PARADOX OF MAN AND GOD:
The Ontological Argment,
as read by Richard Dawkins
This is the second set of notes prepared while reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. The objective of the review is to record the basic logical errors that “create” atheistic dogma from erroneous assumptions. In these notes we find that the “Divine Dawkins” is a preeminently astute logician who toys with “common sense” using instruments that are not common and theories that are “peer reviewed” and “a posterior” ratiocinations. They demonstrate that an Atheist does not exist until a theist declared Divine Perception is denied. In the inverse of Descartes, Dawkins declares “cogito ergo nil.” The cause of his confusion is wrapped up in Zeno’s paradox. First, here are the actual statements made by Dawkins.
THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE: PLANETARY VERSION, pp: 162-164
Gap theologians who may have given up on eyes and wings, flagellar motors and immune systems, often pin their remaining hopes on the origin of life. The root of evolution in non-biological chemistry somehow seems to present a bigger gap than any particular transition during subsequent evolution. And in one sense it is a bigger gap. That one sense is quite specific, and it offers no comfort to the religious apologist. The origin of life only had to happen once. We therefore can allow it to have been an extremely improbable event, many orders of magnitude more improbable than most people realize, as I shall show. Subsequent evolutionary steps are duplicated, in more or less similar ways, throughout millions and millions of species independently, and continually and repeatedly throughout geological time. Therefore, to explain the evolution of complex life, we cannot resort to the same kind of statistical reasoning as we are able to apply to the origin of life. The events that constitute run-of-the-mill evolution, as distinct from its singular origin (and perhaps a few special cases), cannot have been very improbable.
This distinction may seem puzzling, and I must explain it further, using the so-called anthropic principle. The anthropic principle was named by the mathematician Brandon Carter in 1974 and expanded by the physicists John Barrow and Frank Tipler in their book on the subject. The anthropic argument is usually applied to the cosmos, and I'll come to that. But I'll introduce the idea on a smaller, planetary scale. We exist here on Earth. Therefore Earth must be the kind of planet that is capable of generating and supporting us, however unusual, even unique, that kind of planet might be. For example, our kind of life cannot survive without liquid water. Indeed, exobiologists searching for evidence of extraterrestrial life are scanning the heavens, in practice, for signs of water. Around a typical star like our sun, there is a so-called Goldilocks zone not too hot and not too cold, but just right – for planets with liquid water. A thin band of orbits lies between those that are too far from the star, where water freezes, and too close, where it boils.
Presumably, too, a life-friendly orbit has to be nearly circular. A fiercely elliptical orbit, like that of the newly discovered tenth planet informally known as Xena, would at best allow the planet to whizz briefly through the Goldilocks zone once every few (Earth) decades or centuries. Xena itself doesn't get into the Goldilocks zone at all, even at its closest approach to the sun, which it reaches once every 560 Earth years. The temperature of Halley's Comet varies between about 47°C at perihelion and minus 270°C at aphelion. Earth's orbit, like those of all the planets, is technically an ellipse (it is closest to the sun in January and furthest away in July); but a circle is a special case of an ellipse, and Earth's orbit is so close to circular that it never strays out of the Goldilocks zone. Earth's situation in the solar system is propitious in other ways that singled it out for the evolution of life. The massive gravitational vacuum cleaner of Jupiter is well placed to intercept asteroids that might otherwise threaten us with lethal collision. Earth's single relatively large moon serves to stabilize our axis of rotation, and helps to foster life in various other ways. Our sun is unusual in not being a binary, locked in mutual orbit with a companion star. It is possible for binary stars to have planets, but their orbits are likely to be too chaotically variable to encourage the evolution of life.
Two main explanations have been offered for our planet's peculiar friendliness to life. The design theory says that God made the world, placed it in the Goldilocks zone, and deliberately set up all the details for our benefit. The anthropic approach is very different, and it has a faintly Darwinian feel. (emphasis added 1)
The great majority of planets in the universe are not in the Goldilocks zones of their respective stars, and not suitable for life. None of that majority has life. However small the minority of planets with just the right conditions for life may be, we necessarily have to be on one of that minority, because here we are thinking about it.
It is a strange fact, incidentally, that religious apologists love the anthropic principle. For some reason that makes no sense at all, they think it supports their case. (emphasis added 2) Precisely the opposite is true. The anthropic principle, like natural selection, is an alternative to the design hypothesis. It provides a rational, design-free explanation for the fact that we find ourselves in a situation propitious to our existence. I think the confusion arises in the religious mind because the anthropic principle is only ever mentioned in the context of the problem that it solves, namely the fact that we live in a life-friendly place. What the religious mind then fails to grasp is that two candidate solutions are offered to the problem. God is one. The anthropic principle is the other. They are alternatives. (emphasis added 3)
Liquid water is a necessary condition for life as we know it, but it is far from sufficient. Life still has to originate in the water, and the origin of life may have been a highly improbable occurrence. Darwinian evolution proceeds merrily once life has originated. But how does life get started? The origin of life was the chemical event, or series of events, whereby the vital conditions for natural selection first came about. The major ingredient was heredity, either DNA or (more probably) something that copies like DNA but less accurately, perhaps the related molecule RNA. Once the vital ingredient - some kind of genetic molecule - is in place, true Darwinian natural selection can follow, and complex life emerges as the eventual consequence. But the spontaneous arising by chance of the first hereditary molecule strikes many as improbable. Maybe it is very very improbable, and I shall dwell on this, for it is central to this section of the book.
THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE: COSMOLOGICAL VERSION, pp: 169-173
We live not only on a friendly planet but also in a friendly universe. It follows from the fact of our existence that the laws of physics must be friendly enough to allow life to arise. It is no accident that when we look at the night sky we see stars, for stars are a necessary prerequisite for the existence of most of the chemical elements, and without chemistry there could be no life. Physicists have calculated that, if the laws and constants of physics had been even slightly different, the universe would have developed in such a way that life would have been impossible. Different physicists put it in different ways, but the conclusion is always much the same." Martin Rees, in Just Six Numbers, lists six fundamental constants, which are believed to hold all around the universe. Each of these six numbers is finely tuned in the sense that, if it were slightly different, the universe would be comprehensively different and presumably unfriendly to life.
An example of Rees's six numbers is the magnitude of the so-called 'strong' force, the force that binds the components of an atomic nucleus: the nuclear force that has to be overcome when one 'splits' the atom. It is measured as E, the proportion of the mass of a hydrogen nucleus that is converted to energy when hydrogen fuses to form helium. The value of this number in our universe is 0.007, and it looks as though it had to be very close to this value in order for any chemistry (which is a prerequisite for life) to exist. Chemistry as we know it consists of the combination and recombination of the ninety or so naturally occurring elements of the periodic table. Hydrogen is the simplest and commonest of the elements. All the other elements in the universe are made ultimately from hydrogen by nuclear fusion. Nuclear fusion is a difficult process which occurs in the intensely hot conditions of the interiors of stars (and in hydrogen bombs). Relatively small stars, such as our sun, can make only light elements such as helium, the second lightest in the periodic table after hydrogen. It takes larger and hotter stars to develop the high temperatures needed to forge most of the heavier elements, in a cascade of nuclear fusion processes whose details were worked out by Fred Hoyle and two colleagues (an achievement for which, mysteriously, Hoyle was not given a share of the Nobel Prize received by the others). These big stars may explode as supernovas, scattering their materials, including the elements of the periodic table, in dust clouds. These dust clouds eventually condense to form new stars and planets, including our own. This is why Earth is rich in elements over and above the ubiquitous hydrogen: elements without which chemistry, and life, would be impossible.
