pain the God has in His Omniscience. Else, the God is not wholly profitted at no expense to Himself.

• Next, assuming this Payor successfully completed the Payment Due on behalf of all sinners, should not the Payor be profitted? Of course. In fact, the profit to the Payor should be the entire creation, so that the Payor, who in the first place was willing to make the payment, can likewise receive whatever benefit he wants from the creation he paid for. After all, the God was wholly profitted by the Payor, so need not be further compensated by creation itself. Any further benefit to the God could come voluntarily from the Payor, or through the Payor from creation. That is only Just.

• Finally, in order for any sinner to receive the benefit of the payment made on his behalf, the sinner would have to consent to the God's terms: believe the Payor made sufficient Payment, or suffer the eternal consequences of turning down such a Gift.

• Thus, no matter how handicapped, no matter how young, no matter how old or powerful or smart or stupid, every sinner may be restored. Every sinner, then, can be made whole, and thus engage in a profitable relationship with the God. At no cost to anyone.

So, to implement this salvation, one 'form' of God takes on Humanity: the Son. (Not all monotheistic Christian sects quite agree that Christ was both God and Man during the 1st Advent.) So, another 'form' of God acts as Judge, both imputing and judging all sins upon Christ while He is on the Cross. So, another 'form' of God empowers the Humanity of Christ so He can stay Impeccable. (Again, not all monotheistic Christian sects agree on this point.) The interaction of these three 'forms' of One Person accomplish the Substitutionary Payment for sins. Because the Payor is Humanity, not God, it's a Gift to God, and thus not a compromise to the Righteousness Standard of must-withstand-all. Moreover, because it is a Gift of Righteousness from that Humanity ('developed to that level, due to 'form'-Spirit's Power) — the Holy Righteousness of 'form'-Father is indeed met. So, Love-for-Righteousness is propitiated. And the Humanity of Christ? He gave it as a Gift of Love-for-God, so correctly deems Himself in no way disadvantaged: He 'withstood all'. After all, one can GIFT Righteousness with no compromise to one's own Righteousness: if the Recipient is equally Righteous. Moreover, 'form'-Father takes the Gift and makes an equal Gift out of it — to the Christ. So, in a way, 'form'-Father still 'withstood all' — except that 'form'-Father could have kept the Christ's Righteous Payment. But, being Loving, Chose to make another Gift out of it. Still, all Standards of Righteousness were in fact met, judicially. (What one does with requited Righteousness is a separate matter.)

So, the 'stone too heavy to lift' got lifted, concludes this version of Christianity.

Ok, fair enough: but how can salvation be fair, if only One Person did it? "God" is wearing two or three 'hats' in the judicial procedure outlined above. Granted, 'form'-Spirit gifted His Power to the Impeccable Christ, thus insuring His continued Impeccability and Divinely-Righteous Thinking, which His Humanity voluntarily kept willing to have. However, if 'form'-Father is exactly the same Person as 'form'-Spirit, can't Satan aptly yell, "Foul!", since this Cross defeats him, per Hebrews 1? (Christianity has a "Satan", a rebelling angel with millions of like-cohorts. Some other versions of monotheism variantly lack this 'angle' in the story.) Furthermore, given that Christ is God and Man during the First Advent (which is unmistakable in the New Testament Greek), then the Judge, Empowerer, and the One Judged are all the Same Person? So, how is God really getting paid? What's the difference between that circular setup and just hitting some other poor human who has no Deity attributes with all sins — and judging them?

This conundrum is a real problem for Monotheistic Christianity sects to answer. They usually resolve it by calling it a 'mystery'. In short, for them, it doesn't have to 'make sense.'

So, where are we now, regarding Monotheism, as compared to other ideas thus far discussed regarding the nature of "God"? Well, monotheistic ideas are all Absolutes: so, we have the needed trace-back to Absoluteness. Absoluteness logically resolves the initial creation issue, and origins, even better than the metempsychosis concepts did: now we have Deity which is wholly Infinite in all Attributes, and with no evil in Him/It, so it finally makes sense to say this Deity had no beginning.

