Thy Liberty In Law

(This is a standalone post apart from the chronological grouping of all previous posts. It is meant as a rebuttal to the popular video “Overview of America,” in the video segment titled “The American Form of Government” (video 2 of 4) by the John Birch Society, and will likewise be made into an audiovisual project.) 

 

When Benjamin Franklin exited the Constitutional Convention, he was asked by a woman, “Sir, what have you given us?” His response was, “A Republic, Ma’am, if you can keep it.”

 

The problem in our country today is that no one, not even our Founding Fathers, has properly defined what a Republic is, which makes it difficult for anyone to know how to “keep” it. In order to keep or maintain something, we first must have a clear definition of what it is and how it functions, in order to recognize when it has become dysfunctional. For example, someone who does not know what a clock is will not be able to recognize when it is working improperly and thus will not be capable of keeping or maintaining it. In order to keep our republic, we must first define it.

 

In the video segment “The American Form of Government” by the John Birch Society, the word “republic” is broken down to its Latin origin. With “Res” meaning “Thing” and “Publica” meaning “Public,” the author defines a republic as “The Public Thing,” or “The Law.” The video goes on to explain, “A true republic is one where the government is limited by Law, leaving the people alone.” This definition however, serves only to confuse, as it leads us to question, WHAT LAW, or more importantly, WHOSE LAW?

 

Every republic operates according to its own version of law, which explains the vast differences in each republic today. The Islamic Republic of Iran operates according to Islamic law as interpreted by its Supreme Leader. The People’s Republic of China operates according to Communist law as interpreted by the Chinese Communist Party. The Republic of the Congo operates according to the law established by the next person who successfully executes a government coup and survives long enough to impose it. Each of these forms of government claim to be republics, as each operates according to its own interpretation of law. Here we find the weakness in this definition. If a republic is a government limited by law, but the law is whatever the people or government want it to be, then a republic can be anything – an oligarchy, a communist state, a democracy, etc. – so long as it is written into “law.”

 

If this is the case, then what prevents the American republic from becoming a theocratic oligarchy like Iran’s republic, a communist state like China’s republic, or a chaotic dictatorship like the Congolese republic?

 

The answer is: THE LAW.

 

The law that serves as a foundation for the American republic is fundamentally different from the founding law of all other republics.

 

To illustrate this difference, we must first understand what a law is.

 

What is a law?

 

Currently, dictionaries offer only redundant or inadequate definitions for the word “law.” A common definition for “Law” is: “A rule or collection of rules” which is tantamount to saying, “A law is a law.” Another definition for “law” is “any written rule prescribed under the authority of the state or nation,” which is inadequate due to the fact that there are many laws authorities cannot establish, such as a law banning human beings from being born with navels, or a law establishing red as everyone’s favorite color. Such examples may seem ludicrous at first but serve to demonstrate that certain laws can be made while others cannot. This means that a law is not simply “any written rule prescribed by authorities” but that a law must have a specific composition, or constitution, in order for it to qualify as a legitimate law.

 

What constitutes a law?

 

To discover the correct constitution of law, let’s use a simple analogy.

 

A private law a citizen can create is a legally binding document known as a check, or an agreement to pay another for goods or services rendered via a banking institution. In order to enact this law, it must contain specific components.

 

First, a check must be legislated. A person authorized to act for the account must legibly author a proposed action, such as the recipient’s name and the amount of money to be paid, along with other details pertaining to the account. This is the legislative component of the law.

 

Second, a check must be authorized. A person authorized to act for the account must confirm the proposed action, in which the authored part of the check (or the name, amount and other information) is confirmed as correct by the account holder’s signature, which signature qualifies the law for execution. This is part of the executive component of the law. (For the law to be fully executed requires the recipient’s additional confirmation that the check is, in fact, correct, plus any additional confirmations that lead to the complete execution, or cashing, of the check.)

 

Here we see that the legitimacy of this private law is determined by its constitution. If the check does not contain both the legislative and executive components, it cannot qualify as a law. Without the legislative component, the check contains no proposed action. Without the executive component, the check’s proposed action is not authorized for execution. However, does the combination of these two components constitute a complete law? No. Both the legislative and executive components of the check are null and void if they do not concur with mathematical truth, meaning that the amount to be paid must be mathematically correct, or must truly exist in the bank account in order for the law to be fully executed.

 

Thus, the most important component of this private law is mathematical truth, a component often overlooked because it is unseen. If the legislative and executive components of the law are mathematically correct, then the law itself is true. If the legislative and executive components are mathematically incorrect, then the law is false, fraudulent, or in other words, a lie. This means that the mathematical component of law is judicial, since it is mathematical truth that determines, or judges, whether a law is in fact a law.

 

We now have discovered the correct constitution of private law, which we will arrange in its proper order.

 

— The first component is mathematical truth, since truth is the basis for the other components.

 

— The second component is an authored or written statement based on mathematical truth.

 

— The third component is a confirmation that the authored statement does, in fact, concur with mathematical truth followed by the complete execution of the law.

 

All together, these three components – judicial, legislative and executive - constitute a private law. But does this constitution apply to all types of laws?

 

All laws fall into one of these three categories:

 

1.  Private laws, which are created by individual or private authority (personal check, contract, etc.)

 

2.  Public laws, which are created by government, or public authority (U.S. Constitution, etc.)

 

3.  Physical or scientific laws, which are created by a higher authority or an authority greater than man since man cannot create, alter or destroy these types of laws (blue and red make purple, 1+1=2, etc.)

 

Since we are already familiar with the constitution of a private law, let us now determine whether this required constitution applies to public laws, which are created by public or government authority.

 

The Constitution of Public Law

 

In order for government authority to enact a public law, it must contain specific components.

 

First, a public law must be legislated. An individual or group having public legislative authority must author a proposed action, in such a manner that the public can comprehend what is being proposed. This is the legislative component of the law.

 

Second, the legislation must be authorized. An individual or group authorized to employ public executive power confirms the proposed action by signature or by some other form of consent, which qualifies the law for execution. This is the initial part of the executive component of law. This initial confirmation is then followed by the additional confirmation or consent of all who will execute the law, followed by the complete execution of the law itself. These two acts, the confirmation and execution, comprise the executive component of the law.

 

Here we see that the legitimacy of public law is also determined by its constitution. If a law does not contain both the legislative and executive components, the legitimacy of the law is in question. Without the legislative component, the law contains no proposed action. Without the executive component, the law is not authorized for execution or it cannot be said to have been received, in which it then cannot be executed. However, does the combination of these two components constitute a complete law? No. Both the legislative and executive components of the law are null and void if they do not concur with mathematical truth, meaning that a public government cannot create any law that is mathematically incorrect, false, or untrue.

 

Again it is evident that the most important component of public law is mathematical truth, a component often overlooked because it is unseen. Going back to our example, the reason public authorities cannot establish a law banning humans from being born with navels or a law proclaiming red as everyone’s favorite color is because such statements are false, untrue, or mathematically incorrect, seeing as man does not and cannot possess the authority to create these types of laws. Thus, mathematical truth determines the legitimacy of public law in the same manner as it determines the legitimacy of private law. The constitution of public law is therefore identical to the constitution of private law, in that each law made by public authority must also possess judicial, legislative and executive components.

 

The Constitution of Physical Law

 

Now let’s take a look at the constitution of a physical law. All things in the universe are governed by physical laws which are fixed, universal laws that cannot be created, altered or destroyed by man. After having observed the existence of these types of laws over the centuries, mankind has discovered that these laws have been authored in a specific, universal language – the language of mathematics. This reveals that there is a legislative component to every physical law.

 

Because these laws are already in effect and are applicable to all things, it is apparent that these laws have been established by some unknown source possessing the power to execute law on a universal scale. This reveals that there is also an executive component to every physical law.

 

Additionally, physical laws are not only legislated in the language of mathematics and executed on a universal scale, but are each in complete accordance with mathematical truth, meaning that no physical law is mathematically incorrect or otherwise in conflict with truth. This reveals that there is also a judicial component to each physical law. The judicial component of mathematical truth combined with the legislative and executive components reveals that the constitution of a physical law is identical to the constitution of private and public laws.

 

Together, this analysis affirms that all laws, whether natural or man-made, share the same constitution. A properly constituted or constitutional law has three components: judicial, legislative and executive . Conversely, an improperly constituted or unconstitutional law is missing one or more of these components, in which case it cannot qualify as a law. The fact that a law’s constitution determines its legitimacy reveals that there is a physical law that governs law, an initially perplexing yet entirely logical concept. If all things in the universe are governed by physical law, then so is law itself.

 

The fact that law is governed by physical law will prove to be one of the greatest scientific discoveries ever made. This key discovery establishes a scientific basis by which any law can be classified as true or false – a determination that has been plaguing mankind for millennia. With this knowledge, it is now possible to provide a definitive answer for the question posed at the beginning of this segment:

 

“What is a Law?”

 

Answer: A law is a combination of: 1) mathematical truth, 2) an authored statement based on mathematical truth and 3) a confirmation that the authored statement concurs with mathematical truth along with the subsequent execution, or fulfillment, of the law. Any law that concurs with this definition is demonstrably true, just, or correct. Any law that does not concur with this definition is demonstrably false, unjust, or incorrect.

 

Here we find that uncovering the scientific definition of law is crucial to the study and understanding of the form of government known as a Republic. If the word “law” is subject to man’s interpretation, then the word “Republic,” which is a form of government founded on law, is also subject to man’s interpretation. The result is that a “law” and a “Republic” can be defined by anyone in any way, leading to the chaotic condition where any form of government can be declared a Republic including the Monarchy, Oligarchy, Democracy and Anarchy types listed in the video by the John Birch Society¹. But because law does have a scientific definition, and is therefore not subject to man’s interpretation, neither is the form of government known as a Republic.

 

What is a Republic?

 

We are now able to finally answer the question posed at the beginning of this video: What is a Republic? A Republic is a form of government that is founded on constitutional law, or a law that is mathematically correct. This means that a Republic is a TRUE form of government as it is founded on TRUE Law. By default, all other forms of government that do not fit this definition are demonstrably FALSE. This reduces all aspects of government and law to a simple binary classification of true and false, thus eliminating the need for confusing spectrums and sliding scales as a means for classifying all forms of government (as seen in the JBS video). (Such methods, however, can be useful in the classification of false forms of government – see “Against the Law – The Four Disorders of the Unconstitutional Republic”).

 

Now that all aspects of government and law are reduced to a simple binary classification of true and false, the next step in understanding the American form of government is to determine whether or not it qualifies as a Republic. In order to do so, the American form of government would have to contain a founding law that can be scientifically proven as mathematically correct. In other words, the American form of government must be founded on a math-based physical law. If this proves to be the case, then the American Founders, including Benjamin Franklin, were much more than a group of revolutionaries with strongly held beliefs or seemingly noble intentions. They were scientists. And whether their experiment proves correct will determine if Americans today will be able to “keep it.”

 

(Next Segment Coming Soon: The American Scientific Experiment: What is the Founding law of the American Republic and is it mathematically correct?)

 

 

 

 

 

Footnotes:

 

1. All forms of government possess a founding law that determines who has the ultimate authority and power to create law. The founding law of a Monarchy dictates that the authority and power to create law is vested in a single superior person. The founding law of an Oligarchy dictates that the authority and power to created law is vested in a small group of superior men. The founding law of a Democracy dictates that the authority and power to create law is vested in a majority, whose will is supreme. Paradoxically, even Anarchy possesses a founding law dictating that there is no authority or power to create law. For more on the definitions of authority and power, click here to read the previous blog posts in chronological order.

  

(This post is part 12 of a series. Please click here to read all previous posts from earliest to latest.)

 

Statement 4: Our inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are endowed upon us directly from God.

 

Answer: If inalienable rights are endowed upon us directly from God, then a man need only fabricate a “God” in which he professes his belief to declare for himself the rights of his choosing. He can say that his god has granted him the “inalienable right” to steal, or to kill, or to rape little children, and who can oppose him, if a right is granted by God alone?

 

Furthermore, if a person or a people claim to be endowed with “certain inalienable rights,” does that make it so? When and where did this ‘endowment’ take place? Can it be proven? Are such rights limited to only those initially declared? By what means are they limited or extended?

 

Under these considerations, the answer is obvious: No, inalienable rights are not endowed upon us directly from God.

 

In order to conclude how such rights are obtained, we must first come to a greater understanding of “God” and “rights.” Recall that “God” is the title of a constitutional republic capable of authoring and executing law on a universal scale, which laws cannot be created or destroyed by man. These laws created by a higher authority are otherwise known as universal, physical, scientific, or natural laws.

 

Next, we must consider where “rights” come from. All rights come from laws. The right to operate a motor vehicle comes from an individual’s confirmation and execution of the man-made laws that govern the act of driving. When a person agrees to confirm and execute such laws, a person is granted (or ‘endowed’ with) the right to drive. If the laws are violated, the person’s right to drive can be revoked.

 

Correspondingly, inalienable rights come from inalienable laws, or laws that cannot be created or destroyed by man. When an individual confirms and executes an inalienable law, a person is granted, or becomes “endowed with,” certain inalienable rights derived from that law. If a person denies or violates an inalienable law, the person forfeits the rights associated with that law.

 

In conclusion, our inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are not endowed upon us directly from God, but are only granted upon an individual’s confirmation and execution of a law created by God (an authority higher than man). The law that endows us with these rights is the natural law “All men are created equal,” written mathematically as (God > man) and (man = man). This means that all American citizens are required to recognize and worship the God of equality in order for us to legally claim the inalienable rights associated with that law. If at any time an individual violates the law of equality through a criminal act, he forfeits his inalienable rights in which his life, liberty, and ability to pursue happiness can be taken away.

 

Statement 5: The California Air Resources Board wants to mandate a “cool paints” initiative to ban automakers from painting their cars black, since black cars absorb light/heat which results in a higher level of fuel consumption/emissions in the effort to maintain a cooler interior.

 

Answer: If this is the law that the California Air Resources Board wants to impose upon automakers, then it must be scrutinized to see if it possesses a correct constitution. Since the first component of law is mathematical truth, let us determine what statement of truth serves as its basis. Simply put, the underlying “truth” of this law is “any action that causes inequality in carbon emissions is ‘bad,’ and therefore must be prohibited by law.”

 

If this were a statement of mathematical truth, then 1 – it could be easily proven, 2 – it would be applicable to all things and 3 – it would not violate the already proven self-evident truth that “all men are created equal,” as truth cannot conflict with truth.

 

Point number one:

It has not been proven by any means that an inequality in carbon (or carbon dioxide) emissions violates the physical law of equality, which is the only instance in which human behavior can qualify as “bad.” This “truth” is based on a man-made philosophy that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes the Earth’s temperature to rise which would eventually cause cataclysmic loss of life, in which those emitting higher amounts would stand in violation of their fellow man’s inalienable right to life under the laws of God. Even after thousands of years of human inequality in carbon emissions, there is no scientific evidence to support such a philosophy. There is also no scientific evidence to support the correlating premise that the Earth’s temperature would not rise if all humans emitted the same level of carbon dioxide. Additionally, it is suspect that many of those who revere this philosophy also subscribe to the idea of “evolution,” or that life forms possess the authority and power to create the laws by which they function. If this were true, then human beings would never be affected by the Earth’s temperature as they would simply “evolve,” adapt and thrive in all temperatures, in which loss of life due to environmental fluctuations would not be possible. Thus, this statement cannot qualify as mathematical truth and therefore cannot serve as the basis for law, as it is based on an unproven philosophy with self-conflicted origins.