The relevant point here is that the value of the strong force crucially determines how far up the periodic table the nuclear fusion cascade goes. If the strong force were too small, say 0.006 instead of 0.007, the universe would contain nothing but hydrogen, and no interesting chemistry could result. If it were too large, say 0.008, all the hydrogen would have fused to make heavier elements. A chemistry without hydrogen could not generate life as we know it. For one thing, there would be no water. The Goldilocks value – 0.007 – is just right for yielding the richness of elements that we need for an interesting and life-supporting chemistry.
I won't go through the rest of Rees's six numbers. The bottom line for each of them is the same. The actual number sits in a Goldilocks band of values outside which life would not have been possible. How should we respond to this? Yet again, we have the theist's answer on the one hand, and the anthropic answer on the other. The theist says that God, when setting up the universe, tuned the fundamental constants of the universe so that each one lay in its Goldilocks zone for the production of life. (emphasis added 4) It is as though God had six knobs that he could twiddle, and he carefully tuned each knob to its Goldilocks value. As ever, the theist's answer is deeply unsatisfying, because it leaves the existence of God unexplained. A God capable of calculating the Goldilocks values for the six numbers would have to be at least as improbable as the finely tuned combination of numbers itself, and that's very improbable indeed. (emphasis added 5) This is exactly the premise of the whole discussion we are having. It follows that the theist's answer has utterly failed to make any headway towards solving the problem at hand. I see no alternative but to dismiss it, while at the same time marveling at the number of people who can't see the problem and seem genuinely satisfied by the 'Divine Knob-Twiddler' argument. (emphasis added 6)
Maybe the psychological reason for this amazing blindness has something to do with the fact that many people have not had their consciousness raised, as biologists have, by natural selection and its power to tame improbability. J, Anderson Thomson, from his perspective as an evolutionary psychiatrist, points me to an additional reason, the psychological bias that we all have towards personifying inanimate objects as agents. As Thomson says, we are more inclined to mistake a shadow for a burglar than a burglar for a shadow. A false positive might be a waste of time. A false negative could be fatal. (emphasis added 7) In a letter to me, he suggested that, in our ancestral past, our greatest challenge in our environment came from each other. 'The legacy of that is the default assumption, often fear, of human intention. We have a great deal of difficulty seeing anything other than human causation.' We naturally generalized that to divine intention. (emphasis added 8) I shall return to the seductiveness of 'agents' in Chapter 5.
Biologists, with their raised consciousness of the power of natural selection to explain the rise of improbable things, are unlikely to be satisfied with any theory that evades the problem of improbability altogether. And the theistic response to the riddle of improbability is an evasion of stupendous proportions. It is more than a restatement of the problem, it is a grotesque amplification of it. (emphasis added 9) Let's turn, then, to the anthropic alternative. The anthropic answer, in its most general form, is that we could only be discussing the question in the kind of universe that was capable of producing us. Our existence therefore determines that the fundamental constants of physics had to be in their respective Goldilocks zones. Different physicists espouse different kinds of anthropic solutions to the riddle of our existence. Hard-nosed physicists say that the six knobs were never free to vary in the first place. When we finally reach the long-hoped for Theory of Everything, we shall see that the six key numbers depend upon each other, or on something else as yet unknown, in ways that we today cannot imagine. (emphasis added 10) The six numbers may turn out to be no freer to vary than is the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter. It will turn out that there is only one way for a universe to be. Far from God being needed to twiddle six knobs, there are no knobs to twiddle.
Other physicists (Martin Rees himself would be an example) find this unsatisfying, and I think I agree with them. It is indeed perfectly plausible that there is only one way for a universe to be. But why did that one way have to be such a set-up for our eventual evolution? Why did it have to be the kind of universe which seems almost as if, in the words of the theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson, it 'must have known we were coming'? (emphasis added 11) The philosopher John Leslie uses the analogy of a man sentenced to death by firing squad. It is just possible that all ten men of the firing squad will miss their victim. With hindsight, the survivor who finds himself in a position to reflect upon his luck can cheerfully say, 'Well, obviously they all missed, or I wouldn't be here thinking about it.' But he could still, forgivably, wonder why they all missed, and toy with the hypothesis that they were bribed, or drunk.
On the other hand, the Cosmological Anthropic Principle removes all doubt in celestial wine.
THE PARADOXES OF THE GOD HYPOTHESIS AND ZENO’S RACE, pp: 104-107
The most famous of the a priori arguments, those that rely upon pure armchair ratiocination, is the ontological argument, proposed by St Anselm of Canterbury in 1078 and restated in different forms by numerous philosophers ever since. An odd aspect of Anselm's argument is that it was originally addressed not to humans but to God himself, in the form of a prayer (you'd think that any entity capable of listening to a prayer would need no convincing of his own existence).
It is possible to conceive, Anselm said, of a being than which nothing greater can be conceived. Even an atheist can conceive of such a superlative being, though he would deny its existence in the real world. But, goes the argument, a being that doesn't exist in the real world is, by that very fact, less than perfect. Therefore we have a contradiction and, hey presto, God exists!
Let me translate this infantile argument into the appropriate language, which is the language of the playground: (emphasis added 12)
'Bet you I can prove God exists.'
'Bet you can't.'
'Right then, imagine the most perfect perfect perfect thing possible:
'Okay, now what?'
'Now, is that perfect perfect perfect thing real? Does it exist?'
'No, it's only in my mind.'
'But if it was real it would be even more perfect, because a really really perfect thing would have to be better than a silly old imaginary thing. So I've proved that God exists. Nur Nurny Nur Nur. All atheists are fools.'
I had my childish wiseacre choose the word 'fools' advisedly. (emphasis added 13) Anselm himself quoted the first verse of Psalm 14, 'The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God,' and he had the cheek to use the name 'fool' (Latin insipiens) for his hypothetical atheist:
Hence, even the fool is convinced that something exists in the understanding, at least, than which nothing greater can be conceived. For, when he hears of this, he understands it. And whatever is understood, exists in the understanding. And assuredly that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, cannot exist in the understanding alone. For, suppose it exists in the understanding alone: then it can be conceived to exist in reality; which is greater.