Unfortunately, as with with metempsychosis, Monotheism — even the Christian version — still doesn't fittingly explain how Righteousness gets compensated. Problem was, with metempsychosis, there was no dependable, Absolutely-Righteous Arbiter. In #1 version, the Supreme Being had "evil" as an Attribute, so couldn't be Absolute Anything, after all. Monotheism corrects that deficiency, by offering the needed Absoluteness — the Monotheistic "God" always REFUSES sin, evil, etc., and is not even temptible: because, Absolute. Here, in the Christian Monotheistic version, the requiting-of-Righteous Standards "salvation" plan makes sense. Since Absoluteness is limited to but One Person, the One Person still isn't requited. Because only One Person is doing both the empowering and the Judging of sin, to say that Righteousness really got "paid off", is a joke: do you have more money if you simply move it from your left pocket — to your right pocket? After all, the Humanity of Christ would have been able to make no payment whatsoever if not Divinely-empowered. He only "contributed" His Human Consent and His Perfect Body — both of which were gifts from the God in the first place, so are no contributions, at all.

Enter, now, the Biblical God: Trinity. Now, it just so happens that a careful study of the original languages of the Bible clearly and unequivocably depict Three Identical-Essence, Absolute, Independent, Voluntarily-United Gods: you see it everywhere in the original language Bible texts; translations can't translate the wordplay, or mistranslate: because quasi-sexual wordplay is used to metaphorically depict Their Intimacy, so humans have a frame of reference for it (i.e., via deliberate analogy to the "oneness" of marriage). (Bible is the only 'holy book' to depict Trinity, by the way. How Christian sects can construe only One Person out of all the verses in the original languages I cannot fathom. I can see how they can deduce One Person from translations, because translators cover up or reverse all marital, pregnancy, and like sex-related words, except where such words depict humans who sexually sin! Even so, there's little excuse for monotheism: it cannot be holy, as we saw above.)

Each of these Three have identical Absolute Attributes, just as depicted in the "Is God Absolute" subsection. In fact, this is why Trinitarians mistakenly consider themselves "monotheistic", in an effort to stress the Identical Absolute Nature of Each Person. [Christians have long been confused about what's "monotheistic" and Triune, because the Westminster Creed — which is NOT from God, but is treated as if it were — because the Westminster Creed badly defines God as Three IN One, rather than Three (Persons) and One (Nature); though if you think over how the Creed describes the Godhead, you realize it means to say Three AND One. So most Christians don't read their Bibles, and for centuries have called themselves "monotheistic". So to hear them talk, God is this hydra-headed monster, not able to exist Himself, independently of the Other Members of the Godhead; in which case, none of Them would BE Absolute God, get it? That non-Biblical "monotheistic" "Trinity" description bugged me over 30 years ago when I first heard it in college: Holy God being likened to a stupid egg, for crying out loud; now I realize how the description maligns the very God Christians mean to laud. So one day, I really wish Christianity would fix its badly-worded definitions to match the Bible they claim to believe in; especially, since the Bible is so clear!]

So, They also never will desire "evil". The Attributes are Intensive — meaning, Qualitative. No mass, of course. Spiritual Beings, of course. Absolute — Each One. Not hydra-headed, not 'forms' or 'manifestations' — but Three Separate Persons. "United", hence "one"..due to Love. (The term "one" is used qualitatively in every language known to man, from time immemorial, and the Bible's languages are no exception.)

In short, They WANT to be together. Forever. Being Infinite, there's no way They will change Their Minds; They illustrate this most commonly in Bible, by using "God" in the singular with a singular verb, or in the plural with a singular verb, to show they have Identical Attitude — freely. ("Infinity" means no-change, because 'infinity' is a quality which has no spacetime aspects to it.) Being of the Same Attributes, as we saw in the Nature Section, They have total and utter, Timeless Rapport. Unevolved, since Infinite. Not Impersonal, due to the Absoluteness of Their Attributes. Rather, Total and Ultimate Personality. Each One Equal in Nature, Absolute Integrity..serving Each Other..due to LOVE. "Due Disclosure" Link at pagetop explains at length, the origin and nature of this Voluntary, Corporate (hence "united", "one") Structure, with empirical concepts you can test in science (i.e., everything in the universe is in some kind of Hypostatic relationship). [Each webpage offers verses to prove Trinity, but most citations are technical: easiest one to read is in the "Mystery Math Class" table of LvS4a.htm (accessible from "Why God 'Mirrors' Time" link at pagetop).]