 

Point number two:

If this statement were somehow scientifically proven, then its premise would be applicable to all things, allowing the men in government to be able to ban any instance of carbon emission inequality, not just cars. This means that government would be able to impose restrictions on a person’s weight, height, or even lifespan, as all these things are factors in the overall amount of carbon dioxide emissions. Legislation could be passed on how often a person travels, laughs, exercises, or speaks, and the color black could be banned from anything that has the potential to promote increased levels of carbon dioxide – buildings, rooftops, clothing, hair or skin.

 

Point number three:

The best way to test to see if a man-made law violates the physical law of equality is to require its authors to be subject to it. If the men in government can pass a law based on the “truth” that human carbon emissions must be “equal,” then they, too, must emit no more carbon emissions than the people they govern. They must open their entire lives to the scrutiny of the public and be prohibited from driving in black cars, traveling, exercising, speaking, laughing, living long, or doing anything that would cause inequality in carbon emissions, which they have fully embraced as truth. If they themselves would not be subject to the tyranny of such a law, then the law is a false law designed to usurp the active power of the people to exercise their God-given liberty, which in itself is a violation of law in the image of Fascism or Totalitarianism. Liberty is preserved when automakers can choose which colors to offer their customers, and customers can choose if they want to assume the increased costs associated with their choice of color.

 

Statement 6: Congress and the President want to tax AIG executives’ bonuses at 90%.

 

Answer: There is no authority for men in government to create public law that targets only specific individuals, just as there is no authority in the government of the universe to create laws targeting specific individuals or things. For instance, the law of gravity has not been legislated as applicable to things made of carbon but not to things made of iron, or to people with brown hair but not to people with red hair. The law applies to all things that have mass equally. It is the active mass of an object that determines the amount of gravity it will have, not the static law.

 

Because laws are based on mathematical truth, and truth applies to all things equally, all laws should apply to all things equally. When a proposed law does not apply to all things equally, it is because the law is not based on truth but rather the personal opinions or desires of men. Laws based on the whims of men are also known as unjust, incorrect, disordered or false, and are made by men in positions of authority who possess these same characteristics. False laws and the men who create them stand in violation of God’s laws (laws created by an authority higher than man) and will cause instability, chaos and destruction if the people continue to uphold them. This is the reason such laws were prohibited from being made by Congress under the U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 9: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.” If the law above were to be made, it would be a Bill of Attainder (a law that has a negative effect on a single person or group) and an ex post facto law (a law that is enacted retroactively).

 

Statement 7: On the promo to the first season of “The Sons of Anarchy,” a policeman is shown driving next to a member of this gang. The “Sons of Anarchy” member tells the policeman, “We’re all free men, protected by the Constitution.”

 

Answer: This statement is self-conflicted because the man who is a member of a gang titled the “Sons of Anarchy” and therefore does not recognize the law declares to the policeman that he is protected under the law, or the Constitution. This man’s position can be stated as, “There is no law, yet I am protected by the law,” which is a blatant contradiction. One who recognizes and is subject to law can claim protection under the law. One who does not recognize law forfeits any claim to protection.

 

Statement 8: Government bailouts, earmarks and welfare programs were not what our Founders intended.

 

Answer: While this statement may be correct, it is misleading in that it implies that the laws created by our government today are wrong only because of the assumption that our founders didn’t “intend” for them to be made, or wouldn’t have liked them. Such statements only serve to perpetuate the false notion that law is based on active human intent rather than static mathematical truth. For instance, Newton’s “intent” was not endlessly disputed after he authored the laws of motion, nor was Einstein’s “intent” constantly scrutinized after he penned the famous formula E=mc2. This is because their personal intent had nothing to do with the physical laws they discovered – it wouldn’t have mattered if Einstein intended for “E” to mean “Earth,” as it would have been incorrect.

 

When it comes to the founders of the American Republic, their only “intent” was to keep their own intent out of the equation and base all aspects of government and law on a single mathematical principle: “All men are created equal.” Therefore, laws instituting government bailouts, earmarks and welfare programs are not wrong because they are not what our founders “intended.” They are wrong because they stand in violation of the physical law of man’s equality under God.

 

Statement 9: In FDR’s “Economic Bill of Rights” at the 1944 State of the Union Address, he tells the Congress that some “economic truths have been accepted as self-evident,” among which are the right of every family to a decent home, the right to adequate medical care and the right to a good education.

 

(Here is a more inclusive list of FDR’s “economic rights”:

- The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

- The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

- The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

- The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

- The right of every family to a decent home;

- The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

- The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

- The right to a good education.)

 

Answer: While we currently witness the pending destruction and disastrous collapse of many of FDR’s remaining unconstitutional New Deal programs such as Fannie Mae and Social Security, this quote from 1944 reveals the mathematical errors in FDR’s political philosophy. While the amendments in our own Bill of Rights were based on the mathematical formula that “all men are created equal,” or (God > man) and (man = man), in this quote Mr. Roosevelt attempts to encourage Congress to create an “Economic Bill of Rights” based not on self-evident mathematical truth but on Mr. Roosevelt’s personal opinion. He declares that “some economic truths” have become “accepted” as “self-evident,” but does not supply the mathematical formula or statement of truth that would serve as a basis for the creation of such “Economic Rights,” as did our Founding Fathers. Instead, he asks Congress to legislate such rights based on his own personal opinion, in which a “decent home,” “adequate medical care” and a “good education” are relative terms that must be defined by Roosevelt himself or some other person who is granted the authority to assign their own definitions to the terms.

 

If the “Economic Bill of Rights” had been passed, the law of equality – or the law by which all our inalienable rights are derived – would have been violated in two ways. First, if Mr. Roosevelt’s opinion were written into law, Mr. Roosevelt himself would have become the source of truth and thus the “creator” of the economic rights of each individual. As the source of mathematical truth and the creator of human rights, Mr. Roosevelt would have been elevated to a position of superiority over all other men since no other man’s definition of the terms would be regarded as true except Mr. Roosevelt’s. Mr. Roosevelt would have thus placed himself above God as the source of truth and on unequal grounds with his fellow man.

 

Second, in order to secure such “economic rights” for the people, Mr. Roosevelt would have had to seize private property earned or owned by some citizens and transfer it to others in order to provide each citizen with the entitlements listed in the bill. Mr. Roosevelt would then hold both authority and power over the people, in which he would be able to author and confirm his own law, or dictate, which people should be relieved of their property and which people should be given property. Because the people would have no power to confirm and execute the laws pertaining to their own property, Mr. Roosevelt would have usurped (and the people would have yielded) the power of their liberty, in which Mr. Roosevelt holding both authority and power would have become a tyrannical dictator in violation of God’s law of equality.

 

Once again, the substitution of man’s opinion for mathematical truth as the basis of law immediately classifies the law as false, unjust, or unconstitutional. In this instance, the terms “decent,” “adequate” and “good” are subject to man’s interpretation, and as such will possess as many different definitions as there are human beings to define them. Any law based on relative terms lacks a foundation in mathematical truth and therefore cannot qualify as constitutional law. Because a “right” must be based on a constitutional law in order to exist (see answers 1, 4), all the “rights” listed in FDR’s bill are mathematically false, unless of course a scientific principle is discovered to provide a basis for such rights that does not conflict with the principle of equality. The reason FDR’s existing New Deal programs have only led to destruction and collapse is because each program began with a mathematically inaccurate law, a law that went through the process of being authored and confirmed by government and the people while having no basis in static mathematical truth. These false laws and their resultant programs are disordered after the Satanic image of Communism, a disorder that leads to the scientifically predictive collapse we are now witnessing.

 

Statement 10: The first principle of Glenn Beck’s “Nine Principles” is: “America is good.”

 

Answer: In order to understand what is wrong with this statement, we must first understand what a principle is. A principle is a statement or formula that is always true. One example of a principle is: “Matter (mass) cannot be created or destroyed.” This statement is a principle because it is always true. Any statement or hypothesis in conflict with this statement has always and will always prove to be false.

 

“America is good” is therefore not a principle because 1) “America” is not “always good” and 2) the definition of “America” and “always good” are currently subject to man’s interpretation. Principles are always true and are not subject to man’s interpretation. Thus it would seem that “America is good” is the exact opposite of a principle.

 

However, because it is now evident that the definition of “good” is not subject to man’s interpretation but that it is mathematically associated with truth, order, function and endurance, the word “good” can be scientifically defined as “in accordance with physical law” or “in accordance with laws made by a higher authority.”

 

With the application of this definition, a more complete version of this statement that would qualify as a principle is, “All that is good for mankind comes from the confirmation and execution of the law of equality,” or in other words, “All that is good comes from obedience to the laws of God.”

 
(This post is part 11 of a series. Please click here to read all previous posts from earliest to latest.)

 

Statement 1: Out of 73 Supreme Court decisions, 32 were decided by 5-4 votes in the 2006-2007 term.

 

Answer: The judicial branch in a republic represents mathematical truth. Thus, the purpose of any judge is to represent mathematical truth in administering justice according to the law, maintaining the rule of law, and upholding the constitution (a representation of the supreme law), which is why the rules of judicial conduct always presuppose the attributes of static intelligence – impartiality, objectivity, rationality, etc. Because the judicial branch represents mathematical truth in a republic, no judge at any level should disagree with another on an issue. Mathematical truth cannot conflict with itself; if a conflict exists then it is a conflict of truth against falsehood or falsehood against falsehood. In other words, when two judges disagree, either one of them is incorrect or they both are.

 

In the case of the Supreme Court, a dissenting opinion indicates that this branch as a whole no longer represents mathematical truth but that one or more of the judges has ignorantly or deliberately based their ruling on their own active, internal man-made philosophy and not the static, external mathematical truth which they are required by law and by oath to acknowledge and uphold. This type of bad judicial behavior results in one of two different scenarios based on the actions of the legislative and executive branches: correction or destruction. For example, if the people recognize the correct constitution of law, which is: 1) mathematical truth; 2) an authored statement and 3) confirmation and execution of the authored statement, the people will also recognize that a judge who fails to represent mathematical truth in upholding the law has lost his authority as a judge, and will enact new laws to protect themselves from being governed by the judge’s personal philosophy or they will take action to remove or impeach the judge due to his failure to represent mathematical truth (bad behavior). The correction of the judicial branch in a republic always requires the collective acknowledgement of an authority higher than man, which is the only way man can protect himself from being governed by man-made philosophies.

 

If the people do not recognize the correct constitution of law (and thus the correct role of a judge), dysfunction in the judicial branch will lead to the swift demise of the republic as judges who rule based on their own personal opinions set precedents (binding or persuasive) which hold the appearance of new legislation. The befuddled citizenry begin to uphold false judicial rulings as binding law, which not only is a usurpation of the authority and power of the legislative and executive branches to author and confirm law, but also introduces disordered “laws” into the republic, both of which will cause the republic to self-destruct according to the nature of the disorder.

 

In the scenario above, the frequent dissention among the members of the Supreme Court indicates ignorance of or malevolence towards constitutional law, in which the members’ personal philosophies in many instances are either setting precedent or are very close to setting precedent, which will ultimately seal the fate of our constitutional republic if such precedents are upheld by the citizenry as binding law.

 

Statement 2: The Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner, has asked Congress for the authority to regulate the executives of a privately-owned company.

 

Answer: Congress does not have the authority to grant the Secretary of the Treasury or any public official authority to “regulate” any person in a privately-owned company. In this request, we see that a public republic (the U.S. government) is seeking to usurp the authority and power of a private republic (the company) to create and execute its own private law. Under normal circumstances, only the private company can grant Timothy Geithner a position of authority over its employees, an action commonly known as “hiring.”

 

However, those familiar with the details of this scenario understand that this is not a normal circumstance. The reason a member of the government is asking another branch of government for authority over the actions of a private republic is because the private republic has sold the power of its liberty to the government in exchange for taxpayer dollars. Because the private company is now operating on capital that the company itself did not produce, it is no longer a private company free to confirm and execute its own private law. Instead, it finds itself subject to the legislative authority and executive power of the U.S. government, whose members consider themselves administrators of the furnished capital who will assume the authority to govern the company irrespective of the law. This authority is assumed under the guise of “protecting” the citizens of the country from the “disastrous effects” of a dysfunctional organization deemed by the men in government as “too large” or “too important” to experience the natural consequences of its behavior.

 

Here we find an increasingly common rationalization in which a government elected to protect and preserve the inalienable rights of the people seeks to extend this duty to include the protection of the individual from the consequences of his violation of natural law. (This rationalization seems to occur most frequently when those experiencing such consequences are the fervent political supporters of the government in question.) When a private republic fails, it is because the laws created and executed by that republic are mathematically incorrect. When this happens, competitors operating on mathematically correct laws provide a superior alternative and naturally gain prominence. However, when this natural process of self-destruction threatens the financial support of certain political parties, leaders or candidates, instead of allowing a company to self-correct or self-destruct, these political beneficiaries rush to legislate against its demise by plundering the wealth generated by other citizens operating on correct laws and redistributing it to the failing enterprise.

 

Contrary to popular opinion or practice, this action has the opposite of its desired effect: In the process of trying to “save” a disordered republic from the consequences of its actions by engaging in plunder, all the republics involved will become disordered and will eventually self-destruct as the plunderer (the government), the recipients of plunder (the failing company) as well as the victims of plunder (successful producers that allow themselves to be plundered) are each in violation of natural law and thus are sentenced to destruction as a whole.

 

(See also “Lemon Socialism” and “Privatizing Profits and Socializing Losses”)

 

Statement 3: Barack Obama said to a private citizen during his campaign, “I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

 

Answer: The main problem with this statement is that it does not matter what Barack Obama thinks is good. It only matters what actually is, in fact, good. When it comes to human behavior, actions that are “good” are in accordance with natural law, and actions that are “bad” are in violation of natural law. Because the only natural law known to govern human behavior is the law of equality (“All men are created equal” or (God > man) and (man = man)), our only consideration must be whether the action in question is in accordance with this law or in violation of it.

 

That being said, the proposition that one superior man should be granted the authority and power to take wealth from some citizens and redistribute it to others as he deems necessary is a violation of the natural law of equality. The philosophy of “wealth redistribution” is based on the presumption that all men are not created equal and as such, a superior man must be delegated the supreme duty of equalizing men according to his own opinion. This act removes God’s definition of equality as the basis of law and replaces it with Barack Obama’s definition of “equality”, which definition can only be determined by Barack Obama himself.

 

When Barack Obama’s opinion replaces static mathematical truth as the basis of law, all laws created by the American republic become null and void and Barack Obama becomes the sole arbiter of law. A republic that removes static mathematical truth as the basis of law (abandons the image of God) is no longer a representative government that operates according to the rule of law (constitutional republic) but becomes a disordered republic (unconstitutional republic) that operates according to the opinions of men and is thus sentenced to destruction according to the nature of its disorder. Recall that a republic can become disordered in four different ways depending on the relationship of authority and power in that republic.

 

For example:

 

1. If the citizens consent to allow Barack Obama to redistribute their wealth according to his own unwritten opinion, the citizens have confirmed and executed laws that have not been legislated and have thus taken upon themselves the disorder of Socialism.

 

2. If the citizens consent to allow Barack Obama to redistribute their wealth according to written legislation based on his own opinion, the citizens have confirmed and executed false laws, or laws that are not based on mathematical truth, and thus have taken upon themselves the disorder of Communism.

 

3. If Barack Obama grants himself the authority to redistribute wealth without the consent of the citizenry, the republic has taken upon itself a Fascist disorder.

 

4. If Barack Obama grants himself the authority and power to redistribute wealth against the will of the citizenry under threat of injury, imprisonment or death, then the republic has taken upon itself a Totalitarian disorder.