The very idea that grand conclusions could follow from such logomachist trickery offends me aesthetically, so I must take care to refrain from bandying words like 'fool'. (emphasis added 14) Bertrand Russell (no fool) interestingly said, 'It is easier to feel convinced that [the ontological argument] must be fallacious than it is to find out precisely where the fallacy lies.' Russell himself, as a young man, was briefly convinced by it:
I remember the precise moment, one day in 1894, as I was walking along Trinity Lane, when I saw in a flash (or thought I saw) that the ontological argument is valid. I had gone out to buy a tin of tobacco; on my way back, I suddenly threw it up in the air, and exclaimed as I caught it: 'Great God in boots!, the ontological argument is sound!'
Why, I wonder, didn't he say something like: 'Great God in boots, the ontological argument seems to be plausible. (emphasis added 15) But isn't it too good to be true that a grand truth about the cosmos should follow from a mere word game? I'd better set to work to resolve what is perhaps a paradox like those of Zeno.' The Greeks had a hard time seeing through Zeno's 'proof' that Achilles would never catch the tortoise.* But they had the sense not to conclude that therefore Achilles really would fail to catch the tortoise. Instead, they called it a paradox and waited for later generations of mathematicians to explain it. Russell himself, of course, was as well qualified as anyone to understand why no tobacco tins should be thrown up in celebration of Achilles' failure to catch the tortoise. Why didn't he exercise the same caution over St Anselm? I suspect that he was an exaggeratedly fair-minded atheist, over-eager to be disillusioned if logic seemed to require it. Or perhaps the answer lies in something Russell himself wrote in 1946, long after he had rumbled the ontological argument:
The real question is: Is there anything we can think of which, by the mere fact that we can think of it, is shown to exist outside our thought? Every philosopher would like to say yes, because a philosopher's job is to find out things about the world by thinking rather than observing. If yes is the right answer, there is a bridge from pure thought to things. If not, not.
My own feeling, to the contrary, would have been an automatic, deep suspicion of any line of reasoning that reached such a significant conclusion without feeding in a single piece of data from the real world. (emphasis added 16) Perhaps that indicates no more than that I am a scientist rather than a philosopher. Philosophers down the centuries have indeed taken the ontological argument seriously, both for and against. The atheist philosopher J. L. Mackie gives a particularly clear discussion in The Miracle of Theism. I mean it as a compliment when I say that you could almost define a philosopher as someone who won't take common sense for an answer.
* Zeno's paradox is too well known for the details to be promoted out of a footnote. Achilles can run ten times as fast as the tortoise, so he gives the animal, say, 100 yards' start. Achilles runs 100 yards, and the tortoise is now 10 yards ahead. Achilles runs the 10 yards and the tortoise is now 1 yard ahead. Achilles runs the 1 yard, and the tortoise is still a tenth of a yard ahead ... and so on ad infinitum, so Achilles never catches the tortoise.
The Divine Paradox
Paradox: T = tortoise speed, t = time of race
Assume Tortoise runs one yard per minute, and the race will last 11.11111… minutes.
Zeno’s Paradox is a trick of ratiocination where speed is replaced by distance.
Dawkins usurped God by Self creating the egocentric paradox, “I am God.”
The Divine Paradox ends with the frozen tear of an unsatisfying first impression.
OF MAN AND GOD
reply by EyeOfSiloam
The consideration of science is that the observer is not the observed. There is no basis for that ratiocination other than the ontological or a priori statement of it by a mortal hypothesis. And yet, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is proof that the observed is not separate from the observer and the whole of quantum mechanics rests on this uncertainty. However, it can be demonstrably shown that the holistic being of any part is necessarily the whole. Thus, the whole being of any idea of being is the Universal Being, or God. This says nothing of the value of the whole to the part, or of God to the rationalizing essence of the part. As Descartes said, “cogito ergo sum.” I think, therefore, I am. This is the ontological argument for the self. Does it mean that the whole identity is not the self defined individual? Unless the self defined individual is God and has omniscience, it cannot be truth. If the self identity is the whole and omniscient identity then by a priori definition the individual identity is the whole entity, ergo God. This is the paradox of man and God. If it is truth, then the Christian ontological argument by St. Anselm is proof of the existence of man and God, and more specifically, of man in God.
When St. Anselm stated the ontological argument his prayers indicate that he understood the nature of the whole and the part. The following prayer carries the meaning of the ontological prayer without assuming totality on the part of St. Anselm.
St Anselm Prayer for Faith
I acknowledge, Lord, and I give thanks that you have created your image in me, so that I may remember you, think of you, love you. But this image is so obliterated and worn away by wickedness, it is so obscured by the smoke of sins, that it cannot do what it was created to do, unless you renew and reform it. I am not attempting, O Lord, to penetrate your loftiness, for I cannot begin to match my understanding with it, but I desire in some measure to understand your truth, which my heart believes and loves. For I do not seek to understand in order that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand. For this too I believe, that “unless I believe, I shall not understand.” (Isa. 7:9)
Saint Anselm of Canterbury
Ultimately, the paradox of man and God is that the complete soul, or essence of being, of man is that of the Universal Being. This is not pantheism, but it includes pantheism because of the idea of no greater being. Again, other than Universal and Perfect Being, as in completeness and flawlessness, the action of the Supreme Being is not revealed. Such revelation will come to man individually as man reveals that part of an individual identity within the holistic identity that is God. St. Anselm could not be wrong in this ontological argument because it states what the existence of God means. It does not define God. Rather, it identifies words associated with Universal Beingness and it is the meaning of words that is being created by St. Anselm.
And the tempter came and said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread." But He answered and said, "It is written, 'man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of god.'" Matthew 4:3-4 (NASB)
Richard Hawkins, being a biological scientist works in the realm of ideas and substance (rational, material), but does not have access to the realm of feelings and immateriality (emotional, spiritual). Dawkins attempted to box in the concept of God so that he could demonstrate that God was not of rational material existence.
God Hypothesis: there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us.
Alternative View: any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution
If Dawkins had the courage to state his position properly he would have called his hypothesis an ontological argument. But, the whole purpose of his book is to prove that there can be no ontological intelligence. The only way to prove the lack of primordial intelligence is to return to that instant and then demonstrate the lack of intelligence. This process is impossible from an a priori position because if Dawkins, or some ratiocination of his mind, could reach back to the first prescient moment then he, or it, would have to be without intelligence. Thus, it is impossible to prove the lack of the existence of an omniscient being. St. Anselm understood that to mean that God exists and the ontological argument is valid and profound.
So, lets look at the details of the proofs Dawkins has provided and referenced above with bold underline font and let’s apply the rule of prescience blasphemy from Revelation 13:1-4 and the greatest total solar eclipse of our time.
Solar Eclipse of July
1And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
2And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.
3And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.
4And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?
The design theory says that God made the world, placed it in the Goldilocks zone, and deliberately set up all the details for our benefit. The anthropic approach is very different, and it has a faintly Darwinian feel. (emphasis added 1)
If the anthropic principle is an actuality, which it must be because beneficent forms have resulted in life, then it has to be the consequence of intelligent action. This includes the cosmological and biological perspective. The evolving organism is not void of intelligence. By Dawkins own explanations the DNA carries the knowledge that represents the intelligence of “extended process of gradual evolution.”