So, not Alone. Not Borg-like. Not Aloof. Not Passive. Not Impersonal. Not Martyrs. Not Unrequited. Not Uncompensated. Yet, Wholly Foregoing: due to Love. Holy Righteousness, all Standards forever Met. Totally Independent of Each Other. No "strings", as it were, in Their Relationship. Free. So, They would be the Ones Most Desirous Of Total Justice — for the sake of Each Other. Again, due to Love. Especially, for Righteousness. In Themselves. In Each Other. So, a Real And Separate Father can really severally judge a God-Man Son's Humanity. So, a Real and Separate Spirit can severally empower that Humanity, so that Humanity needn't "cheat" by using His Own Separate Son-Deity. Each One, doing it as a Gift to the Other(s). No cheating, no strings, no slanted Justice. Yet complete payment. Just as the Monotheistic Christian sects depicted — without the juridical injustice monotheism creates.

If you're poor, you imagine that having money will solve your problems, that you won't have much to do; you assume that with money, you won't have to work anymore and can play all the time. Wrongo. The more you have, the more you have to do, not the other way around. So, when you think of God, think: They would have more to experience together, would be more involved with Each Other, would be MORE.. of everything. Infinitely more! And More Exacting in What They Want. So Love is more Exacting. Infinitely.

So, how does Trinity better answer things logically? Well, we still have Absoluteness, so the trace-back remains as to creation, origin, nature. We also have full accountability for sins, and full repayment both to the Righteous/Just Standard that payment be made to Holy God, and yet — due to Love between Equally-Infinite Holy Persons — each One foregoes, withstands all — as a GIFT to Another in the "Godhead". So, the withstand-all Righteous Requirement always remains met, as well. ["Angelic Trial" link at pagetop is a very long explanation of the Trial between God and Satan, but in it you'll see this issue covered juridically. LordvSatan5's "Paradox of Merit" table is shorter.] Best of all, Not Alone. What a pity to be "God", yet Alone. Having only finite, puny creation for 'company'. Would that be Perfect? Would that make sense?

In Truth as well as in science; in evaluating competing 'god' definitions —
It Must Make Sense, Or It's Not True. We all have brains. They need exercise...

What about creation? How fair is all this to creation? Well, everyone was paid-for — so no barrier need be between that creation and its United Gods. So, unlike multiple, limited gods, who can't assure Absoluteness; so, unlike monotheistic God-concepts, which also can't assure Absoluteness,

• this "Trinity" has total Absoluteness — met.
• So, intimacy can be had between this "Trinity" and creation which the other versions of "god" can't judicially have.
• Now, think: what's the point of creating beings too small for full rapport? Would you want only a plant to play with, the rest of your life? Is that 'good'? Of course not.
• So also, this Cross caused the imputation of Divine Righteousness to all who believe in the Christ (2Cor5:21, prayed for in John 17). So, any 'believer' is as good as God — by God's own Judicial Act of Exchange (Christ's Righteousness for our sins).
• As a Gift. Never on any other basis.
• So, the "Godhead" don't have to live with (as it were) "plants" for 'company'. They chose a way to not only lift the too-heavy Stone, but to lift it up to a compatible-enough Level for Their Own Standards of Rapport.
• No other story of 'god' accomplishes all of this without compromising Righteousness in some fatal way. Of course, if Righteousness is compromised, then the proferred 'god' story falls apart, logically: rendering any 'faith' in it, untenable. (Test it yourself: the other websites will help you think things out. The longest site also explains the most: pick "ON TRIAL" link at pagetop, and hit Home key after you've uploaded it, so you can begin at the beginning.)

Of course, science doesn't know if it is proving immaterial "Trinity" any better than "knows" whether it can prove any immateriality of any "god" — or even, the existence of human "souls". So, we're left with the "observation evidence" of Proposition 9, above, plus our own faith-logic — which, after all, might just be empowered by Deity so that we can perceive His/Their immateriality. You decide.