 

All of these scenarios will result in the degeneration and destruction of the republic due to the fact that all are in violation of natural law.

 

The personal belief that all men are not created equal but that one man must be elevated to a position of superiority over others in which he himself can grant equality to the human race is not only a violation of natural law but a malicious attempt to subjugate mankind and usurp the Creator’s position as the source of man’s equality and inalienable rights. Any person engaging in such redistribution efforts would become an enemy to God and to the republic as they pervert the law into an instrument of ‘legal’ plunder, best described in Frederic Bastiat’s essay, The Law.

Test your knowledge of the Republic of God and Constitutional Law as established by the Law of Equality

(This post is part 9 of a series. Please click here to read all previous posts from earliest to latest.)

If you have read and understood the principles outlined in the previous posts, you will be able to answer all of these questions correctly. Carefully recall the purpose of a republic and the specific function of each of its branches in order to provide the correct answer. Email your answers here.

What is wrong with each of these statements?

1. Out of 73 Supreme Court decisions, 32 were decided by 5-4 votes in the 2006-2007 term.
2. The Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner, has asked Congress for the authority to regulate the executives of privately-owned companies.
3. Barack Obama said to a private citizen during his campaign, “I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
4. Our inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are endowed upon us directly from God.
5. The California Air Resources Board wants to mandate a “cool paints” initiative to ban automakers from painting their cars black, since black cars absorb light/heat which results in a higher level of fuel consumption/emissions in the effort to maintain a cooler interior.
6. Congress and the President want to tax AIG executives’ bonuses at 90%.
7. On the promo to the first season of “The Sons of Anarchy,” a policeman is shown driving next to a member of this gang. The “Sons of Anarchy” member tells the policeman, “We’re all free men, protected by the Constitution.”
8. Government bailouts, earmarks and welfare programs were not what our Founders intended.
9. In FDR’s “Economic Bill of Rights” at the 1944 State of the Union Address, he tells the Congress that some “economic truths have been accepted as self-evident,” among which are the right of every family to a decent home, the right to adequate medical care and the right to a good education.
10. The first principle of Glenn Beck’s “Nine Principles” is: “America is good.”

(This post is part 8 of a series. Please click here to read all previous posts from earliest to latest.)

“Truth emerges more readily from error than from confusion.”

– Francis Bacon

The science of dysfunction has been the most important factor in human progression over the centuries, simply because human beings most often discover truth through the systematic elimination of that which is not true. When early inventors set out to uncover the mathematical truths which would allow them to build a flying machine, they began by eliminating the concepts that, upon experimentation and analysis, did not result in a flying machine. The observation of error offers an opportunity for scientific advancement in that all errors are based on specific, scientific factors. If a flying machine cannot take flight, it is too heavy or does not have proper speed or thrust, etc. If it breaks apart while in flight, it is not strong enough or does not possess the proper shape conducive to flying, etc. Inventors with the intelligence and tenacity to examine and correct the miscalculations of a failed machine are those who will eventually succeed in the production of a functional one, as history has repeatedly shown. In any case, the knowledge of natural law advances through the study of dysfunction or error. The precise manner in which something fails is instrumental in determining the specific type of dysfunction that caused it to fail, which can then be corrected to produce the desired function.

The Founders of America, through wisdom and discernment, understood this principle. They recognized that the failure of all forms of government was a universal indication that these governments were constructed in violation of natural law, which was the cause of their dysfunction. When searching for the correct design of government, the Founders were able to use the examples of the Roman, Egyptian, Greek, Persian and other empires as directions for how not to design a government, since these governments – and all governments at that time – were only examples of degeneration and failure. The Founders understood that “in order to form a more perfect union,” ¹ or a government resistant to destruction, they must appeal to the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”²  for the intelligent design of such a government. In other words, they determined that there was a way to construct a government according to the universal laws of intelligent design, aided with the knowledge of countless other methods that were not the way, or were violations of intelligent design.

The Founders’ appeal to “Nature’s God” for the correct design of government was answered with a self-evident truth more powerful and revolutionary than any other truth in the known universe – “All men are Created equal.” This natural law exposed the error all forms of government collectively shared – that the men in government were falsely constituted as superior to the governed. At that time, the rulers of nations decreed laws upon their citizens according to their will and pleasure, leaving the citizens no choice but to execute the laws enacted upon them under threat of injury, imprisonment or death. Due to the fact that this government-imposed usurpation of individual liberty always produced degeneration, disorder and destruction, the Founders concluded that all forms of government constituted superior to the people were illegitimate on the basis of natural law. Though their initial understanding of this law was at first flawed – as is the case with many scientific discoveries – “All men are Created equal” as a natural law held the authority to supersede and invalidate all legislation authored by man, and was the law by which early Americans claimed the right to “dissolve the political bands”³ which required their subjection to the British crown.

Emboldened by this simple self-evident truth, the law of equality provided Americans with the fortitude to take up arms against the strongest, wealthiest, most formidable military organization on the planet for the preservation of liberty against the destructive rule of kings and tyrants. After securing a nation of their own, Americans proceeded to constitute their government according to the same law they fought for – the only law ever discovered to reflect a mathematically correct formula for government constitution. The Founders’ act of establishing a government according to natural law revealed a concept unlike any other – that government is required to obey law before it is authorized to create law. This requirement subjects the government to the judgment of its people; as executives of the law, the people hold the power to judge their government and its laws for concurrence with the mathematical formula of equality, or (God > man) and (man = man). This executive power of liberty, or the power to confirm and execute law, is held by the people as a check and a balance against government authority. A government subject to the authorizing power of its people for its actions (or consent of the governed) is not superior to but occupies an equal and interdependent relationship with its citizens under God.

Here we see the fractal characteristic of the republic of the United States in that its constitution is applicable to the entire nation independent of scale. The requirement that all levels of government – city, state and federal – must conform to the republican model established by the law of equality causes the nation itself to function as a republic. In this republic, the government represents the head or legislative branch and is responsible for authoring law based on mathematical truth, a process we will refer to as localization. The people represent the body or executive branch and are responsible for judging the laws received by the government for concurrence with mathematical truth meaning that each law passed by the government must concur with the law of equality. These two branches form an equal and interdependent relationship in the process of law formation; while government holds authority over the people, the people in turn hold power over their government. However, neither branch can function without God, since God is the constant or source of mathematical truth by which all laws are localized and confirmed. Without God, a republic is false; it has neither authority nor power to create law simply because the rejection of a mathematical source removes the mathematical basis—or basis of truth—for any law it attempts to create. A law without any basis in mathematical truth is a false law; it lacks authority and power in the same manner as the false republic that created it.

 

 

Because the republic is an institution patterned after the authority/power relationship of the static and active intelligence of our universe, the constitution of the republic of the United States cannot be attributed to the Founders, or any human being for that matter. What the Founders accomplished was the discovery of the natural law of equality which by extension allowed for the discovery of a constitutional republic, since this is the only form of government compatible with this law. By declaring the law of equality the supreme law of the land, or the law by which government constitution and all subsequent laws are based, the Founders succeeded in establishing the only legitimate form of government on the face of the Earth – a republic, or a representative government which operates according to the rule of natural law.

Much to our great disadvantage, the careful measures taken by our Founders to establish a government according to intelligent design has been all but erased through the ignorance and confusion of men. Denied a scientific acknowledgment of God and intelligent design, the people who uphold the constitution of the only legitimate form of government ever established are now beginning to question whether such an affirmation of exceptionalism is in violation of some unknown principle of “tolerance.” That government and law could exist in a binary state of true or false is to them an unpalatable proposition which smacks of an absolutism contrary to their interpretation of the principle of “freedom.” Many are under the impression that in order to have freedom, one must have many options of which they are “free” to choose. Thus in order to perpetuate freedom, a “spectrum” of many different forms of government, political philosophies, religions and cultural practices must be tolerated.

This perversion of truth has engendered a common ideology that the many designs of government devised by man are equally acceptable, as evidenced by society’s collective acknowledgment of the misrepresentation known as the “political spectrum.” In this “spectrum,” different forms of government are made to appear as if they are equally valid, separated only by personal preference or opinion – as if the selection of a certain type of government is of no greater consequence than the selection of a favorite color. However, whether or not a design is valid has nothing to do with man’s personal preference or opinion but has only to do with whether or not the design is in accordance with natural law. A design that contains even the smallest mathematical inaccuracy cannot qualify as a legitimate design, no matter how many people prefer it.

This is where a major flaw in the concept of a “political spectrum” is finally exposed. The clever use of the word “spectrum” implies that the different designs of government in array are each in accordance with natural law, and as such are equally legitimate. The problem with this assumption is that the current spectrum of government designs are in direct conflict with one another, which in and of itself is a mathematical impossibility. Truth cannot conflict with truth; if a conflict exists then it is a conflict of truth against falsehood or falsehood against falsehood. The fact that Americans have applied a word that describes something that is not in conflict with itself – the colors of the spectrum – to describe something that is in conflict with itself – the current two-party political system – reveals an ignorance so dangerous its acceptance by a single generation can cause the greatest superpower in history to come to a crashing end. The natural law our Founders cited is the formula that determines the legitimacy or illegitimacy of any government design, a formula so intolerant that any deviation from it will mathematically result in destruction and death.

Because of the universal law of equality, the fraudulent concept of a “political spectrum” is completely shattered as government and law are reduced to a binary expression of true or false, right or wrong, legitimate or illegitimate. A government is either an equally balanced republic constituted according to the law of equality or it is a false republic illegitimately constituted according to inequality. A law created by a government constituted according to equality will inherit the same equality the government itself possesses to the result of life, while a law created by an unequal government will inherit the same inequality the government itself possesses to the result of death. Thus, each law is created in the image of the government that created it. As the true image of government has been already addressed in the two previous posts, it is the false images of government that we will now analyze.

The Science of Destruction – False Republics

The last post left off on the subject of destruction using the example of the relationship between the electromagnetic and gravitational forces present during the formation of our universe (or more specifically, the influence of these forces on matter during the “big bang”⁴). If these two forces are equal, the universe will become ordered in such a way that will allow for the formation of galaxies and stars and will possess the stable conditions necessary to support life. If they are not equal, the universe will self-destruct in a very predictable manner, a manner which is mathematically determined by the nature of the imbalance itself. If the imbalance is in favor of electromagnetic force, the universe will predictably blow itself apart. If the imbalance is in favor of gravity, the universe will predictably collapse in on itself. Either way, imbalance (or inequality) always results in the destruction and death of the universe according to the nature of the imbalance.

Similarly, any imbalance in the constitution of a fractal republic will also result in the destruction and death of that republic according to the nature of the imbalance. Because a republic is a union of human intelligence representing the three equal keys of law formation – active authority, active power, and static authority and power (sealing), the republic is subject to destruction in four possible ways: an imbalance in favor of active authority; an imbalance in favor of active power, and imbalance in favor of active authority and power; or an imbalance in favor of static authority and power. Any imbalance in a republic is due to the execution of inequality by human intelligence through the usurpation or yielding of authority or power, in which the republic will predictably self-destruct according to the branch in which the inequality occurs. Here are the four specific inequalities that result in the destruction of a republic:

1. Active authority key usurps active power key (legislative branch usurps the power of the executive branch to confirm law)

2. Active power key usurps active authority key (executive branch usurps the authority of the legislative branch to author law)

3. Active authority and power keys usurp static sealing key (legislative and executive branches author and confirm laws which do not concur with the mathematical truth of the judicial branch)

4. Static sealing key usurps active authority and power keys (static judicial branch ceases to represent static mathematical truth by attempting to actively author and confirm law in place of the active legislative and executive branches)

It is easiest to illustrate this science using real-world examples, so we will repeat each dysfunction as it relates to the government of the United States. In this republic, the Supreme Court represents the judicial branch (static mathematical truth), Congress represents the legislative branch (mathematical truth to authored law), and the President represents the executive branch (confirmation or rejection of authored law based on concurrence with mathematical truth). These are the four ways the United States government can become dysfunctional, in the same order as listed above:

1. Congress assumes the power to confirm all legislation, nullifying the requirement for Presidential/executive authorization. (Active authority usurps active power)

2. The President assumes the authority to author legislation which he also holds the power to confirm. (Active power usurps active authority)

3. Congress and the President author and confirm laws which do not concur with the mathematical truth represented by the Supreme Court. (Active authority and power usurp static authority and power)

4. The Supreme Court ceases to represent static mathematical truth and begins to actively legislate and confirm law. (Static authority and power usurp active authority and power)

In each scenario, the republic ceases to be an equal representation of the static/active union as one branch assigned to represent static intelligence begins to usurp characteristics of active intelligence and vice-versa. This infringement vacates the natural checks and balances inherent to each branch, nullifying the purpose of the republic itself. If a republic violates its constitution in this manner, it becomes a negation of a republic, or not a republic. A failing or dysfunctional republic will self-destruct according to the nature of its imbalance, which is as scientifically predictable as the destruction of an imbalanced universe. The creation of our universe depended upon the perfect balance of electromagnetic and gravitational forces, forces which by natural law are each associated with a specific direction (as are the two remaining forces, the weak force and the strong force). The direction associated with electromagnetic force (and weak force) is out, while the direction associated with gravitational force (and strong force) is in. These two directions, out and in, happen to be the only two directions in the universe. An imbalance in favor of “out” will blow itself apart while an imbalance in favor of “in” will collapse in on itself.

A close study of the relationship of static and active intelligence reveals that there is also a specific direction associated with each intelligence, a direction which likewise mathematically determines its demise upon imbalance. Recall that static intelligence is universal and the origin of truth (the alpha, or beginning of law formation), while active intelligence is local and the confirmer of truth (the omega, or end of law formation). Static intelligence, as the origin of mathematical truth, is associated with an outward direction, as truth figuratively waits to be received by active intelligence and made into law. Active (human) intelligence, as the local receiver of truth is associated with an inward direction, as man receives mathematical truth and subsequently authors and confirms it into law. This means anything that represents static intelligence is associated with an outward direction and anything that represents active intelligence is associated with an inward direction. In a republic, the static-active union is represented in two possible ways – from top to bottom and from left to right. The top and left side of the republic represent out and the bottom and right side of the republic represent in. Thus any imbalance in favor of the sealing or authority key will cause the republic to blow itself apart, and any imbalance in favor of the power key or both the active authority and power keys will cause the republic to collapse in on itself.

 

 

In a way, we have witnessed the implosion or explosion of societies, economies and governments throughout history. We have not, however, understood the science behind this dysfunction, simply because there has been no available natural law by which to test this dysfunction against. If one does not know the proper order of government, then it is extremely difficult to understand the causes that contribute to its disorder. However, due to the rediscovery of the law of equality, we now possess the natural law that determines the proper order of government: an equally balanced constitutional republic. Because the republic is the only design consistent with this law, all republics retain identical constitutions independent of scale and as such share the same image. The name of this image is God, which is the title used in reference to the universal republic responsible for the creation of all things including man and his equality. The republic of God retains a constitution in accordance with natural law enabling it to create law on a continuous, universal scale – hence its obedience to law authorizes its ability to create law. All other designs for government in conflict with the image of God carry another name, a name or title historically used in reference to that which exists in opposition to God, or in other words, in opposition to natural law. The name of this disorder of government is Satan.