It is a strange fact, incidentally, that religious apologists love the anthropic principle. For some reason that makes no sense at all, they think it supports their case. (emphasis added 2)
It is also strange that Dawkins would use the word “love” without realizing that the word “love” is the one word that when proven reveals the truth of the God Hypothesis as he stated it. Obviously a culture created to foster love, such as the “religious apologists,” would love the anthropic principle which is by definition the process of love in action.
What the religious mind then fails to grasp is that two candidate solutions are offered to the problem. God is one. The anthropic principle is the other. They are alternatives. (emphasis added 3)
On the contrary, the religious mind senses that the solutions are one because the problem is singular. The problem is how to benefit life forms. The means is the anthropic principle and the cause is Divine Benevolence.
The theist says that God, when setting up the universe, tuned the fundamental constants of the universe so that each one lay in its Goldilocks zone for the production of life. (emphasis added 4)
In other words, God created heaven and placed earth in the heaven.
5)A God capable of calculating the Goldilocks values for the six numbers would have to be at least as improbable as the finely tuned combination of numbers itself, and that's very improbable indeed. (emphasis added 5)
St. Anselm’s ontological argument requires that God be infinitely intelligent without defining what infinitely means other than perfected. If it is perfected, then it is complete, and it must exist prior to any action it causes. St Anselm specifically states, “I am not attempting, O Lord, to penetrate your loftiness, for I cannot begin to match my understanding with it, but I desire in some measure to understand your truth, which my heart believes and loves.” This is the “infinite intelligence statement. It is a ratio of St. Anselm’s intelligence to the omniscience of God. It is not improbable that the intelligence in the Universal Being is within the whole of existence. It is assured.
I see no alternative but to dismiss it, while at the same time marveling at the number of people who can't see the problem and seem genuinely satisfied by the 'Divine Knob-Twiddler' argument. (emphasis added 6)
Being God, Dawkins can declare “no alternative” and for him there will be no alternative. This is rational tyranny and it does not allow the Universal Being the power of self will, for which Dawkins is the master.
A false positive might be a waste of time. A false negative could be fatal. (emphasis added 7)
Death is a waste of time. A positive mental attitude is faith and it is through faith that the association of self and God occurs. For this too I believe, that “unless I believe, I shall not understand.”
'The legacy of that is the default assumption, often fear, of human intention. We have a great deal of difficulty seeing anything other than human causation.' We naturally generalized that to divine intention. (emphasis added 8)
The egocentricity of all human thought is based upon fear. The survival instinct drives the psychological mechanism and the cause of the fear is God through false expectations appearing real (F-E-A-R).
Biologists, with their raised consciousness of the power of natural selection to explain the rise of improbable things, are unlikely to be satisfied with any theory that evades the problem of improbability altogether. And the theistic response to the riddle of improbability is an evasion of stupendous proportions. It is more than a restatement of the problem, it is a grotesque amplification of it. (emphasis added 9)
The idea of raised consciousness is, in fact, simply the Freudian id overwhelming the Freudian superego while the ego seeks a place to hide from the fear of God. Natural selection is nothing more than organisms choosing the direction of life’s path. The choice is made with intelligence, and not all such intelligence is destined toward enhancement of life. Of course, those choices that fail do not evolve. But, it does not mean that there was no intelligence in the decision. It simply means that there was insufficient intelligence, or insufficient means to affect the intelligence as desired. Whale ancestors walk ashore and millions of years later they walk back into the sea. Does that mean that coming ashore was unintelligent, or that adaption and natural selection are subjects of changing intent?
Hard-nosed physicists say that the six knobs were never free to vary in the first place. When we finally reach the long-hoped for Theory of Everything, we shall see that the six key numbers depend upon each other, or on something else as yet unknown, in ways that we today cannot imagine. (emphasis added 10)
In the “Theory of Everything” we have evidence of the ontological argument of modern science. There has been a proven “Theory of Everything” on planet Earth for as long as humans have had religion in any form. The archaeological record demonstrates that human traditions and religious cultures have existed for well over 30,000 years. The essential statement of the dogmas of these religions is that a “Theory of Everything” has been found. The concept of a “Theory of Everything” espoused by the dogmas of modern science is evidence that modern science is simply a usurping religion. Modern science cannot resolve a “Theory of Everything” because it is dissatisfying to scientists (humans) that they should ever become cognizant of the All. Scientists are in love with ignorance. Not that they desire ignorance for its own value, but that they have an opportunity to win a Nobel Prize because they have removed ignorance from the realm of science. In religion, ignorance is a place where the truth has not been accepted and without foundation, i.e., unfounded. When a religious truth is found, it is not created by the seeker, it is revealed to the seeker by the Universal Being. Religious truth is always revealed truth that was preexistent, for God is omniscient in accordance with the ontological argument.
Why did it have to be the kind of universe which seems almost as if, in the words of the theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson, it 'must have known we were coming'? (emphasis added 11)
It is because the God Hypothesis is proven. Like any artist or craftsman, the existent being behaves in accordance with intent. The outcome is known prior to the perfection of the outcome. Otherwise, we have to assume that Thales learned the height of the Great Pyramid even though the Egyptians did not know how high it was going to be before they created it. Creativity is not a matter of chance and chaos. It is the consequence of the evolving intelligence. Dyson marvels at the fact that the Universal Being knew “we were coming,” but in actuality, the Universal Intelligence was in the process of revelation from the very beginning. What has come is the cognition of the intent to reveal. The intent was always there.
Let me translate this infantile argument into the appropriate language, which is the language of the playground: (emphasis added 12)
St. Anselm, “Even an atheist can conceive of such a superlative being, though he would deny its existence in the real world.” Dawkins remark is that of an adolescent. He complains too much because he is so infantile in his intelligence.
I had my childish wiseacre choose the word 'fools' advisedly. (emphasis added 13)
There should be no doubt that the “childish wiseacre” is Richard Dawkins image of his own hidden ignorance, an alter ego of arrogant proportions.
The very idea that grand conclusions could follow from such logomachist trickery offends me aesthetically, so I must take care to refrain from bandying words like 'fool'. (emphasis added 14)
A fool always complains about being called a fool.
Why, I wonder, didn't he say something like: 'Great God in boots, the ontological argument seems to be plausible. (emphasis added 15)
Had Dawkins ever attempted the ontological argument in honesty he would realize that it is always answered by revelation. It is never proven by insignificant knowledge within the self. The prime example is the revelation to Saul regarding his persecutions of the “way, truth, and the life” that was the Lord Jesus. When we encounter the Truth on our journeys it always hits us like a “lightning bolt” from Zeus. We are shocked into reality of the existence of God. Dawkins has never experienced revelation and he attempts to deny its potential existence in order to save his own self divined existence; survival instinct is genetic intelligence, i.e., id.
he was traveling, it happened that he was approaching Damascus, and suddenly
a light from heaven flashed around him; and he fell to the ground and heard a
voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?" And
he said, "Who are You, Lord?" And He said, "I am Jesus whom
you are persecuting, but get up and enter the city, and it will be told you
what you must do."