There are a bizillion concepts of "god" in history. Even today. However, if you work through all of them, you'll find they all can be categorized into the groupings discussed above: essentially metempsychosic (evolutionary, with or without limited/multiple gods); monotheistic (=One Person); Trinitarian (only Bible uses this description). These groupings are broad; details usually end up masking the similarities, so I didn't go into much detail. For example, Wicca is a hybrid of animism and multiple-gods, depending on which version of Wicca one studies. Therefore, if you analyze whatever 'god' version you're reviewing carefully, using logic-tests like those above, you should find out which version of "god" is True. Have fun!

What kind of relationship does God have/want with man?

If you still can't determine which version of "God" is true, try 'backing into' the right answer via this question. Ask, "What kind of relationship should a/the Real God(s) want with what He/They create? You can cycle that question through any particular idea of "God" you are examining. Test the answer the sect provides for how much sense it makes: do the attributes depicted mesh with the alleged relationship between these deities and man? Again, if they don't make sense, maybe they are wrong. Of course, if it doesn't matter to you that they don't make sense, decide based on whatever other criteria you prefer.

From the above Attributes-testing logic, we saw resultant relationships between 'gods' and lesser beings, due largely to the posited natures of the 'gods'. Should there be a correlation between Attributes and resultant relationships? I think so. It doesn't seem logical to say that 'gods' who create won't design some kind of self-likeness/compatibility mechanism in the created beings. What if the lesser beings just always were part of the Divine? Ok, fair enough: isn't that just another way of saying, though, a likeness/compatibility? Does it fit the story given? Are there logical loopholes? Does it matter if there are logical loopholes? I think so. I have a brain. I can reason. Someone gave me that brain so I would use it. So, if there is one or more "Gods", then — the answer ought to make sense. If it doesn't, then to me — it can't be the right answer. Because, I have a brain. (I'm correcting Descartes' typo to: "I think, therefore God(s) exists.")

Notice what kind of analysis I'm not advocating: dates of 'holy' manuscripts, alleged errors in manuscripts, whether prophecies in them came true, how much sense the text makes or how much it seems to contradict other places in the text. Frankly, even experts are divided as to these matters on any 'holy' book. They wrangle for years and years. Centuries, even. These topics have their places, but ask yourself: are you looking for answers? If "yes", and there really is a God(s), won't this God(s) answer your desire to know Him/Them/them? So: do you really need to poke around in arcane matters you'd need 30 years to even understand, let alone validate? After all, if God/gods exists, wouldn't God/gods have to provide a communication method easy enough for even a child to "get"? So: can't you just 'pray' (fancy word for talking to "God", whoever "God" is)? That sure would save a lot of time, wouldn't it? Heck, even children can do that. Leave the brained-out 'scholars' to their ever-blind conundrums.

Again, have fun! You'll find the Right One(s). Don't give up...

[God's System]  [Physics of God's Transmutation Plan (very long!)]  [History for God's Transmutation Plan (very long!)]

When people are goofy, they will think goofy things as well. But just because people are goofy and their ideas are goofy, does not logically mean all versions of those ideas are goofy. The one who looks at the goofy people who have goofy supernatural ideas, and thus concludes all supernatural ideas are goofy, is himself the most goofy. For it's always illogical to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

This universe is estimated to be about 200 billion light-years in size. That is, a elliptical cylinder (as it were) whose outermost perimeter (containing, for example, OQ172), is about that 'far away' from the universe's center. Now, think: we just can't be the only rational beings in so vast a universe. We just can't be the most advanced rational beings in so vast a universe. We just can't have gotten here on our own, and.. since animacy is always the larger dataset versus inanimacy.. there has to be a Creator.

Our little dust speck of a planet is asymetrically placed about 20,000-25,000 light years away from the center of the Milky Way, our 'home' galaxy. But the Milky Way, itself composed of billions of stars, is but a speck asymetrically placed about 1,000,000 light years away from the center of the "local starcluster" that it's in; and that starcluster, is about 75,000,000 million light years away from the center of the universe, also asymetrically-placed (toward the end of the imaginary ellipse of that distance, according to my National Geographic Atlas of the World universe-map). In short, we aren't even ants! So there must be superior life, to ours. Question is, what kind?