In a word, any philosophy, belief or action that does not concur with the law of equality (or mathematical truth) is Satanic, and all Satanic philosophies or actions can be categorized under one of the four Satanic images, or one of the four republican dysfunctions listed above. The four republican dysfunctions are more commonly known as Fascism (imbalance in favor of authority), Socialism (imbalance in favor of power), Communism (imbalance in favor of active authority and power), and Totalitarianism (imbalance in favor of sealing or static authority and power). Fascism and totalitarianism will cause the republic to blow itself apart, and socialism and communism will cause the republic to collapse in on itself. In any case, destruction and death is always the result of an imbalanced republic, the manner of which is determined by the nature of the imbalance itself.

 

 

As an example, the United States of America owes its existence to the Satanic image held by its mother country, Great Britain. The British government, or monarchy, patterned after a long-established philosophy known as the “Divine Right of Kings”⁵ is classified under the Satanic image of fascism, otherwise known as a tyranny or dictatorship. In this false republic, government authority usurps the power of the people to confirm law, as all laws are authored and confirmed by government and imposed upon the people by force. This expansion of authority, or imbalance in favor of the head, causes the body, or the people, to become repelled by their government, and the entire republic begins to self-destruct in favor of an outward direction, eventually blowing itself apart. The mass migration of British subjects (and others) to the American colonies was a direct result of the dysfunction of fascism, which is the same dysfunction causing mass migration in the world today. Though the British tried to correct this imbalance through the “Glorious Revolution” and other such incremental acknowledgments of human liberty over the centuries, without the law of equality they could never attain the mathematically correct image of God, or the perfect balance of authority and power. History reveals that the British Empire went from one Satanic image to another as it blew itself apart as a result of its fascism in the years following WWII through the loss of many of its territories, and has since acquired the Satanic image of socialism where the people once repelled by their government are now dependent upon it, which dependency causes the nation to collapse in on itself, or decline.

This is a science that can be applied to any individual, group, society or nation independent of time, location or scale. Human behavior, like everything else in the universe, is at all times subject to natural law. This means that every aspect of human activity has a mathematically predetermined outcome, making the prediction of future events a scientific reality. Under this science, all aspects of human behavior and philosophy – religious, cultural and political – can be defined in terms of true and false. The only obstacle to this science is an ideology, a specific cultural philosophy that condemns such discriminations as socially unacceptable. This is known as the philosophy of “tolerance.”

The Current Barrier to Scientific Progress: The Philosophy of “Tolerance”

Scientific progress in any society is directly proportional to the level⁶ of equality executed by its inhabitants. The principle of equality provides for the establishment of law and order, which in turn provides the social stability necessary for individuals to devote their time and energy to seek, test and prove universal truths. Inhabitants of civilized societies have taken note of the invariable relationship between equality and scientific progress, but because of the prevailing view that God and science are in conflict, the scientific connection of equality to God is overlooked and a false connection of equality to “tolerance” is inserted in its place. The prevailing cultural philosophy in America today is that equality is attained through a principle of “tolerance,” or that equality is achieved when all members of a society tolerate, permit or accept the philosophies held by others, even if such beliefs are incompatible with their own. In such an environment, those who continue to assert truth and falsehood are considered in breach of the principle of “tolerance,” where an acknowledgment of truth amounts to a subversion of equality. The “intolerant” are then vilified as the enemies of equality, and thus become the enemies of scientific progress.

When a civilized society begins a philosophical attack on truth itself, it is the burden of science to disprove the offending philosophy. Because it has become socially unacceptable to subject the philosophies of men to the scientific method under the principle of “tolerance,” the question must be asked: Is “tolerance” a principle?

The answer: No.

Tolerance has no basis in static mathematical truth, so it cannot be defined or exist as a principle.⁷ A principle is a statement or formula that is always true, otherwise known as a physical law; law is constituted by a mathematical source (judicial), an authored statement (legislative), and an active confirmation and execution of the authored statement (executive). Without a mathematical origin, no law can ever be authored which defines to what extent one human being must “tolerate” the beliefs and practices of another. “Tolerance” is and ever will be defined by human intelligence alone, and will possess as many different definitions as there are human beings to define it. “Tolerance,” as mere human opinion, is therefore the exact opposite of a principle, and because it is not a principle there is nothing that can possibly act in violation of it.

The universal process of law formation reveals that the concept of “tolerance” in America has been authored by the executive branch, a branch that holds no authority to author law. “Tolerance,” as an unwritten rule, is an unconstitutional concept as it is neither based in mathematical truth nor authored by a governing branch but is devised solely by society, the people or the executive branch of the nation. Any republic that allows the usurpation of authority by executive power becomes disordered after the Satanic image of socialism, and the republic begins the process of collapsing in on itself so long as the republic allows the usurpation to continue.⁸

In our very first application of the science of constitutional law, the prevailing American cultural philosophy of tolerance has been thoroughly discredited, clearing the way for the scientific study of the philosophies of men. It is science, not religion, which will ultimately reveal the correct religious philosophy. It is science, not culture, which will conclusively determine the correct cultural traditions. It is science, not politics, which will finally prove the correct political ideology. It is science, through natural law, that holds the answers to all of life’s most perplexing and persistent questions. Science has always been the means by which the world’s most controversial and oft-debated subjects have been resolved. Only this time, it’s personal.

 

FOOTNOTES

 

1. United States Constitution, text (1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved.)

2. United States Declaration of Independence, text (1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved.)

3. Ibid.

4. “First, the mean density of matter in the universe at the very beginning has to be within 1 part in 10⁶⁰ of the so-called ‘critical density’ which demarcates universes which are open (expanding forever) from those which are closed (recollapse to a big ‘crunch’). If the density is smaller than it is by this amount then the universe will expand far too quickly for galaxies and stars to be able to form. If it is greater then the whole universe will recollapse under gravity in just a few months. Either way, you have a boring universe with no possibility of life. An accuracy of 1 part in 10⁶⁰ is that required to aim a gun at a coin 14 billion light years away at the opposite end of the universe and hit it!”

- Rodney D. Holder, “Is the Universe Designed?” Faraday Paper No 10 (The Faraday Institute For Science And Religion April 2007, http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/Papers.php)

“Not only would tinkering with gravity change the stars and planets, it would also alter the cosmos as a whole. For example, the expansion of the universe must be carefully balanced with the deceleration caused by gravity. Too much expansion energy and the atoms would fly apart before stars and galaxies could form; too little, and the universe would collapse before stars and galaxies could form.”

- Guillermo Gonzalez, Jay Wesley Richards, “The Privileged Planet” p. 204

5. Divine Right of Kings, ancient doctrine that sovereigns are representatives of God and derive their right to rule directly from God. The concept was formulated from the theocracies of the East. Before the Reformation, the monarch was considered God’s representative in all secular matters. Following the Reformation, in Protestant countries, the ruler filled this function in religious matters also. According to the doctrine, a ruler’s power is not subject to secular limitation; the ruler is responsible only to God. In the 17th century the doctrine was supported by the English Royalists against the Parliamentarians, who maintained that the exercise of political power springs from the will of the people.

“Divine Right of Kings,” Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2008
http://encarta.msn.com © 1997-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761557254/Divine_Right_of_Kings.html

6. “Level” means proportion of the people, frequency of execution and overall executive accuracy to the mathematical formula of equality, see Laying Down the Law Part II – The Conclusion

7. Principle – A fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived: The principles of modern physics.

Dictionary.com Unabridged http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/principle

Based on the Random House Dictionary, Copyright Random House, Inc. 2006.

8. The false principle of “tolerance” (though exposed in American society as a socialist philosophy caused by an imbalance in favor of power) can cause the republic to take on any of the Satanic images depending on the actions of the branches. Tolerance can be a fascist ideology if the governing branch of a nation forces its people to execute the definition of tolerance it has imposed. Tolerance can become a communist ideology if both the legislative and executive branches of the nation – the government and the people – author and execute false laws of tolerance in defiance of mathematical truth. If no false laws of tolerance have been enacted by the active branches but the judicial branch or courts create rulings based on their own definition of tolerance, the ideology has become totalitarian.

“However, if we discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable by everyone, not just by a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason – for then we should know the mind of God.”

– Stephen Hawking, “A Brief History of Time”

Before we move on to the next science, I think it’s important to briefly summarize the subject matter of the last five posts. First, we have to wrap our minds around the fact that the field of science is now equipped to analyze the existence and nature of God, just like any other subject. What might have prevented scientists from studying God in the past was a temptation to analyze God as defined by various religious observers, many of which describe their God as unknowable or outside the realm of science. However, scientists who are successful in their studies begin with natural laws; they seek to discover the laws that govern the subject in question and research the effects of such laws impartially.

As an example, Newton’s study of the phenomenon of gravity did not involve an investigation of what everyone else believed gravity to be, a denunciation of such theories as nonsensical and a conclusion that the subject of gravity is unknowable or outside the realm of science, though this is the way some scientists currently behave toward the subject of God. Instead of following a well-documented procedure known as “the scientific method,” some scientists have disregarded the search for proof of God through natural law and have focused their efforts on deriding the various definitions and depictions of God compiled over the centuries by man. Finding these depictions unsupported by science, the entire subject of God and religion are deemed unknowable by some and ridiculous, aberrant, or even dangerous by others. As entertaining as it may be to sit in judgment of every religious theory invented or discovered, this is not the function of science. The function of science is to provide scientific definitions for all things which can be tested and proven for truth; once a definition is established, all things that do not concur with that definition are, by default, false. It is therefore nothing but a waste of time for anyone to ridicule mankind’s relative definitions of God and religion. A scientific definition of God will automatically invalidate any religion whose god exists in opposition to it.

In our case, the scientific definition of God emerged in a circuitous manner. Instead of testing man’s various depictions of God for truth, we began with an analysis on the application of law. Because all things were found to exist according to law (intelligent design), we then moved on to the origin of law, whether law is established by an internal or external source. Because all things lack the authority to author a single law governing their functionality, the origin of law is external, which means that an external source of intelligence must exist which possesses the ability to create and execute law. This external source of law established a scientific basis for the possibility of creation, which led us to consider any natural laws that might include a creator.

The possibility of a creator was found in the self-evident truth that “All men are created equal.” This law enabled us to test whether the equality of man was dependent upon a creator, which test proved positive. The final test was an analysis of whether the equality of man causes mankind to become functional or dysfunctional, which in all cases, equality causes function (the specifics of man’s functionality will be demonstrated shortly). Function, in mathematical terms, is synonymous with truth, which means that the mathematical formula for equality—(God > man) and (man = man)—is true, enabling us to recognize it as a natural law.

This is how we came to prove the existence of God: through the examination of natural law, and not through the consideration of any of man’s arbitrary definitions.

As was demonstrated in the last post, the law of equality provided us with much more than the existence of a Creator. This law allowed us to uncover a testable scientific description of this Creator complete with purpose, function, and mathematical imagery. Because of this law, instead of being limited to the mere study of natural laws, all of mankind is allowed to observe the process by which these laws are created in the first place—through an equally branched republic constituted along the lines of the static/active union. This republic is known as God.

The previous post offered a description of the scientific constitution of this republic, a description which at first might have seemed a bit complicated. However, once we apply a few real-world examples, it will be evident that human beings have been employing this pattern throughout history. While the republic of God is most easily compared to the republic of the United States, it must be noted that anything which creates and executes law is, in fact, a republic. Businesses, sports organizations, religious institutions, universities, even human beings themselves are all forms of republics which create and execute law.

To illustrate, let’s first apply this pattern to sports. In a sport such as football where laws are established, the branches of government are naturally divided along the lines of authority and power in the same manner as is the republic of God. The judicial branch is represented by the referees who represent static mathematical truth (equality) or the rules of the game, and serve as static binary judges over the actions of the active legislative and executive branches. The legislative branch is represented by the coaches, who hold the authority to author the laws or write the game plan/actions of the team according to the rules. The executive branch is represented by the players, who hold the power to confirm and execute the laws or game plan authored by the legislative branch on the condition that the laws are based on the rules. Together, the referees, coaches and players form an equally balanced government capable of creating and executing law for their sport, which government will endure until the law of equality is violated by the enactment of false law or when one branch begins to usurp the authority or power of the other branches.

In a corporation, this same construct applies. The judicial branch is represented by the board of directors who represent static mathematical truth (equality) or the rules of the business, and serve as static binary judges over the actions of the active legislative and executive branches. The legislative branch is represented by the president, who holds the authority to author the laws, or the actions, of the company. The executive branch is represented by the chief executive officer, who holds the power to confirm and execute the laws authored by the legislative branch on the condition that the laws are based on the rules of the business. Together, the board, president and chief executive officer form an equally balanced government capable of creating and executing law for the corporation, which government will endure until the law of equality is violated by the enactment of false law or when one branch begins to usurp the authority or power of the other branches.

In engineering, construction, manufacturing, or any type of field where something is produced, the republic is essential. First, mathematical truth (judicial) is authored into a design, a compilation of statements and formulas proposing the function of the building or machine (legislative). Once the proposal is confirmed, or judged to be in accordance with mathematical truth, the design is then executed or physically built and brought into existence (executive). If the laws for the building or machine are in accordance with mathematical truth, it will function. If not, it will be dysfunctional and subject to destruction.

Human beings are perfect examples of republics, whether we are aware of it or not. Each individual possesses an active legislative branch, or head, that is designed to author the laws or actions of the republic as a whole. These proposed laws are passed to the executive branch, or body, which is designed to judge these laws for concurrence with mathematical truth and then execute or carry out the confirmed laws. These two active branches are sealed together by a static judicial branch, or conscience, which serves as a static binary judge over the actions of the active branches. Laws (or actions) that concur with the mathematical law of equality allow the human republic to retain its liberty, or the power to continue to confirm and execute law. Laws that violate the mathematical law of equality destroy individual liberty, and the person loses the power to confirm and execute law.

These are only a few of the countless ways in which human beings naturally form republics, giving a whole new meaning to the religious expression, “God is everywhere.” Indeed, the image of God is found in all things, due to the fact that God exists as a republic. Because all things exist according to intelligent design laws, all things in existence are executions of law. Law is the product of a republic, which means that everything in existence can be traced back to the republic responsible for its creation. Republics are fractal, which means that each republic can also be traced back to the republic responsible for its creation, resulting in an infinite ancestry of republican governments. The republic is the creator of all things.

This is where we can begin to comprehend the importance of human intelligence and human liberty. Because human beings are the only forms of active intelligence that can distinguish mathematical truth from that which is not mathematical truth, only human beings can author, confirm and execute mathematical truth, or create law. The fact that law is something only human intelligence can create substantiates the statement in the last post that, “Everything in our universe, from the largest star to the smallest subatomic particle, subsists on human liberty.“

Up until this point, we have focused only on the science of a functional republic. We have uncovered the natural law that constitutes it and maintains its functionality – the law of equality. It is easy to see how the physical universe can be so ordered, reliable, and wondrously perfect when it has been created by a similarly ordered, reliable, and wondrously perfect republic. So far, the republic of God has not made any mistakes in the process of law formation. All the laws in the universe concur with mathematical truth, which means that God’s republic has correctly authored, confirmed and executed everything in existence.

However, just because all human beings are executions of the law that “All men are created equal” does not mean that all men remain in this equal state. Natural laws formed by the republic of God exist as static mathematical truth to man, and as a new iteration of human intelligence, it is man’s purpose and function to correctly author this truth into written laws and confirm and execute these laws according to the republican model. This means that God’s creation of man is in turn a creation of a new fractal republic, with God as the judicial branch and man as the active legislative and executive branches.

Of course, though the natural law of equality has always existed, it took man until 1776 A.D. to formally and correctly author this law and an even longer time to get around to the confirmation and execution of it (which execution is sporadic and inconsistent at best). This begs the question: what is the scientific consequence of man’s ignorance, repudiation, or denial of natural law?