My own feeling, to the contrary, would have been an automatic, deep suspicion of any line of reasoning that reached such a significant conclusion without feeding in a single piece of data from the real world. (emphasis added 16)
Dawkins: “I mean it as a compliment when I say that you could almost define a philosopher as someone who won't take common sense for an answer.”
The rational material world of modern civilization is a political monster. Its purpose for some 10,000 years has been the domination of Nature. It assumes that Nature is without Intent, and claims all Intent as of human creation. Common sense cannot be found in microscopes or telescopes or other instruments. These devices of modern science reject common sense on the basis that common sense is ignorant, else why would scientists need to seek the rational material explanations of how existence responds to existing? Revelation is the common sense process of communing with Universal Intent. To hide common sense the legalism and materialism of modern civilization dictates common knowledge and demands obeisance to groups of peers. Those peers are simply the rational automatons who cannot comprehend any value in common sense before it has been scientifically logged in the rationalizations published by peers. If the scientist can convert common sense into common knowledge among peers, then the scientist will receive a “just reward.” In the parlance of the cosmologies of ancient religions, this is simply the grasp of the Great Red Dragon attempting to cast the stars of the third part of the heavens onto the celestial earth.
And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne. Revelation 12:1-5 (KJV)
Common sense would tell an intelligent person that the wonder in heaven clothed in the sun with the moon under foot is Mother Earth. The man-child of the iron hand would be Libra, as in Justice and Cosmic Judgment. The Great Red Dragon would be the combined asterisms of Scorpio and Libra, where the man-child of the iron hand would be the consuming claws of the monster of unbalanced desire. As for the third part of the stars of heaven we need only look toward the central region of the Milky Way, which was heaven to the ancient religious peoples, and find that the tail of the great Red Dragon was hooked onto the Milky Way at the cosmic womb of stars. One star happened to come into light where a house of bread was above and a temple of man was underneath. But, the wisdom of Dawkins says that to consider north as up in Chauvinism Borealis, for the orientations of up and down are not a property of existence. If that were a possibility, then how many ancient cultures would have been lost when they used this common sense to navigate the Commanding Heights?
Great men have come to the understanding that Man is both rational and irrational, both material and immaterial. Throughout the ages men have known Man and through that knowledge Man was born from a Virgin. Not because he came to believe, but because he came to understand. Belief is always the first step to understanding. Without belief men are fools wandering in a wilderness wondering, “Am I, I am?” St. Anselm said it best, “I do not seek to understand so that I can believe, but I believe so that I may understand; and what is more, I believe that unless I do believe, I shall not understand.” Richard Dawkins is a virgin who has never figured out the paradox of Man as a circle and as a square. A circle is an irrational form. A square is a rational form. When we acknowledge these, Man is One.
The Kingdom of Heaven as it Looks today.
All the great cosmologies of human civilizations got their intelligence from the common sense perception of the whole of the heavens. If Chauvinism Borealis was the nature of human intelligence the lion would have to be seen as walking upside down. And the Land of the 72 Virgins would have to be where the sprig of wheat dangles from the woman whose bosom is a star of the same name as she hung from the floor of the celestial earth. And what of the Twins, would they walk by bouncing on their heads?
In the words of the theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson, it 'must have known we were coming.' The idea that the heavens were oriented so that human consciousness could discern a Cosmic Intelligence by sensation in common requires that the paths of the stars be established before the dark matter in the region of the Sun began to coalesce into a star system in a region of the heavens called Earth. It was this very Synchronicity that proved that St. Anselm’s ontological argument was just a matter of Common Sense. Although the saint showed no understanding of the celestial writings, the whole of the Bible is based upon what the stars revealed. For, “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.” Psalm 19:1-3
The Kingdom of Heaven as it would have looked over 50,000 years ago.
The Kingdom of Heaven as it will look over 50,000 years from today.
Scientific American August 1975, The Stellar-Orientation System of a Migratory Bird
It is easier for modern science to believe that the birds are guided by the stars than to believe that humans found the heavens to be a place of Eternal Guidance. But, the Holy Scriptures of all human cultures clearly demonstrate that humans did know the ways of the Lord of the Universe. Their Sacred Science was superior to modern mundane science for a simple reason. That reason was the ontological argument and what St. Anselm prayed.
A prayer of St Anselm
Lord Jesus Christ; Let me seek you by desiring you, and let me desire you by seeking you; let me find you by loving you, and love you in finding you.
I confess, Lord, with thanksgiving, that you have made me in your image, so that I can remember you, think of you, and love you.
But that image is so worn and blotted out by faults, and darkened by the smoke of sin, that it cannot do that for which it was made, unless you renew and refashion it.
Lord, I am not trying to make my way to your height, for my understanding is in no way equal to that, but I do desire to understand a little of your truth which my heart already believes and loves.
I do not seek to understand so that I can believe, but I believe so that I may understand; and what is more, I believe that unless I do believe, I shall not understand.
Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion demonstrates that we cannot understand what we cannot believe. Belief is the first step to recovering lost intelligence present before the Sun began to shine when Creationism was just a dream of the potential of Intelligent Design. We will discover far more about reality by belief than we can ever forget in doubt, for in doubt there is always the potential of reincarnation of the truth we once knew and evolution caused us to forget.
ARROGANCE OF MAN AS GOD
The concepts of Richard Dawkins are not of his own making, as he clearly admits to submission to peer review. Whether his peers of review are a Sanhedrin Court is a serious concern. But, by virtue of the science of evolution his potential for creative intent and intelligent design are squashed into obeisance to the laws of science. Yet, before Darwin and St. Anselm, and Constantine I and Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great and the Pharaohs of Egypt and the priests of Sumer and the cultures of Ancient India and other cultures lost in the antiquity of the evolution of man there were “cave men” called Magdalenians, and beyond them Cro-Magnon and Neanderthals and the primates who chose the path of man’s ancestry. There is no serious debate regarding the sequence in the present discussion. As such, that totally defuses Dawkins and his self created god hypothesis. The debate is over whether man is man, or God is man.
Dawkins clearly indicates that his peers are more intelligent than all prior forms of intelligent beings. That is his alternative hypothesis. So, let’s review his whole presentation through the evaluation of the Alternative View. If the Alternative View can be proven false, then the probability of greater intelligence in the past is one hundred percent. The fact that the Universal Being is benevolent and intelligent was proven by the cosmological anthropic principle, and by common sense. Now, we need only show that common sense predates modern science and we will verify that The God Delusion is actually The Self Delusion of modern men of science.
God Hypothesis: there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us.
Alternative View: any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution
Most theists are likely to conclude that it is a waste of time to attempt to bring God to an atheist. But, the paradox of man and God is that God is the atheist absent of divinely created intelligence. This paradox implies that God is a lie inside the atheist. Since the Perfect Being cannot be a lie, we have a Zeno type paradox. We have to clarify the variables so that we can bring the Divine Presence in the atheist through the cloud created by the lack of truth awareness within the atheist.