The devil, as they say, is in the details. What kind of Creator? How many? What kind of superior beings to us, and how many? Et cetera. That is a logical set of questions. It's utterly illogical to conclude that all you see in your narrow world is all there is. We can't see atoms, so we can't see what's bigger than our ability to see, either.

So: now your task is to ferret out what makes sense about these superior beings. First: what we consider 'supernatural', would be merely natural, for them. So to them, their superior powers are nothing to gush about. An ant who could perceive me, would be awestruck. But I'm not awestruck at myself. Next, if there are superior beings with superior powers, then surely they know about us. So, do they interact, and do they want us to know? Are they benign, or bemused, or belittling? Well, logically, all of those attitudes would be present. We are that way with respect to those inferior to us, especially, toward those we consider inferior humans. So, surely some of these superior beings would enjoy harming us. Some, would not. Whoever the Creator is, well.. does this Creator want to harm or help us? Are we just pets, or.. what?

Notice, though, in all this analysis, you're now being logical, not illogical. Notice further that if some gal goes to a newspaper editor, and claims she saw the Virgin Mary in her cooking tortilla, well.. that's still goofy; a similar event actually happened in Texas a few years back, and do you know, some folks set up a shrine for that tortilla? It sure must stink, by now! So: you can still separate between goofy and non-goofy analysis/evidence, etc. yet not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Bible explains what supernatural beings exist; why and how we relate or don't relate to them. So do other holy books. So do other people, many claiming 'visitation' from ghosts, aliens, etc. So you have a large body of witnesses to evaluate. To make the evaluative job easier, first tally in your own mind what must be the most logical answer: in short, craft a hypothesis, and then begin evaluating the data. Quicker process: if you believe in God, but aren't sure which God He is, start there, and ask Him to guide you. For the uppermost truth, is the most illuminating (i.e., of all lesser truths). Start always with God, and then your analysis with respect to lesser beings, will be more efficient and logical. For if God exists, all else must be corollary to His Character: the child's characteristics always reflect its parents (whether far-back parents, or latest parents, varies with genetic interaction over time).

Pretty much every 'big' story in life involves a warring. Each day is a kind of war, and the little things beat you up, or the big things do. So it should be logical to assume that, whatever these 'supernatural beings' are, they are also in some conflict. To what extent we hapless humans would be involved, well.. you'll have to analyze the sense of that. But notice how the answers keep on being that what we see is but a microcosm of what we don't see. So, instead of getting all excited (or bored) when hearing/reading about epic conspiracies, think: well, maybe it's just a big war in which we are a deliberate or accidental, part. World history is chock-full of conspiracies; even fuller, of goofy ideas about conspiracies. In short, some would be geniune, and some.. hallucinated. Your homework, is to decide among the facts you collect.

Notice, though, that you must decide. You are free of course to deny all this evidence and simply claim that it's all hooey. What you cannot claim, is that you are smart to deny. People who deny that the supernatural exists are just plain afraid of it, so hide that fear by claiming themselves more rational. That's how you know they are afraid — they counter the irrational fear, cover it up, by claiming themselves more rational. For the lie is always both loud, and the opposite of, the Truth. Truth doesn't have to be loud: it merely need 'sit there.' Well, look up in the sky: vast space just sits there. So we are not alone, and.. we aren't in charge of our own fates exactly, either. We aren't the most powerful, and we aren't alone, so.. we can just fear and cover it up. Or we can learn. Our choice: but a decision must be made, one way or the other. A procastinated decision is a decision to not know, pretending ignorance is okay (psychological defense mechanism of sublimination or rationalization, rather than the mechanism of denial). Which again, is a free-will option: but let us be sure of what option, we're selecting...

Obviously, I believe in the God of the Bible. I believe in Jesus Christ as the God-man who paid for all my sins on the Cross. There are very compelling reasons to have that belief. If I turn out to be wrong, I still believe in God, so God will fix whatever's wrong with my belief, just like you would fix dinner or a broken window. To date, all contrary claims against God of Bible and Christ as God-Man Mediating Savior, prove false. So, these webpages summarize (sometimes well, sometimes badly) my own due diligence on this topic of who God is, and what Bible says. You have to do your own homework, though; this, is mine. This homework is frankly not here for your sake, but for my own: I analyze better if I have to 'report' it to some hypothetical other person. So read it or not, as is your free privilege.