In the previous posts it was demonstrated that static and active intelligence have an interdependent relationship, a relationship which forms the basis for law formation. Static intelligence is the origin of truth, and active (human) intelligence authors, confirms and executes truth, enabling truth to become law. On the other hand, if human intelligence can confirm truth, humans must likewise possess the ability to reject truth or at least prevent it from becoming formal law, either deliberately or ignorantly (consider the history of humanity prior to 1776). But the rejection of truth by human intelligence assumes that we have a hand in creating it, which as active intelligences, we do not. Therefore, a “rejection” of truth, or a refusal by man to author and execute the laws established by God, is not so much a rejection but rather an active confirmation of the opposite of the law in question—what we will refer to as a negation of law.

Anything that exists as truth creates or causes that which is not true, which means that all natural laws have negations, or that which exists in opposition to the law. If man does not confirm and execute the natural laws governing the creation of fire (heat, oxygen, fuel) then the result is the negation of fire – or not fire. If man does not confirm and execute the natural laws governing the creation of an electrical current, then the result is the negation of an electrical current – or not an electrical current. In this case, if man does not confirm and execute the natural law governing man’s equality, then the result is the negation of equality – or not equality, which of course is referred to as inequality. This means that instead of possessing a true ability to reject natural laws, human intelligence which refuses to confirm and execute the natural law of equality is by default confirming and executing its negation. Because the law of equality can be broken down into its correct mathematical formula, the formula for inequality must be a negation, or the mathematical opposite, of equality.

Let’s compare the law of equality and its negation side by side. Again, here is the mathematical formula for equality as described in “Laying Down The Law.”

(God > man) and (man = man) = equality

According to this law, man was intelligently designed to function with God as his superior and with man as his equal, which law results in continuous function, or in other words, eternal life.

((God > man) and (man = man) = equality) = Eternal Life

Because this law is universally true, we must now revisit the formula for inequality which was briefly suggested in the post “Laying Down The Law Part II – The Conclusion” as simply (man > man) = inequality. The fact that inequality must be a negation, or the complete opposite of, the law of equality requires a revision of this formula.

The Formula for Inequality – A Negation of Equality

According to equality, the correct order of God and man places God first and man second. For inequality, the arrangement must be incorrectly inversed.

man, God

As the Creator of man, God must be superior to man. For inequality, man would falsely assume a position superior to or greater than his Creator.

man > God

The falsely assumed position of superiority over one’s Creator effectively nullifies any legal basis for the equality of man, so the mathematical result of this arrangement is the inequality of man by default.

man > God = man not equal to man (not equal is written as !=)

This formula is a description of the opposite of equality, which of course is inequality:

(man > God) = (man != man) = inequality

Last, because the formula for equality is mathematically true, its execution yields continuous function, or eternal life. Because inequality is mathematically false, its execution must yield dysfunction and death.

((man > God) = (man != man) = inequality) = Death

Here we see that the formula for inequality is a complete negation of equality. Because the law of equality first requires the recognition of a superior God, the formula for inequality must first include the repudiation of the superiority of God by man, who places himself above his Creator. This arrangement is mathematically false because that which is created cannot be greater than, or precede, that which created it. In this arrangement, man effectively nullifies his own equality among men due to the fact that equality only exists by way of his Creator. Because all men are created equal, man’s attempt to rule over another is first a false repudiation of God and second a false arrangement of man.

The significance of the negation of the natural law of equality is that any man who does not confirm and execute the natural law of equality is by default confirming and executing its negation. This means that each of man’s actions is an execution of equality or inequality; man is either correctly placing God above himself and his fellow man equal to himself, or man is incorrectly placing himself above God and his fellow man unequal to himself. The ability of man to choose whether to confirm and execute equality or inequality reveals a paradoxical characteristic of this natural law, in that the law of equality establishes a classification of superiority and inferiority among men. The superior man is he that chooses to confirm and execute the true law of equality, which results in endurance, function and life. The inferior man is he that chooses to confirm and execute the false law of inequality, or who simply disregards the law of equality in which he then by default confirms and executes inequality to the result of dysfunction, destruction, and death. Because function and life are always superior to destruction and death, the man that chooses to execute equality will always be superior to the man that chooses to execute inequality.

Though the study of this subject is laborious and taxing, the knowledge of the law of equality and its negation is the necessary foundation for the complete understanding of all human past, present and future. Without this natural law, there is no scientific explanation for the failure or dysfunction of society, economy, government, or any institution created by man. We are left to wonder why it is that some businesses fail while others succeed, why some families disintegrate while others progress, why some nations degenerate while others prosper. Without this law we are only able to speculate on the consequences of legislation implemented by government and the repercussions of social or cultural permutations. Currently, the study of the patterns and outcomes of human behavior are considered “soft sciences,” or “social” sciences which cannot be researched quantitatively because of the lack of any specific math-based physical law governing the function of human beings. Of course, the law of equality completely destroys this premise.

The natural law of equality and its negation establishes the mathematical foundation for the scientific study of humanity. Man is a republic constituted by the law of equality; any execution of inequality will cause a republic to self-destruct according to the nature of the imbalance. Recall the example at the end of the post “Laying Down The Law Part II – The Conclusion,” how the existence of the universe is dependent upon the perfect equality of the two creative forces of electromagnetism and gravity. If these two forces are equal, life will flourish and endure. If they are not equal, the universe will self-destruct in a predictable manner, a manner which is mathematically determined by the nature of the imbalance itself. If the imbalance is in favor of electromagnetic force, the universe will predictably blow itself apart. If the imbalance is in favor of gravity, the universe will predictably collapse in on itself. Either way, imbalance (or inequality) will always result in the destruction and death of the universe according to the nature of the imbalance.

Similarly, any imbalance in the constitution of a fractal republic will also result in the destruction and death of that republic according to the nature of the imbalance. Because a republic is a representative union of the three equal keys of law formation – active authority, active power, and static authority and power (sealing), the republic is subject to destruction in four possible ways: an imbalance in favor of active authority; an imbalance in favor of active power; an imbalance in favor of active authority and power; or an imbalance in favor of static authority and power (sealing). Each imbalance causes a very specific type of dysfunction, in the same way that imbalances in any organism – cars, computers, bodies – cause specific types of dysfunction. The dysfunction and death of all republics is the next science we will examine, but this science is not without controversy. To some, this science will be the “ultimate triumph of human reason” anticipated by Stephen Hawking in the quote above, and to others, it will rock the very foundation of their existence. What we as human beings must keep in mind is that we have been intelligently designed to function according to a specific mathematical formula. And the defining characteristic of mathematics is intolerance.

 (This post is part 6 of a series. Please click here to read all previous posts from earliest to latest. )

The emergence of two newly rediscovered truths in the four previous posts completely revolutionizes all branches of scientific study and practice. First, it is a fact that all things in existence are intelligently designed, which establishes ordered law as the foundation of the universe. Second, it is also a fact that each ordered law can be expressed in the language of mathematics and authored into legible statements and formulas, as evidenced by the law of equality. In addition to these truths is a third and final truth which will ultimately reveal the complete design of the universe itself. The remaining element in a universe constructed of law is whether or not such laws are acknowledged (confirmed) and implemented (executed).

It is at this point where we begin to discover the role human beings have been designed to fill in this universe. Human beings differ from all other forms of active intelligence in that they are the only organisms capable of comprehending natural laws. From 1 + 1 = 2 to E=mc², human beings are the only life forms endowed with the necessary intelligence to distinguish mathematical truth from that which is not mathematical truth. This capacity for judgment reveals in no uncertain terms that human beings were designed to comprehend, confirm, and execute all of the natural laws of the universe. The power to confirm and execute law is called agency, or liberty.

Liberty, like equality, is often cited but rarely understood. To understand the true principle of liberty, we must revisit the natural construct of the universe described in “Laying Down The Law,” which construct is the simultaneous separation and union of static and active intelligence. These two types of intelligence naturally divide the universe into two separate branches, with each branch providing a necessary element, or key, to the formation of law. Static intelligence provides authority; it is the branch which holds the authority to originate truth, which is the alpha or beginning of law formation. Active intelligence provides power; it is the branch which holds the power to confirm and execute truth, which is the omega or end of law formation. Together, these interdependent branches produce all natural (or physical) laws. This design reveals more about the true nature of our universe than has ever before been considered in the realm of science, by allowing us to uncover the designated process by which all natural laws are created. Because of this process, the universe in its entirety now has a scientifically substantiated purpose and function. The purpose of static and active intelligence is to become unified, and their joint function is to create and execute truth, or make law. In short, the fundamental construct of the universe is a government; its sole function is the creation and execution of law.

 

Since human beings are the only forms of active intelligence with the ability to discern mathematical truth and are therefore the only life forms capable of comprehending, confirming and executing natural law, it is entirely logical to assume that the government of the universe is a union of static truth and human intelligence, with static mathematical truth providing the origin of law and human beings providing the liberty, or the confirmation and execution of the law in which the law becomes complete. This simple description of government provides yet another astonishing revelation. Everything in our universe, from the largest star to the smallest subatomic particle, subsists on human liberty. Without human beings, nothing could exist physically, as static truth can create nothing of itself but is interdependent on the power of human liberty for creative organization.

The fact that things exist physically, are intelligently designed, and adhere to natural laws informs us that a government made up of static and human intelligence already exists. The proven law of equality now enables us to make our very first scientific classification: The name of this unified government is what we call “God.” God is the name or title of the marriage, or union, of static truth and human intelligence, and as an institution possessing the keys of both authority and power, is responsible for the confirmation and execution of static truth, including the creation of elemental active intelligence and its subsequent organization into living organisms. This explains why all things exist according to ordered law (or intelligent design): because all things are products of a government institution whose sole function is the creation and execution of law.

The knowledge of this foundational government is the most important piece of information any human being can possibly obtain. Its existence reveals that the purpose and function of man is the same as the purpose and function of God. It is man’s purpose and function to create and execute law in the same manner as does the universe – within governments constituted according to the pattern the universe has established. Because the definition of God is based on natural law, it is now possible to make scientific statements that we could not make before. It is a scientific fact that all things are intelligently designed by God. It is a scientific fact that God is a government institution made up of static and human intelligence (due to the fact that no other intelligence can comprehend natural law). It is a scientific fact that God is the source of all creation, and operates in the language of mathematical truth, or natural law. It is a scientific fact that Godis a government constituted of equal and interdependent branches. These statements, though verifiably true, only offer superficial information about the institution of God. What we need now are the specifics.

What is the constitution of “God?”

 

To study the constitution of God, let us start with what we already know. Initially, there exist only two equal interdependent branches of intelligence, each with their own unique contribution to the legislative process. Each branch possesses its own key – the key to originate law or the key to confirm and execute law. The universal necessity of these two keys for law formation demonstrates ironically that there is a natural law governing law creation, which requires all forms of government to be constituted in a specific way. The natural law is the equal interdependence of authority and power; that which originates law has no power to confirm and execute it, and that which confirms and executes law has no authority to originate it. This is the fundamental check and balance between authority and power that static and active (or in this case, human) intelligence inherently possess upon each other.

 

A closer look at this construct reveals that although the universe is separated by two intelligence types, government does not and cannot function with only two branches, due to the nature of the intelligence involved. Because static intelligence is intangible and therefore does not have power to express itself in any physical way, human intelligence cannot confirm and execute law directly from this branch. For this reason, static truth must first be authored into legible statements or formulas by active intelligence before such statements can be confirmed and executed. This necessitates the formation of an active legislative branch to succeed the static branch in physically authoring the mathematical truth of the universe. After static truth has been actively authored by a legislative branch, this same branch cannot proceed to confirm and execute the law it has just authored, lest it violate the universally distinct separation of authority and power. For this reason, a third and final executive branch must then succeed the legislative branch in authorizing (or confirming) and executing the laws that have been authored.

All together, government constituted by natural law is a combination of three keys, or a union of the three separate and equal branches necessary for law formation, arranged in the progressive order of static to active. The first branch is the static truth from which all laws are originated. The second branch is the active legislative branch, or the branch that holds the authority to author static truth into written laws. The third and final branch is the active executive branch, which holds the power to confirm and execute the laws received by the legislative branch. This knowledge leads us to our second scientific classification: God, the universal government responsible for the creation of all natural law and all physical organisms, is a Republic, or a representative government which operates according to the rule of natural law.

Unfortunately, the image of this government does not add up – so far. There are two perplexing issues, one logical and the other mathematical, that must be resolved before we can begin to understand this arrangement in its entirety. The logical issue is, how can static and active intelligence form a unified government in the first place?

The fact that static intelligence is truly static and does not exist physically poses a problem for its intended unification with active human intelligence. Human beings cannot physically unify with something that is intangible. For this reason, human intelligence must come to represent the union of static and active intelligence in government, which requires active intelligence to act, or represent, each key in the process of law formation. It is easiest to comprehend this type of representation using the two active branches of government as examples, which are the legislative and the executive. Although human intelligence cannot originate law of itself, no form of government can function without the written law. Therefore, human beings must act, or represent, the static universe in this regard. The legislative branch of every government represents authority, or the authoring of law, even though human beings do not possess universal authority. The authored laws are then passed to the executive branch which represents the power of human liberty, or the power of human intelligence to judge the correctness of the authored law by analyzing its concurrence with mathematical truth. True laws are confirmed and executed by the power of the executive branch; false laws are rejected. The fact that these two active branches are representative of both authority and power leads us to our second issue.

The second problem we encounter is a mathematical one: if both the authority and power keys are represented by the legislative and executive branches respectively, what key does the static branch possess in a republic? If there are only two keys, or parts, to legislation in the universe but three keys are required for government function, then this must mean that one of the keys of either authority or power is represented twice, causing a potential imbalance in a government supposedly based on equality. Let us now consider the function of the static branch to uncover whether this republic is imbalanced in favor of authority or power.

The static branch in a republic is the branch responsible for the origination of mathematical truth, the initial element of law. As the origin of mathematics, it is responsible for the association of truth to endurance and life and falseness to destruction and death, a manifestation of its own sagacious nature. By mathematically associating truth with life and falsehood with death, the static universe has secured an ironclad defense against active branches that create and execute false law: all active intelligence engaged in authoring and executing false law, or law which does not concur with mathematical truth, are statically sentenced to destruction and death. Conversely, active intelligence which author and execute true laws endure continuously, or live eternally. The association of truth to life and falseness to death reveals that the function of the static branch in a republic is judicial by nature. Static truth serves as a binary judge of the active legislative and executive branches, by assigning an outcome of life or death to each law that is passed. Those that concur with the mathematical law of equality allow the government to live another day. However, the enactment of a single instance of inequality will mathematically trigger that government’s demise. This is the check and balance that the static branch possesses against the dual active branches that succeed it. But the question still remains, which key does the judicial branch hold?

Here is an opportune moment to showcase human liberty – humans are fully capable of using logic and judgment to discern truth from a source that cannot speak. The mathematical association of truth to life and falseness to death is the only clue as to which key the judicial branch of government possesses, a clue that is readily discerned. Mathematical associations are, in fact, laws. The assignment of truth to life and falseness to death is thoroughly enacted legislation, or what is known as natural law. This leads us to a single, logical conclusion: because all established laws are the product of both authority and power, the key of the judicial branch must be a combination of authority and power, or one key made from two. This means that the judicial branch in a republic is made up of an authority branch and power branch that have been previously united, and jointly represent the static intelligence of the universe in contrast to the two active branches. Because this branch is made up of two keys sealed together, it will be referred to as the sealing key, not only because it is a sealed union itself but because this preeminent key serves as a sealing agent for the dual active keys that succeed it. The sealing, or judicial branch allows all three branches to function as one entity or government, and carries the archetype for the government it has joined together. The sealing key is made up of unified human intelligence representing authority and power which has also been unified by a sealing branch of human intelligence representing authority and power, a recursive pattern that has no beginning which will repeat itself to no end.