The word enthusiasm is where we must begin. It means “God within.” One fact is clear regarding atheists; they are enthusiastic about their dogmatic addiction to rationalizations of the material existence. God is not void of rational material being, for all rational material being is of God. Yet, God is more than rational consciousness and material substance. God is also irrational consciousness and immaterial spirit. The irrational consciousness is the genetic wisdom that allows the science of evolution to get a foothold in material existence. We experience it as emotion, and any open attention to the words of Dawkins clearly shows that he is lost in emotional cognition to the point that he does not perceive when his emotional awareness interferes with his rational awareness. “God exists. Nur Nurny Nur Nur. All atheists are fools,” claims Dawkins through his childish wiseacre. This salient bit of honesty tells us that Dawkins treats profound truth as if it were “the language of the playground,” meaning immaturity. Yet, this language is the language of the egocentric self after establishment of a personal god within the host organism. Dawkins has a place on the game board of life, but he sits on an ivory tower above the considerations of alternative paths of truth in the game.
Since the Exodus of Egypt the cultures of Western Civilization have denied common sense that is based upon the “spirits in the sky.” Socrates, a founding father of Western Civilization, was executed because he taught the denial of the spirits in the sky. Prior to Socrates, Thales was acclaimed for discerning the height of the Great Pyramid using the logic of similarity of triangles. The Greeks, and all the Occidental cultures moved the consciousness of Western Man toward the love of wisdom rather than the experience of wisdom. It was better to speak well of wisdom than to act with wisdom. As a result, the Greek Science moved away from common sense and the methods of Oriental wisdom. Understand that the word Orient is derived from eastern and from sense relationships. The consequence was devastating in Occidental cultures with regard to the comprehension of the metaphysics of the world before Greece. The Greeks lost the holistic metaphysics that existed in Egypt and dated back some 30-40,000 years on their stated record. As the Masonic symbolism in the adjacent image shows, the love of wisdom allowed for specialization by individuals. The problem that arose was that those who managed to acquire “high places” never got back in the game. The goal of the game of life was the ascension of the Stairway of Light, or the Stairway of Heaven, also known as Jacob’s Ladder. The goal of the Greeks was rational love of wisdom called philosophy.
Those who reached the “High Places” became the peers of the elevated. It is in this ethereal realm that the rational knowledge of Richard Dawkins is intelligence void of any Divine Source. He can commune with the others on his level, but he cannot commune with the common folk on the game board, or with the goal of reaching the Light of the World. Common Sense had become blasphemy to the intelligencia of the Occidentals.
What gives any human being the power to ascend to such self divined heights? The answer is in the ontological argument of St. Anselm. The power to enthuse is given to all mortals, and specialists tend to be enthusiastic about what they do best. As a social entity, these “High Places” provide a pedestal on which to establish egocentric domains. As the players on the game board move their pieces from square to square they can come to a pedestal and listen as the “enshrined specialist” expounds upon the universal wisdom so enshrined. These elites then become the pillars of the community of intellectuals who are not only void of common sense, but look down on common sense as unworthy of intelligent pursuit.
If the specialist were universally oriented, as were the more ancient “wise men from the orient,” they would see that the pedestal is a trap. Like Moses, they can see the Promised Land from the top of their “High Places,” but they cannot enter into the Promised Land because they gave water to the children lost in the wilderness. This water is the emotional fulfillment that the seekers of the wisdom of the specialist find when they stand under the pedestal of the specialist. The specialists tell the children what they want to hear to satisfy an emotional desire; the waters of Zin.
So, we should give a prayer of homage to those like Richard Dawkins who have sold their own universal soul for the sake of some “High Place,” such as the “Simonyi Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science” at the University of Oxford in 1995. That would have been fine, except in September 2008, Dawkins retired from his post as Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science, announcing plans to "write a book aimed at youngsters in which he will warn them against believing in "anti-scientific fairytales."
This is the essential problem of all the cultures that passed through Assyria and Babylon after the Exodus from Egypt and the Orient. The intellectually elite are the First Fathers of Many Nations in their own minds, for they have run away from their own Fatherlands. They have no comprehension of the prescience that existed before they were ensconced on Ivory Towers. The same thing happened to Einstein and other young scientists who never understood the meaning of the Sheep Door. They proclaim that they are shepherds, but they deny that they are lost as they guide occidental culture by disorientation through rational philosophy. They have not played the Game of Life for so long they simply do not understand the basic paradox of man as God.
We are all God and we are each God. This truth is self evident. But, it is not a function of our powers of self will. It is the function of the powers passed on to us by the Lord of the Universe who “knew we were coming.” The Cosmic Intent has the verifiable objective of duplicating itself in every life form it conceives. It is this objective that powers the machinery of evolution. The intelligence came before the decision to change that became the evolutionary record. It came as a prescience of things to come and change was initiated for the prescient intent. Each organism prophesies its next move on the game board. If it is a successful move, then the game goes on. Those who reach the ultimate success on the game board of life reach the Stairway to Heaven and return with their accomplishments as gifts to the Lord of the Universe that set out to live within the mortal life form that was given to them.
We can honor Richard Dawkins for the works the Creator has completed through his life. But, for the sake of the children of tomorrow, we cannot allow the arrogance of self divination to be passed on to the children on the game board. His wisdom will lead them to self delusion as they come to deny that Creationism is a process by which all free willed organisms evolve as they “create” new lives for themselves. And those who evolve with Intelligent Design duplicate the dream of the Lord of the Universe.
Unfortunately, since the death of Socrates we have had few participants on the political game board who truly understand the rules of the game. The majority of the Occidental elite rise on ego balloons to ethereal towers where they are the omniscient and omnipotent master of their own specialty. The wandering children who pay obeisance to these tyrants of rational material existence are then prepared to continue the destruction of the primordial intelligence that existed before Man became Occidental Man and abandoned the ways of the wise men from the east.
This review of The God Delusion is being completed during the week of the greatest solar eclipse of modern times. On July 22, 2009 there will be an eclipse across Asia and the Western Pacific that has the Cosmological Intent of Reorienting the Human Race.
The population chart and the eclipse shadow map show that the shadow of the eclipse will cover nearly one half the human populations on Earth. No eclipse has ever placed so many human beings into the shadow of Lunacy. The spirit message the eclipse reveals to the world is to restore common sense to the Earth before it is too late. As long as the planet creates ivory towers on which to fake wisdom as rational intelligence, the occupants of the ivory towers will move in ways that kill all opportunity for humanity to rise above the disgrace of Unbalanced Desire. The chart indicates that Oriental population increase will dramatically outpace the Occidental population increase. And it is across these Oriental populations that the Lunar shadow falls.
Richard Dawkins is a leader in the race to destroy ancient intelligence. Maybe he acts in concert with a compromising Lord of the Universe to accelerate the destruction of human greed and stem the population growth. If so, then it should be clear that the game of evolution has resulted in a failure to induce Divine Cognition in a mortal creature. The last 4-5 billion years should have proven that the intelligence in the universe is on a devolving path, but what we have is knowledge without wisdom. Arrogance is not intelligence, for it is the absence of the wisdom to balance human desire.