The resolution of these two issues allows the constitution of “God” to finally come into focus. The fact that all branches of a Republic are occupied by human intelligence settles the problematic tangible-to-intangible unification issue. In a Republic, human intelligence joins with other human intelligence in a perfect representation of the static-active union, and must take on the specific characteristics of the intelligence type or keythat they represent. The mathematical issue is also resolved in that the judicial branch of a Republic is self-similar to the government as a whole. This reveals that a tri-branched Republic is not imbalanced in favor of authority or power, but is in fact a perfectly balanced, perfectly functional, self-replicating institution. Here is the basic geometric image of the republic we have just described:

 

 

 

Because the judicial branch is a unified authority and power key in and of itself, it is an exact replica of the government as a whole. Here is the specific geometric image of this republic:

 

 

Those who are familiar with mathematics or biological sciences might have already identified the pattern expressed in this government. Any self-similar object, or “geometric shape that can be subdivided into parts, each of which is a smaller copy of the whole¹” is known as a fractal (short for “fractional dimension”). Fractals are often associated with recursive operations on shapes or sets of numbers, in which the result of the operation is used as the input to the same operation, repeating the process indefinitely². Fractal geometry is a relatively recent discovery ³, and its discoverers have gone on to demonstrate that the seemingly complex patterns and designs found in nature, from ferns to coastlines, are all generated by simple recursive mathematical formulas. It should then come as no surprise to discover that God, the universal government responsible for authoring and executing all mathematical truth, should bear the same self-similarity it is responsible for establishing. If nature itself is designed according to self-similar mathematical equations, then it is only logical that the institution responsible for creating nature in such a manner is itself a self-similar, self-replicating institution. Due to the fact that all fractals render visible designs, not only do we have a natural law proving the existence of God, but we also have a way to render the mathematical image of God using its three-key pattern. In this case, the fractal image of God is a perfect match to what is known to mathematicians as the “Sierpinski Triangle⁴.” Here is the static design of a Sierpinski triangle, along with a progressive formation to further illustrate its pattern.

 

 

 

These illustrations make it easier to understand the constitution of God, in that it is a grouping of three equal keys (each equilateral triangle is equal in size to the others), each of which are infinitely divided and multiplied by the same three-key pattern. The infinite scale of this government is evident in this animated image:

 

The most significant aspect of God’s infinite scale is that the source of natural law cannot be traced back to any single intelligence or being. Natural law is produced by the unification of three keys – an authority and power key sealed together by a unified authority and power key – which means that there is no one being responsible for the creation of law. This provides astonishing insight into the nature and function of God, in that God cannot be nor can ever become a tyrannical form of government, but is an institution designed to function perfectly and eternally in the process of law formation according to the checks and balances inherent to each key. Equality is an obvious element to God’s design, in that if any of the branches of government were to become imbalanced in relation to another, or in geometric terms if any of the triangles became bigger, smaller, or in any way different than the others, the fractal would become dysfunctional and self-destructive. Equality is literally the law that determines the life or death of God, man, government and law. Just as man is created equal by God and required by law to maintain this equality, so is God created equal by natural law and is likewise required to maintain its equality in function. This means that just as the constitution of man is formed by the law of equality, or (God > man) and (man = man), so is the constitution of God formed by the law of equality, only in this case the formula’s variables are replaced by the proper subjects. In man’s case, God is the creator of law, which created man as equals. In God’s case, eternal law is the creator of God, which created God as equals. This means that the equality law that constitutes the government of God is the same as the equality law that constitutes the government of man, the only difference being the subjects represented in the formula.

 

Let’s compare these two laws side by side. Here is the already established equality law whereby man operates:

 

 

(God > man) and (man = man) = equality

 

 

Which is identical to the formula whereby God operates:

 

 

(Eternal Law > God) and (God = God) = equality

 

 

 Now that we know that God is a recursive pattern, “Eternal law” is simply the government that created God, much like God is simply the government that created man. Therefore, it is man’s purpose and function to become a reiteration of this same pattern – an equally branched government which carries the necessary keys to author and execute the laws established by God. This means that it is man’s purpose to literally become as God, which is an eternally functioning republic that serves as Creator and sealing agent for future eternally functioning republics. Man is designed to become sealed to God as one of these future eternally functioning republics, and to repeat this sealing pattern after acquiring the image, keys, and title of God. This accession is a science in and of itself which will be discussed at great detail in future posts.

 

For now, let us summarize the basic facts that the law of equality has proven thus far, which concern these five subjects: God, man, government, law, and also equality itself.

 

Equality

 

The law of equality has provided us with the actual definition of equality, which is (God > man) and (man = man).

 

Law

 

Law is static mathematical truth authored and ratified by human intelligence.

 

Government

 

Government is the institution responsible for producing law, which is a unified body comprised of the three separate and equal branches necessary for law formation.

 

Man

 

Man is the active intelligence designed to constitute government according to the law of equality by representing or holding the keys necessary to its function.

 

God

 

God is a unified and everlasting fractal Republic constituted by the law of equality that retains the keys to create and execute natural law on a continuous, universal scale.

 

Due to the rediscovery of a single natural law, each of these historically indefinite subjects are now defined in absolute terms, effectively unveiling five new branches of scientific study. This law adds to the scope of human intelligence by enabling us to obtain the knowledge of what law is, and what law is not; what government is, and what government is not; what man is, and what man is not; what God is, and what God is not. It is by this law that we are able to determine the truth or falsehood of all human thought, action or belief, a determination that applies to all of man’s religious, political, sociological, moral, economic, and cultural philosophies. In other words, it is by this law that right and wrong, good and evil, truth or falsehood, on or off, and life or death is defined. This law tells us everything we need to know about God, man, government and law, and by its formula alone is a legitimate republic established. It is no coincidence that the republic of the United States is patterned after the republic of God, seeing as how they are constituted according to the exact same natural law. Of course, the remaining element in a universe constructed of law is whether or not such laws are acknowledged and implemented. The United States possesses the only legitimately constituted form of government upon the face of the Earth due to a single correctly authored founding law. Whether this government functions or malfunctions, endures or degenerates, lives or dies is wholly dependent on the power of human liberty, a power that persists only in the confirmation and execution of its founding law. True to the words of the beloved American hymn, our liberty endures in law.

 

 

 

1

American Psychological Association (APA):

fractal. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Science Dictionary. Retrieved September 05, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fractal

Chicago Manual Style (CMS):

fractal. Dictionary.com. The American Heritage® Science Dictionary. Houghton Mifflin Company. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fractal (accessed: September 05, 2008).

Modern Language Association (MLA):

“fractal.” The American Heritage® Science Dictionary. Houghton Mifflin Company. 05 Sep. 2008. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fractal>.

 

2 Ibid

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fractal

 

3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beno%C3%AEt_Mandelbrot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helge_von_Koch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_snowflake

http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_mathematical_universe.asp

http://www.wolframscience.com/nksonline/toc.html

 

4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierpinski_triangle

 (This post is part 5 of a series. Please click here to read all previous posts from earliest to latest. )

 

 

 Testing the Universal Law of Equality for Truth

As was mentioned in the last post, “All men are created equal” is not a trite moral declaration, but is the most exceptional and extraordinary natural law ever acknowledged in the history of the world. This law alone holds the power to destroy all boundaries between science, philosophy, religion, morality, politics, sociology, mathematics and economics, and combine them all into one self-evident, immutable truth. Hidden in this universal law is the mathematical description of four historically indefinite subjects: God, man, government, and law. Because of the law of equality, God, man, government and even law itself are now properly subsumed within the realm of science, as they should have always been. Science is the study of truth, and we have now identified the natural law that will allow all of mankind to scientifically study, test and prove the physical laws of each.

This post will be dedicated to the scientific testing of this law as it is written. The last post explains in detail how the natural law “All men are created equal” converts mathematically to this formula:

(God > man) and (man = man) = equality

In short, this formula describes that equality among men is dependent upon the existence of a superior God. Because equality is dependent upon God in this formula, if the law of equality is true then it also proves that God exists as described in the law. However, there are many different formulas for equality that have been declared over the centuries, and many are in use today. If equality exists then it must have only one formula, and so we will conduct two scientific tests on this law. The first test is to determine the correct formula for equality, whether it be the one listed above or some other formula. Once we have the correct formula, we will conduct the second and final scientific test.

The final test will evaluate whether equality itself is true, in which we will test whether the law of equality causes mankind to become functional or dysfunctional. If equality causes disorder and dysfunction, then it is false, and the world as we know it will never be the same. If equality causes order and function, then it is true, and the world as we know it will never be the same. Consider yourselves warned.

Step 1: Testing for the correct formula for equality

“All men are created equal” is the only law of equality that is based upon the existence of a superior God. All other equality statements omit any reference to a Creator or Deity, and according to these laws equality is therefore established by man. The equality of man has only two possible sources, man himself or a source that is superior to man which created man under conditions of equality, such as a Deity or God. The test is then a simple one: Is equality originated by God or by man?

Here are examples of equality laws that do not include a Creator:

- “All men are equal.” (General statement)

- “All men are born free and equal.” (Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Constitution)

- “Men are born and remain free and equal in rights.” (The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, French Revolution, August 26 1789 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citizen)

- “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” (The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), United Nations General Assembly, December 10, 1948 http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/)

Let us test whether any of these statements will render proper mathematical formulas. First, let’s break these laws down into their basic components and definitions, as was done in the last post.

All = Supposedly every subject to the exclusion of none, but ultimately defined by the person making this statement

Men/Human beings = Defined by the person making this statement

Are = Defined by the person making this statement

Born = Defined by the person making this statement

Free = However “Free” is defined by the person making this statement

Equal = However “Equal” is defined by the person making this statement

Dignity = However “Dignity” is defined by the person making this statement

Rights = However “Rights” are defined by the person making this statement

There is already a problem here. Because none of these declarations are self-evident truths, or natural laws, there is no way to define any of its components in absolute, universal terms.

To render a formula, we need absolute, universal terms. Let’s just assume that I am the one making this statement, so I will enter my own definitions of the terms. We will then be able to render a mathematical formula according to my own relative terms if all others consider these terms absolute.

My Definition of Equality:

All = Every subject to the exclusion of none

Men/Human beings = all of mankind, male and female, human beings

Are = defined as, relatively

Born = brought forth by birth

Free = Unrestricted in any way

Equal = state of being equivalent, equally balanced.

Dignity = Deserving respect

Rights = Entitled to all things defined as ‘rights’ by the government

Now that the components have been defined, let’s study their mathematical arrangement in order to formulate the precise equation.

At first glance, it looks as if there is only one subject: man. In reality, there are two subjects, the men referred to in the law, and the man who authored the statement (in this case, myself). Which of these mathematically comes first? If man made the law, then mathematically the man acting as legislator comes first. The man acting as legislator then goes on to legislate law upon his fellow man, which places man after man, or second.

man, man

Now, is the man acting as legislator equivalent to his fellow man or is one greater than the other? If one man legislated a law upon others but others cannot likewise legislate law in return, or if one man can declare his terms absolute and others cannot dispute this claim, then the man who created the law is superior to, or greater than all other men.

man > man

Next, if the superior man legislated law upon all other men, what condition did he legislate upon man? Man was legislated as equal to man. After the first law describes the mathematical relationship of the lawmaking man to all other men, it then appends the first law with a second law describing the legislative relationship of man to man.

man > man and man = man

Last, what exactly does this formula describe? This formula is an attempted expression of equality. Here is the statement in its entirety:

(man > man) and (man = man) = equality

This formula is in reality a counterfeit expression of equality. The preeminent law in this equation is that the man who legislated this law is superior to the men it was legislated upon. Secondary to this law is a law establishing the equality of man. The mathematical order of these two laws is false because the second law is nullified by the first law, and therefore cannot be an expression of equality, but only a description of inequality. Here we see that man declaring the equality of other men is a self-contradiction, in that the act of absolutely declaring anything upon another man is an act of superiority, not equality. Each of these false laws of equality have been systematically exposed as to what they really are: clever and deliberate deceptions. The foolish man will see in these laws what its authors want him to see, which is the nullified law – “all men are equal” – with the added use of extravagant words such as “dignity” and “rights” to distract the fool from asking how it is that men, being unequal by nature, could ever be considered equal by law. The answer would alert the fool to his own irrationality: the only way men can be considered equal by law is because a superior man declared it to be so.

Now we can publish these false equality statements as they really are, with the nullified part of the law removed:

(man > man) = inequality

As a final test of falsehood, let us test to see if any of these statements could be true in any logical sense, or cogently identify as self-evident truths.

Are “All men equal?”

Are “All men born free and equal?”

Are “Men born free and equal in rights,” and do they “remain” that way?

Are “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights?”

The answer to all questions is a resounding No.

Is it possible that someday any of these statements could be true?

The answer to this question is also a resounding No. There is no man, however powerful, who can dictate the terms and conditions of any man’s birth, and there is no man, however powerful, who can dictate the state in which any man can remain. There is also no man, however powerful, who can grant equality to another man, because if equality originates by man, then it does not exist at all. These facts confirm the position in the previous posts that active intelligence such as man has no authority to originate law, which is what these four declarations assume.

In contrast,

Are “All men created equal?”

The answer to this question is: possibly.

If the equality statements that do not include a Creator are all scientific impossibilities, and the sole equality statement that does include a Creator is a scientific possibility, let us now finalize the correct formula with this conclusive question.

Can equality exist without a Creator?

No. Removing a Creator from the law of equality effectively renders it false. The equality of man requires a Creator, or God, as its originator, because man cannot originate it of himself without violating his own law. The American founders correctly included a Creator in the formula of equality because had they not, the formula would have been mathematically incorrect. Equality among men does not exist by nature, as one man is never born equal in health, status, intelligence or ability to another, and therefore men are not equals by nature but rule over one another according to natural advantages. Equality among men also cannot exist by man’s decree, because if one man can legislate a law of equality upon another, then either all men are equally entitled to legislate law upon each other, or all men must defer to one superior man entitled to legislate equality, rendering equality obsolete. If equality among men does not exist by nature, and cannot exist by man’s decree, then its existence is absolutely dependent upon a Creator.

Conclusion

The results are in: The formula (God > man) and (man = man) is the only possible formula for the equality of man.

Step 2: The Final Test – Is the law of equality universally true?

Because of its age and position as the founding principle of the United States, we are provided an excellent basis upon which to identify the effects of this law. Also advantageous to the analysis is the fact that the United States has uniquely embraced this law as it is written; no other nation has ever been built upon the founding principle that “all men are created equal.” Therefore the position of the United States as compared to all other nations is a valid demonstration of the truth or falseness of this law.

As it stands, the United States of America is the world’s oldest enduring republic and sole superpower. In a little over two hundred years the United States has been able to achieve a higher level of functionality than any other nation in history and generate the most wealth and prosperity the world has ever witnessed. America is undisputed in its superiority over all the nations of the world.

On the other hand, the history of the Earth has repeatedly evidenced a single path and pattern for all nations and civilizations not founded upon the natural law of equality: degeneration and destruction. All other nations are inferior to the United States presently and historically.

With this simple comparison, it would seem as though the static universe has indeed associated equality with function and inequality with dysfunction. But before we can establish this as fact, we must first understand how the laws of equality or inequality affect the nations that embrace them, and how they are composed in the first place.

How does equality or inequality shape the nations of the world?

Every nation upon the Earth is governed by a single law – a law which defines or determines who possesses the ultimate authority to rule. This law is known as a “Declaration,” a law that describes the relationship of man to man. The Declaration establishes a blueprint or a formula that determines the order of the resulting government, known as the “Constitution,” or the description of how the government is constituted. The government of any nation has a sole function: to create and execute law.

Declaration => Constitution => Government Creation and Execution of Law

In essence, each form of government and its resultant laws can be traced back to a nation’s original Declaration. In this binary universe, the original Declaration can only describe one of two arrangements – equality or inequality, and exist in only one of two states – true or false. If the Declaration is mathematically true, then the resultant government will be constituted legitimately and will produce laws that are true, ordered, and functional, which government will endure indefinitely. If the Declaration is false, then the resultant government will be constituted illegitimately and will produce laws that are false, disordered, dysfunctional and will induce that government’s demise. If a nation has no Declaration, then the men in government have granted themselves the ultimate authority to rule, so the absence of a Declaration is in fact a Declaration of inequality, and is still subject to assessment of truth or falsehood.

The Declaration in the case of the United States of America is “All men are created equal,” or in mathematical terms, (God > man) and (man = man) = equality. This declaration resulted in a government constituted of separate and equal branches designed to check and balance each other to maintain equality. Due to equality the government must also be constituted as equal to its people, inasmuch as it maintains its legitimate constitution designated by its declared law. The United States is the only nation in the history of the world to declare equality as established by God, and as such, its government is constituted upon the premise that no man possesses the ultimate authority to rule, but only the superior God of equality.

In contrast, all other nations have declarations that establish equality according to the decree of man, openly assert inequality, or lack any declaration whatsoever. Thus the Declaration of all other nations is overt or covert inequality. These nations have all resulted in governments constituted of unequal branches and/or a government constituted unequal to, or superior to, its people. These nations form governments constituted upon the premise that the men in government have the ultimate authority to rule.

Who declares the Declaration?

The people are the originators of their country’s declaration. It is the people that determine the relationship of their neighbors to themselves, whether they be equal or unequal. This determination is based upon various philosophies, values, or cultural tenets popular among the people. Historically, the people have declared the order of man according to what they think or desire it to be, with the sole exception of the United States, who have declared this order on the basis of natural law. The order of man relative to man is the single most important law a nation can establish, because the order in which man places himself relative to his fellow man mathematically determines the type of government he will create, as was previously shown. A government’s sole function is to create and execute law, and so the type of government man creates also determines the type of laws he will establish. Because the order of man, government and law are all interconnected in this regard, each nation possesses a distinct design, or image, dictated by its founding Declaration. The image of every nation can be readily analyzed and tested for truth, simply because its image is either one of equality or inequality.

The American Experiment: America Proves Positive

The final test of the law of equality comes in the form of a single question, which happens to be the same question asked at the final stage of all scientific experiments: Is equality true?

The answer: Yes.

“All men are created equal” is a universal law; it proves to be true throughout all space and time. The entire history of civilization is an undisputed confirmation to the superiority of the law of equality, and the inferiority of its antithesis. Order, function and life flourish whenever and wherever this law is obeyed. Disorder, destruction and death ravage all things that transgress it. All instances of societal dysfunction can be traced to a willfull or unintentional violation of this natural law. There cannot be a clearer manifestation of truth than this law, which is the basis of all other laws. The universe indeed has mathematically associated equality with function and inequality with dysfunction, a revelation that will have a dramatic impact on our world.

The function of the physical universe itself, like man, is also dependent upon the principle of equality. In order for our universe to have been created, there was a specific, scientifically recognized condition that had to exist in order for such creation to take place. This condition was equality. Many scientists refer to this condition as “fine-tuning,” or that the universe was “fine-tuned” for life. What this really means in general is that the two creative forces of the universe, gravitational and electromagnetic force, had to be perfectly balanced, or equal, in order for the universe to exist and life to flourish. If there had been any imbalance between these two powers, the universe would have been destroyed according to the nature of the imbalance, by either collapsing in on itself (imbalance in favor of gravity) or blowing itself apart (imbalance in favor of electromagnetic force), which imbalance would have destroyed all opportunities for life. Thus we see on a universal scale that equality is mathematically associated with truth, life, order, endurance and function. And the formula for equality, of course, requires a superior God. According to this natural law of equality, man functions by first recognizing a Superior God and second maintaining equality with his fellow man or he, like our universe, will self-destruct according to the nature of the imbalance.

 

Americans from this time forth may now celebrate their Independence Day with a clearer understanding of what their Founders truly accomplished. With this conclusive experiment, the Founding Fathers of America have now proven to be the most revolutionary scientists in the history of the world. The proclaimation which boldly declared “all men are created equal” is exactly what they said it was: a universal, self-evident truth. And the conclusion to this experiment is likewise self-evident: God exists absolutely.

In the last post, external intelligent design (theory C) was proven to be correct, that “All living things function according to a design established by intelligence other than its own.” The theory of evolution had been thoroughly debunked because nothing exists randomly and lawlessly in our universe as evolution itself requires. The theory of internal intelligent design was also thoroughly debunked because no living thing can conceptualize and construct itself according to its own intelligence. Since external intelligent design is the only theory proven true, we must now move forward to identify and study the nature of this external intelligence.

Before we do so it is important to understand what the underlying conflict between “evolution” and intelligent design is in the first place. First, it must be noted that although true evolution – living organisms created at random and without law – does not exist, clever evolution proponents are well aware of this and attempt to deceive the public by repackaging the theory of internal intelligent design under the name “evolution,” because calling their theory by its proper name of internal intelligent design does not fit their ideological agenda. For this reason I will contain the word “evolution” in quotation marks. The attempt to rename internal intelligent design as “evolution” does not change the fact that this theory is still defined as “all living things function according to a design established by its own intelligence,” or Theory B from the last posting. With this in mind, the battle between “evolution” (internal intelligent design) and external intelligent design has a single issue at heart: the origin of law.

Under “evolution” a life form itself is the source and creator of its own laws; it is its own authority and is accountable only to itself. It exists as a law unto itself in a state of perpetual truth with no possibility of falseness. That which dictates its own laws can never be in violation of them, because it would simply change its law to accommodate new desires, actions and functions. Thus, “evolutionary” life forms must exist in a state of perpetual truth and function, without possibility of error or dysfunction.

Under external intelligent design, a life form lives according to laws established by an external intelligence and therefore has no authority to create its own laws or alter its design. It is accountable to the authority of the external intelligence that created it. This life form is functional when obedient to the laws established for it and dysfunctional when disobedient, and therefore can exist in a state of either true or false according to its adherence or violation of intelligent design laws.

By exposing this battle’s underlying issue, it is much easier to recognize the motivation behind the conflict. Because “evolution” (internal intelligent design) persistently proves false by every scientific measure, there must be some reason why this falsehood continues to be promoted as fact in all areas of academia. It turns out there is a very obvious reason for the collective support and advancement of the theory of “evolution,” that we are somehow responsible for creating ourselves. The reason is because if we created ourselves, then we also get to create the laws we live by and are accountable only to ourselves. If we did not create ourselves, then we do not get to create the laws we live by, and we are subject to pre-established, immutable laws whether we like it or not. It’s as simple as that. The latter notion strikes fear into the heart of any self-interested individual (or group) with designs to establish himself as an authority and subject his fellow man to his own version of law. His ability to do so would be obstructed by society’s uniform acknowledgement that inalienable laws established by external intelligence supersede and invalidate all authority and legislation originated by man. Because “evolution” proponents are self-interested* in this manner, they recognize that a logical concept like external intelligent design with its fixed, indestructible laws is a tremendous threat and therefore must be mocked mercilessly and silenced by force. This is indeed the picture of the “evolution” vs. intelligent design battle as it is being waged today. (*The specifics of the self-interest of “evolution” proponents will be discussed in a future posting.)

Thus, the battle of “evolution” vs. intelligent design has been reduced to what it really is: a disagreement over the origin of law. The main obstruction to this conflict’s resolution is that although science wholly rejects evolution and sustains external intelligent design as fact, most scientists steadfastly reject external intelligent design out of self-interest and fraudulently assert “evolution” as fact in order to establish a “scientific” basis whereby man is entitled to originate law.

Now that the underlying conflict has been exposed as a battle between an internal or external origin of law, let’s move on to study the possible source(s) of external intelligent design.

First, is there any form of external intelligence (intelligence independent of all living and non-living things) already acknowledged by science? Yes – the universe. Many prominent scientists and physicists ¹ have recognized that the universe itself is an establishment of physical laws – also referred to as universal laws, scientific principles, and natural laws – which laws are immutable and can be rendered or expressed mathematically or in mathematical equations. Have these scientists correctly designated the universe as intelligent? Yes. From that which is least intelligent to that which is most intelligent, intelligence is defined as the ability to distinguish between, express, or manifest true and false. The universe intelligently manifests true and false in the language of mathematics. The universe is the source of all truth, which is why it is the universe that manifests to us what is true and what is false, and not the other way around. Truth is interchangeable with universal law, so this same statement can read: the universe is the source of all law, which is why it is the universe that manifests to us what is law, and not the other way around. Thus the victor in the battle is evident: the origin of law is external. The reason why we, as human beings, cannot originate law upon the universe is because the intelligence of the universe is fundamentally different than the intelligence of human beings. Because the universe is made up of two different things – its immutable laws and its physical components – it also contains two different types of intelligence – static and active.

Static Intelligence

Static intelligence is the unchanging, immutable truth of the universe which cannot be created nor destroyed. Static intelligence is mathematics – the source of truth for all numbers, equations, functions, and shapes, and their relationships and properties. Because static intelligence is mathematical truth, anything in conflict with this intelligence is, by default, false. Such intelligence is all-encompassing which is why all things in the universe can be expressed in mathematical equations, and why all things in the universe are subject to math-based physical laws. Static intelligence is the most authoritative form of intelligence.

Active Intelligence

Active intelligence is everything that exists in the universe as a particular form of either energy or matter (stored energy). While energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed, organisms made up of matter can. Each form of active intelligence from the most complex organism (human beings) to the least non-living element (atoms or elementary particles) all function according to pre-established intelligent design laws based on static intelligence. Active intelligence exists in a state of either true or false, depending on whether intelligent design laws are obeyed or violated. If it is in accordance with static laws, it will express true, on, functional, ordered, enduring, constructive or living. If it is in violation, it will be false, off, dysfunctional, disordered, degenerate, self-destructive or dying/dead. Living forms of active intelligence can recognize occurrences of intelligent design violations to the degree they have been designed, which are made manifest by pain, illness, dysfunction, disorder, disease, death, etc. The highest known form of active intelligence – human beings – also possesses the greatest power to determine whether or not to adhere to intelligent design laws. This power is called agency, or liberty. Active intelligence is dynamic; its intelligence can grow or decline according to the dictates of its intelligent design. The amount of intelligence a life form has is dependent upon its recognition and application of static intelligence. The more it is able to comprehend and apply static intelligence, the more intelligent it becomes. The less able it is to comprehend and apply static intelligence, the less intelligent it is. Active intelligence is the most powerful form of intelligence.

This may not be something readers are readily familiar with, so let’s list the differences in compact, bullet-point style:

Static Intelligence

- Static, unchanging

- Universal

- Intangible

- Mathematics

- Truth (because it is truth, false is defined by default – binary)

- Highest authority

Active Intelligence

- Dynamic, changing

- Local

- Tangible

- Applied mathematics/laws

- Energy or matter

- Can sustain/obey or reject/violate laws, exhibit and render true or false

- Greatest power

The fact that intelligence exists in separate and distinct forms of static or active further demonstrates the external origin of law. The reason that we, as human beings, cannot originate (physical) law is because we, as active intelligences, have no authority to do so. The authority to dictate true and false lies solely with the static intelligence of the universe. On the other hand, the static intelligence of the universe has no power to create anything of itself or manifest itself in any physical form, and therefore cannot express true and false unless there exists a separate, active intelligence to render such an expression. Thus the basic, foundational construct of the universe is that authority is separate from power and power is separate from authority, but at the same time they are united in a condition of perfect equality. Static authority and active power are equivalent because of their equal interdependence upon each other – truth requires a static origin and an active acknowledgement in order for it to exist as complete truth (or law). The active acknowledgement of truth is otherwise known as a witness, a confirmation, or declaration of truth. The seemingly contradictory nature of this universal ’separation of powers’ construct is that while separate, authority without power is nothing and power without authority is nothing – but when united, the capacity for creation is limitless. Therefore these two things, the authority of static intelligence and the power of active intelligence must be separate but united at the same time in order for anything to exist.

Like all truth in the universe, this construct – or pattern – is universally applicable to all things from micro to macro. If the universe is macro (the extremely large) and human beings are micro (the extremely small), we as active intelligences must understand how this construct applies to ourselves. Before we do so, let us first examine the active intelligence in the universe.

Forms of Active Intelligence

Active Intelligence has two forms, elemental and organismic.

Elemental active intelligence is energy and matter at its foundational level such as atomic elements and elementary particles (matter and force particles having no known substructure, which make up the atomic elements and forces of the universe such as gravity and electromagnetic force (quarks, gravitons (theoretical), photons, etc.)). The atomic elements can change into other elements according to the dictates of intelligent design laws, and are therefore complex organisms themselves, but their basic structures cannot be created or destroyed (matter and energy are interchangeable but cannot cease to exist).

Organismic active intelligence is a living or non-living compilation of elemental active intelligence, an organism made of matter that has been designed to function in a certain way. The actual organization and function of this type of active intelligence can be created or destroyed, but not the elemental active intelligence it is made up of. If it is destroyed it will return to an elemental, disorganized state from which it was created.

The reason why the distinction between elemental active intelligence and organismic active intelligence must be made is because of the organizational properties of the latter. How can active intelligence go from one form – basic energy and matter that cannot be created or destroyed, to another completely different form – complex organisms that can live or die, function or malfunction? Which kind of intelligence is responsible for the intelligent design and construction of organisms, and establishes the laws by which it can malfunction or die? Is static intelligence responsible for this organization or is active intelligence?

Were we created by static or active intelligence?

Let us first consider whether static intelligence could possibly be responsible for life creation. Using common logic, can static intelligence such as mathematics create anything of itself? No. Because static intelligence is authority and not power, it does not possess organizational capabilities. The static, mathematical laws of music cannot organize themselves into Beethoven’s 9^th symphony. An active intelligence such as Beethoven is required to organize the symphony using the math-based laws of music which static intelligence provides. Since an active intelligence is always responsible for organization because organization is power, it is logical to hypothesize that there must exist an external active intelligence responsible for organizing the form and function of all living and non-living things.

Let us now make the assumption that active intelligence is responsible for our creation. Since static intelligence cannot create anything and organisms cannot create themselves, logically there must exist an external active intelligence responsible for the creation of living and non-living organisms. This intelligence must be familiar with all mathematical truth provided by static intelligence, and have the ability to construct all organisms according to math-based physical laws. This type of active intelligence is more commonly known as a Creator, a Supreme Being, a Deity, or a God.