In the ancient Aboriginal cultures that looked toward the heavens they established a place for Dreamtime. There, in the Elysian Field at the top of the world was the destiny of all souls who strived to fulfill the will of the Creator at the top of the Stairway to Heaven. This will, as described by the anthropic principle, is toward a Goldilocks Zone where life occurs in a Land of Eternal Happiness at the celestial lotus in the House of Bread, Bethlehem. In other words, Bethlehem is the destiny of "anti-scientific fairytales." Nevertheless, the destiny is a place in realty where the 72 Virgins await those who make it up the Stairway to Heaven.
At the eastern horizon of Varanasi, India during maximum eclipse the planet Mercury, which the ancient divination stories equate with wisdom, will rise above the horizon beneath the Sun and the Moon in the ancient house of Senses. Mercury was an Evening Star that the occultation of the Sun makes into a Morning Star. The ultimate reward for all who persevere is tomorrow, as signified by the Morning Star. This celestial spirit is the blasphemy of Revelation 13:1. It is blasphemy to the rational Socratic mind. Nevertheless, it is a sign of extreme importance to the supposed intelligent species on the Earth. But, that species equates rational knowledge with wisdom, and its advocates for the children of tomorrow teach of the repression of all spirits not identified in the scientific realm of men like Richard Dawkins. The domination of human civilization my secular rational material thought guarantees the repression of common sense. The occultation of the Sun by the Moon on July 22, 2009 is revealing the House of Sensations, and that revelation is a request to restore common sensation in the cosmological anthropic process. If the use of cosmological common sense is not restored, then extreme destruction will be required to restore the balance of nature.
Far above the Evening Star of the Morning that sits in the Manger of the Christ Child are the goddess of Love and the god of War in the head of the Celestial Cow. Venus is known throughout the world as the Love planet and the one most associated with the Morning Star. On July 22, 2009, Venus will share the role of Morning Star with her brother Mars. Now, as for Mars being the god of War, we need to be a little more perceptive. Mars is really the god of rational being. It is over rational perceptions that wars are fought. Thus, these siblings of the Earth will rise with the spiritual message “rational love.” By this is meant that desire must be fulfilled in balance with the Universal Will for the sake of Mother Nature, the celestial cow. If the mind and the heart are not in balance, as is the case of Richard Dawkins, then destruction must come. The Occidental masters cannot continue to repress the emotions and spirits of their children without the equivalent of a human super nova. The children will erupt because the emotional and spiritual needs of the Occidental cultures are not met by rational material gifts.
In the image of High Time we note that the Summer Solstice sits on the plane of the Milky Way. Accordingly, the Winter Solstice must also sit upon the plane of the Milky Way opposite the Summer Solstice. And, in its proper position the Vernal Equinox must be at the bottom of the apparent path of the Sun opposite the Dreamtime of the Virgin in the last of the House of the Nazarenes of Pisces. Thus, with the eclipse we can understand the great intelligence of the ancestral cultures who predicted the entry of the Spring Sun into the Land of the Rising Sun before the Giza Complex was constructed to mark the Eternal Return of the Sun.
Can you see what this means? In a scientific world that places the vernal Equinox at the 1st of Aries, there is a Cosmological Deception. For the two thousand years that the Summer Sun passed completely through the House of the Twins, the Occidental Culture never acknowledged the Sign of the Times, the 1st of Pisces, or the 1st of the Nazarenes. Is it a paradox that the Occidentals never thought of the Cosmological Anthropic Principle while the Summer Sun passed through the House of the “I Think”? No, it is not a paradox. For those two thousand years the rational material sciences dominated the Signs of the Times and rejected the Spirits in the Sky after the King of the Jews was crucified and the journey of the Sun was stopped for about a whole day, where a day is one zodiac house.
So, if the pyramids of Egypt and China and the temples of Cambodia and Mexico, and the Sacred Sites of Polynesia and India all carry the Spirits in the Sky that foretell the Signs of the Times, then it is Occidental Man that has usurped the Way of the Lord. And now, a usurper called Richard Dawkins, molded in the model of Aries, proposes to write a book to warn children against believing in "anti-scientific fairytales" of the Signs of the Times. This is pure arrogance. This is pure Arianism. It can lead only to tyranny and global wars, for the “anti-scientific fairytales” are the Word of God.
Ariansim is the ultimate heresy, for it proclaims that the Son of God is not of the same substance as the Father of God. Arianism was a form of Christianity that denied that man was God and denied that the Son of God was the Father of God. Ariansim was a cult of Self Identity separate from the Universal Being. This, according to the ontological argument of St. Anselm is impossible, for it implies that the Universal being is not universal. Such is the nature of all arrogance, for that act is one of self creation in a universe of no Living God. This would be the place where elimination of "anti-scientific fairytales" would be necessary to force the Universal Being to succumb to the mortal free will. Arianism is a form of atheism that places self desire above Divine Will, and it is in this mind that the Great red Dragon empowers the beast of senselessness.
Modern cosmology rejects the ancient astronomical sciences as fairy tales because modern astronomical scientists deplore the idea that by connecting the dots a spirit in the sky will appear that presents the Mind of God at the moment when the Intelligent Design of the heavens was just a Creationist Dream Time. Is there a proper reason why the Religion of Rational Material Science should usurp all the other religions of man? The proper reason is what has been titled The God Delusion. This reason is based upon man not being God. And those who raise the ontological declaration of their own lack of Divine Intent have the God given right to do just that.
Why would the Perfect Being of St. Anselm allow such devolving nature? The answer rises in the Ontological Response; because they can. If the Supreme Being should step in and stop the self proclaimed divines of atheistic persuasion, then that action should also be taken against those who acknowledge Cosmic Self Will, i.e., God. The more perfect solution is to allow the mortals to destroy themselves if that is what they choose. Clearly, Richard Dawkins has set on a path to destroy the conscience of man. It is a terrible waste of human intelligence. But, all intelligence is not wise. God wasted no wisdom on Richard Dawkins and his The God Delusion, for throughout all its pages we find only arrogance of an occupant of an Ivory Tower. As such, there must have been greater intelligence before Man became Man, and the Alternative View, “any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution” is demonstrably false. The proof that the end product of evolution can be lost intelligence will come on Judgment Day. At that time, either Man will acquire true judgment, or Man will self destruct. Either outcome proves that The God Delusion is heresy of the Arian form.
The reader is referred to http://www.eyeofsiloam.com/Varanasi/ where the story of the Greatest Eclipse of Human witness is presented from sunrise in Somanth, India to sunset in Mauna Kea, Hawaii. The site reveals the fallacy of the “pro-scientific fairytales” of the inflationary Word of Guth. Alan Guth looks through the window of a blackboard past the Milky Way without connecting the dots and concludes the origin of time is the instant of a Big Bang. The whole expanding universe “Theory of Almost Everything” is based upon the “pro-scientific fairytale” of the eternal life of intergalactic photons. Such blindness can only come to people on high places who have no feel for the game of life.
They cannot see that the tail of the Great Red Dragon is hooked to the third part of the stars of heaven where it casts the whole of the stars of heaven to the earth for unbridled consumption. If modern science were an intelligence oriented cult, it would restore the ancient dot-to-dot story board and find every God known to Man. Only then could modern science restore common sense for communion with the Spirits in the Sky that have come down to Earth for the last 40,000 years, or more. Any action that does not restore the dot-to-dot connections is hypocrisy and political intrigue driven by the Unbalanced Desire to repress what was once known. Repression of intelligence is by its very nature the devolution of intelligence by Natural Selection. Thus, it is a false hypothesis that creative intelligence comes as the end product of gradual evolution. The Alternative Hypothesis is an ideal in a dogmatic mundane rationalization hardly worthy to be called science.
Today the Elephant People are under attack in troubled waters. In the distance it is possible to see the way of salvation coming, but that way does not include a religion dominated by mundane science. Like every Sacred Science of Elephant Man it requires that wisdom be conserved to stop the never ending consumption.
THE EYE OF SILOAM
Click on Header for Printable File
Click on Images to Step Through
the History of Western Culture
Man begins as male and female, rational and emotional.
Man conjures and becomes rational and confused.
Man breaks the ontological barrier and becomes self enlightened.
Man struggles for the definition of soul in the rationalizing light of self identity.
Rational Man becomes bound by heroic intent to defeat emotional bondage and leaves the game board of reality.
Paternal salvation denies maternal origins and destiny as woman becomes a Harlot and a Beast of Burden.
Alexander cuts the Gordian Knot as the premier Mother's Son.
The Cosmic Consciousness is restored at the end of the age of Aries.
The Hellenistic Age struggeles to acquire a New Age Identity and the Aryans consume the Maternal Dream.
The Light of the World returns and restores the Lost Wisdom of the Ages.
During the Journey of the Sun on the Rock of Ages God comes down from heaven to raise Man back up to heaven..
Man denies the vision of the Ages and Scientific Reductionism fails to see what is in the Eyes of Man.
Jupiter was in opposition at the death of Senator Edward Kennedy on August 26, 2009. The insert show data that proves that Galileo did not understand what he saw. The stars having optical magnitudes within the range of magnitude of the four Galilean Moons are illustrated. We might be tempted to say that these stars may not have been witnessed by the ancestors of Galileo, and in particular, the founders of the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches because they are peripheral to the constellation of Capricorn where Jupiter was when the Son of Chappaquiddick transitioned back to the stars.
However, when we look at the stars of Pisces we note that a major portion of the stars of Pisces are within the magnitude range of the Galilean Moons. And of absolutely critical importance are the stars of the Key of Heaven toward which Constantine I dedicated the sign from heaven at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge and the establishment of Christendom.
ESTABLISHMENT OF CHRISTENDOM
All of this demonstrates that the psychons of Egypt were the Truth experiences of the most empirically precise culture the world has ever known. Modern Science is not based upon True Science it is based upon the political aspirations of the Peers of Science. What these peers want to be the Dogma of Science is the dogma, whether it is cosmically correct, or not. Modern Science is a religion of atheists and that is why over ninety percent of the peers of science deny the Universal Truth that our minds are the consequence of the Mind of God. Our nervous system and brain organisms create a Spirit called Mind that we identify with as Self. It is in this way that the Son of God comes down to Earth and becomes the Son of Man. If we are to teach the Truth of the Cosmic Totality, then we have to restore the Sacred Sciences that allowed the Word of to be expressed through the Four Sons of Horus.
The Paradox of Man and God is that Man has the "Imaginary Power" to usurp the "Mind of God." In order for that to be true, then there has to be a "Mind of God" to usurp and it has to be individual identity, Self, and universal identity, Catholic. The means to removing of The God Delusion is to practice the witnessing of the Cosmic Reality using Common Sense without arrogant Self Identity that proclaims what the cosmic scribe writes is pure righteousness.
Whenever we do things By the Book our lives become fantasies and th psychons we develop are experiences of mind games in all their diversities and uniqueness. The tail of the Teacher of Righteousness is at the scribe's instrument, and it is telling us that scriptures are always "Self Righteousness" of academicians. The Master of the Plow has to get beyond "Self Righteousness" that comes from doing things By the Book and do them in accordance with the Father in Heaven. When this apocalypse comes to the scribe, the hypocrisy of faulty judgment will end. Above the space between the Teacher of Righteousness and the Master of the Plow is Saturn, whose right arm is on the balance signifying the End of Days and the Last Judgment of the neophyte scribe. This is the moment of Commencement when the scribe leaves the halls of the elevated Peers and ascends the Stairway to Heaven.
1The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem. 2Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity. 3What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun? 4One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever. 5The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose. 6The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits. 7All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again. 8All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing. 9The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
10Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us. 11There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after. 12I the Preacher was king over Israel in Jerusalem. 13And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven: this sore travail hath God given to the sons of man to be exercised therewith. 14I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit.
15That which is crooked cannot be made straight: and that which is wanting cannot be numbered. 16I communed with mine own heart, saying, Lo, I am come to great estate, and have gotten more wisdom than all they that have been before me in Jerusalem: yea, my heart had great experience of wisdom and knowledge. 17And I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly: I perceived that this also is vexation of spirit. 18For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
Ecclesiastes 1:15 is the mantra of Atheism that causes the skeptic mind to cave in by Self Righteousness. Beauty comes when the Master of the Plow finds the richness in the freedom of the forming of a psychon of personal experience. These experiences are not lived alone by a Self, but they are the diversity and uniqueness that allow a man to Create a Self. Yet, Truth is not bounded by Man or God. Truth identifies that which is as well as that which is not. For, even if there were no potential for existence, were it so, it would be truth. But, those who become Masters of the Plow they are the Sons of God who have learned the Wisdom of the Divine Self and have felt the beneficence of a star born under a feild of wheat above an abyss surrounded by the firmament of the Via Galactia in a region called Earth. Around that star travels a Woman Clothed in the Sun with one Moon under foot known as Mother Earth. The Son of the Sun is Jupiter because the ancients saw the Sons of Horus and they knew that the most beneficent star in the Mind of Man is the one born in the House of Bread of the Virgin. There is nothing new under the sun except the delusions in the minds of man. God was, God is, God will be, but Man will never learn that to usurp the mind of God is a delusion. Learning is not a destination, it is the process of the journey to become a Master of the Plow after sacrificing the Self Delusion that there is only Self.
The Son of the Sun, came down from Heaven on the journey of the Eternal Return.
Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life. The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true. Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go. Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man. And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me. It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me. Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.
And he sendeth forth two of his disciples, and saith unto them, Go ye into the city, and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water: follow him.
THE EYE OF SILOAM
Click on Header for Printable File
Physical Evolution of the Human Soul
THE SELF DELUSION OR THE GOD DELUSION