It is a common opinion in the realm of science that the existence of a Creator or God cannot be scientifically proven, and perhaps this opinion is so deeply rooted and often repeated that most scientists do not bother to challenge it. But just because it is popular to think something can’t be done doesn’t mean that it can’t. The binary nature of our universe tells us that all things are expressed in terms of absolute true and false, there is no “maybe” or “sometimes” or “I’m the universe, and I’m not going to tell you” nonsense. It is simply a matter of hypothesizing, testing and proving what we think may be true against what the universe actually expresses to be true through our testing processes. To receive an expression of either true or false, one must understand the language of the universe: mathematics. As was written before, the universe has provided a way by which any statement can be determined to be true or false: if it is true, then it is true, on, functional, ordered, constructive, or living, and if it is false, then it is false, off, dysfunctional, disordered, self-destructive or dying/dead. Mathematical statements such as 1 + 1 = 2 are true, useful and valid, and endure in the universe because they are functional and ordered. Anything created according to true laws are likewise functional, ordered and enduring. Statements such as 1 + 1 = 5 are false, useless, and invalid, and do not endure in the universe because they exist in opposition to truth and are dysfunctional and disordered. Anything created according to false laws are likewise dysfunctional, disordered and will ultimately self-destruct.

Instead of listening to the opinion of scientists on the matter of the possible existence of God, let us ask the universe which is the source of all truth, in the language of mathematics, if God exists. If all things are subject to physical laws, then that means if man were to question the existence of a Supreme Being or Creator, he must look no further than natural law. Somewhere in the realm of science there must exist a natural law requiring the existence of a Creator, a law which would also describe the exact nature of this Creator, which would allow this Creator to be identified, studied, tested, and proven. If such a law could be found to exist, it would be the greatest scientific discovery in the history of the world.

Luckily for us, the greatest scientific discovery in the history of the world has already been made. The discovery of this law happened two hundred and thirty two years ago by a group of rebellious revolutionaries on the North American continent, who ingeniously established this law as the foundation of a new experimental nation with these five words:

“All men are created equal.”

Since 1776, the United States has held within its founding Declaration the world’s most important scientific discovery: the universal mathematical formula of God, man, government and law. This discovery was so advanced that its mathematical significance has evaded every scientist, intellectual, philosopher and layman for the past two centuries. The reason it has heretofore gone unnoticed by science is because it has not been correctly identified as what it really is: a physical law. Contrary to popular belief, this declaration is a natural, universal law in the exact same manner as E = mc² or 1 + 1 = 2. The Founders of America knew this, which is why it is preceded with the words, “We hold these truths to be self-evident.” A self-evident truth is quite obviously the same as universal law, a law which is manifest in all areas of human behavior and can be studied, tested and proven for truth. Because of the self-interested conflict between “evolution” and intelligent design (the battle over the origin of law), scientists and others have asserted that some universal truths exist absolutely and other “truths,” such as those concerning human morality, are authored by man exclusively. Only an “evolution” (internal intelligent design) proponent can be foolish enough to subscribe to this logical fallacy, that man can create truth in the same manner as the universe. Obviously, all truth is universal, fixed and mathematical; there cannot be absolute truths set by the universe and another class of temporary and relative truths set by man. If man is part of the universe and the universe exists by way of mathematical truth, then so must man (and all biological entities) exist by way of mathematical truth.

In this case, the founding law “All men are created equal” is a mathematical equation, and can therefore be scientifically tested and proven for truth. First, let’s break down this law into its basic components and their corresponding definitions:

All = Every subject to the exclusion of none

Men = all of mankind, male and female, human beings

Are = defined as, absolutely

Created = made by an external active intelligence, otherwise referred to as a Creator, God, Deity, Supreme Being

Equal = state of being equivalent, equally balanced. Mathematics: a statement, an equation that one thing equals another.

Now that the components have been defined, let’s study their mathematical arrangement in order to formulate the precise equation.

There are two subjects in this equation, man and Creator. Which of them mathematically comes first? If man was created, then mathematically the Creator comes first. The Creator then created man, which places man after the Creator, or second.

Creator, man

Now, are Creator and man equivalent or is one greater than the other? If man was made by the Creator and the Creator was not and cannot be made by man, then the Creator is superior to man, or greater than man.

Creator > man

Next, if the Creator created man, in what condition was man created? Is one man superior to another, or were they created equal? Man was created equal to man. After the law first describes the mathematical relationship of the Creator to man, it then appends the first law with a second law describing the mathematical relationship of man to man.

Creator > man and man = man

“Creator” is simply another name for Deity, Supreme Being, or God, and since this Creator must be an active intelligence, we will refer to this Creator as “God,” which more strongly implies active intelligence.

God > man and man = man

Last, what exactly does this formula describe? This formula is an expression or definition of universal human equality. Here is the statement in its entirety:

(God > man) and (man = man) = Equality

The law of equality expresses that the equality of man has been established by God, who is man’s superior. Herein lies the most astonishing characteristic of this law – that it is a description of God more than it is a description of man. From 1776 to the present, it has been generally accepted that the statement “All men are created equal” merely pertains to the equality of man, but in reality it is first and foremost a law establishing the existence and superiority of God above man. The preeminent law in this equation is that God exists and is superior to man. Secondary to this law is a law establishing the equality of man. This mathematical order is true because the second law is dependent upon the first, or in other words, the equality of man is dependent upon the existence and superiority of God.

What does the law of equality mean?

What does the law “God over man and man equal to man” instruct mankind to do? Assuming this law is true, it would be a universal description of mankind’s intelligent design, or the mathematical description of how man was designed to function. According to this natural law, since the preeminent and superior God created man as equals, then all of mankind would be legally required to maintain this order by first, placing the God of equality above all things and second, esteeming all men as equals. This would be the basic, fundamental intelligent design law established for man, whose function or malfunction would be determined by the obedience to or rejection of this law.

The first matter of business, now that the universal law of equality has been identified, is to test whether or not it is actually true. This testing is significant because if this law proves true, then it is unequivocal that a tangible, Supreme Being does exist by scientific measure, which would certainly revolutionize the scientific, religious, philosophical, social and political structure of the entire planet. The existence of an external active intelligence already has scientific support because the existence of life universally requires it, but a vague universal requirement for an external active intelligence is simply not enough to establish God as a scientific fact. It takes a testable, provable, natural law presented in the language of mathematics that describes the Creator in exact terms in order for the Creator to exist as a scientific fact. And now we have rediscovered such a law, which is poised to launch mankind across the threshold of the final frontier – toward the scientific and universal recognition of God.

 

 

 

 

Footnotes:

1 “Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?”

- Stephen Hawking, Theoretical physicist, “A Brief History of Time,” page 174 (page 232 illustrated version)

 

“The Mathematical Universe Hypothesis”

- Max Tegmark, Cosmologist

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/jul/16-is-the-universe-actually-made-of-math

 

“The universe is lawful…The universe can be expressed in the language of mathematics…the universe in a sense, corroborates or follows rules that can be expressed in the language of equations and theorems…”

- Quote attributed to Eugene Wigner, physicist and mathematician, Nobel laureate and author of “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences” 1960, paraphrased by Dinesh D’Souza, “The Great Debate: Dinesh D’Souza v. Dr. Michael Shermer” 2007 Part A, (at approx 45% mark)

http://www.michaelshermer.com/2007/02/dinesh-shermer-debate3/

 

6:00 “[speaking about understanding universal phenomena] …The best way to progress…is to try to be as conservative …about the physical laws as possible in explaining the [universal] phenomena, if you continuously fail, then you gradually realize you’ve got to change something….Most of the time we succeed ultimately in explaining these damn things in terms of the known laws, but it’s the cases that fail that are the interesting ones.”

7:11 “Once I was thinking by analogy that there was a time in the 1900’s when the thought that the properties of substances were not physics. For example, they would be numbers – we would find a series of numbers – index of refraction, that was physics, but the number for the index, that glass had an index of 1.543 and so on, that salt had another index, that those numbers…would come from chemistry or something…they were at that time considered a separate branch. Then when the quantum mechanical understanding of the atoms was involved, then we could calculate all these properties and realize that all these numbers were really part of physics, and so properties of substances became a branch of physics whereas previously it was a sort of chemical branch. And I wondered by analogy…what today do we not consider part of physics, which will ultimately be a part of physics?”

- Richard Feynman, physicist, Nobel laureate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNOghidK2TY (Robert Feynman “Feynman: Take the world from another point of view” speaking with Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer and cosmologist – video posted by aaronsky12 May 10 2008)

 

In the last post, I lumped proponents of evolution into the category of Darwinists, and lumped proponents of Intelligent Design and Creationism as Creationists, for the sake of simplicity. In reality, there are those who believe in aspects of evolution but not in everything Darwin himself proposed, and there are also fundamental differences between Creationism and Intelligent Design. For this post, I will be separating these theories into the more specific categories of Evolution vs. Intelligent Design. Evolution will be defined as the idea that all living things are the products of matter organized at random, without direction and not according to any pre-determined design. Intelligent Design will be defined as the idea that all living things exist according to a pre-determined design established by intelligence. One of these theories will be proven by the end of this post. (Creationism follows intelligent design but additionally proposes that a Deity or Supreme Being is responsible for the origin of life and the organization of matter into specific designs, but Creationism will not be discussed in this posting.)

The fundamental issue that is not being addressed in the battle between intelligent design and evolution is design itself. A design is a set of laws which establish the arrangement and functionality of an organism or entity. To scientifically prove the theories of intelligent design or evolution is to first prove whether living things function according to a design comprised of laws or function lawlessly and without design, or at random. If life forms are found to exist indiscriminately, no second step is necessary because the theory of evolution will be proven correct. If life forms are found to exist according to design, then intelligent design will be proven correct which in turn engenders two subsequent intelligent design theories pertaining to the origin of the design, whether it originates from the intelligence of the life form itself or is established by some other intelligence. (Design cannot exist independent of intelligence because designs are plans which determine the structure and function of an organism in the language of physical laws. The compilation of laws into fixed designs is by definition, intelligence.)

Here are the three possible theories of the origin of life listed out specifically, along with a general assessment of its scientific validity:

A) Evolution – Life spontaneously originated from non-living matter as a single-celled organism and accumulated matter/mutated at random without design, law, or purpose, which process gave rise to all life forms over time. Spontaneous generation has not yet been witnessed, replicated, or proven in any scientific manner, nor has anything ever been found to exist without design, structure or law.

B) Intelligent Design: Internal – All living things function according to a design established by its own intelligence. The life form itself is responsible for its own genesis, for accumulating and organizing matter according to its own design, for adapting itself to any changes in its environment, and for the design of its offspring. No living thing which can pre-determine or establish the laws of its own functionality has yet been scientifically proven to exist, but it is a scientific fact that all things in the universe exist by design and according to law and order.

C) Intelligent Design: External– All living things function according to a design established by intelligence other than its own. External intelligence is responsible for its genesis. Life forms grow, adapt, procreate and function according to pre-established laws originated by independent intelligence. An intelligent designer of any kind has not yet been scientifically proven to exist, but it is a scientific fact that all things in the universe exist by design and according to law and order.

Theories A, B and C are currently the only possible scientific explanations for the existence of life, but the scientific validity of each theory automatically rules out evolution, or theory A, as a possibility. If nothing in the universe exists at random – without structure, design, or law – then evolution is false. Intelligent design is responsible for the existence of life, and so we must now direct our attention toward theories B and C.

Before we move on to intelligent design, we must first address four popular fallacies: “natural selection,” “macroevolution,” “microevolution” and “unintelligent design.” Those who have been misled by these ideas would argue that they should be included as additional possible explanations for the existence of life, which they are not because natural selection, macroevolution and microevolution already fall under intelligent design, and unintelligent design does not exist.

Natural Selection

As per natural selection, if change over time originates from reproductive selections, then the intelligence of the organism itself would be responsible for the design and intelligence of its offspring according to theory B, and the intelligence of some other entity would be responsible for the subsequent design and intelligence of offspring according to theory C. Natural selection cannot fall under evolutionary theory A because evolution is in direct conflict with it. An intelligently designed life form possessing the intelligence to make “favorable” reproductive choices (because it must have intelligence enough to know what is “favorable” for its design in the first place, not to mention the fact that it is intelligently designed for reproduction) is contrary to evolutionary life forms which accumulate matter at random without law and without design (which are not known to exist).

Macroevolution

Macroevolution, though it has never been proven, is the ability of one species to evolve into another species over time. If this were true it could only fall under intelligent design because if a species has the ability to evolve into another then it would be due to the fact that it has been intelligently designed to do so, and would evolve according to the laws of its design. It is a life form’s intelligent design that provides for reproductive processes and inheritance in the first place. All macro evolving life forms could only be described as one intelligently designed species somehow transforming into another intelligently designed species according to the dictates of an internal or external intelligence.

Microevolution

Microevolution – small changes within species over time – has been proven but must also fall under intelligent design because whatever changes a species makes is according to the laws of its intelligent design. The species is specifically designed to change certain things over time such as the shape of facial features or height, but it is not designed to change other things, such as the necessity of a brain, heart, or the structure of a cell, etc. It is therefore permitted or prohibited to make certain changes according to an external or internal intelligence. Micro-evolving life forms can only be described as changes within a species over time according to the laws of intelligent design.

Unintelligent Design

Unintelligent design is a deceptive term used to attribute the appearance of design in all things to nothing more than purposeless and unguided conglomerations generated by random elements reacting in accordance with the laws of physics and chemistry (or the natural forces of the universe). But if elements were random and lawless, they would not be subject to any law whatsoever, including all chemical and physical laws in the universe. Because elements are intelligently designed, part of their design is to react physically and chemically in specific, lawful ways under certain conditions. If they were not intelligently designed to react, there would be no reaction. This is why “unintelligent design” is self-contradictory, and therefore cannot exist. Because design exists in all things, all things exist in one of two states: in accordance with design laws (true) or in violation of design laws (false). Intelligence is the ability to distinguish between, express, or manifest true and false. Because all living and non-living things are intelligently designed, all things have the ability to exhibit whether they are in accordance with or in violation of their design laws. If a thing is in accordance, then it will be true, on, functional, ordered, enduring, constructive or living, (depending on whether the subject in question is living or non-living). If it is in violation of intelligent design laws, it will be false, off, dysfunctional, disordered, degenerate, destructive or dying/dead. Because all things have the ability to indentify and/or express true and false, all design is intelligent. If design could be unintelligent, there would exist no differentiation between or expression of true and false. Thus if unintelligent design were a reality, instead of a binary universe there would be some sort of unimaginable and indescribable realm of neither something nor nothing, of neither living nor dead, on nor off, truth nor falsehood. But this is not so, nor could it ever be, which makes the concept of “unintelligent design” a self-contradiction in the exact same sense as “the laws of evolution.”

Now that these nonsensical notions are done away with, we can now focus on which intelligent design theory is true.

Let us now consider theories B and C, whether life forms are designed according to their own intelligence or by an external intelligence. If we as human beings, the most intelligent life form known to exist, cannot dictate a single law governing our own functionality and design, then no other less intelligent life form can either. Therefore, Theory B is just as fatuous and fraudulent a theory as evolution is. Simply stated, there is no such thing as a life form that can conceptualize itself and then go on to construct itself, or conceptualize and construct itself simultaneously, no matter how expansive the time frame. Life forms cannot in any way create, destroy or ignore the laws by which they function. That leaves us with Theory C – All living things function according to a design established by intelligence other than its own.

This is not a complicated subject at all. All things in the universe are governed not only by the natural laws of the universe, but are also governed by a specific and unique set of laws that make up its functional design. The laws that govern the intelligent design of any living or non-living organism are as immutable as the laws that govern the universe, and are as indestructible. The truth of this issue is so logical and easily concluded that I am beginning to wonder if both sides have been prolonging this tired debate so the grant money will continue to flow in to fund their “research.” What scientists should all be searching for is the source of this external intelligence by which all things have been designed, which might happen if they were objective enough to recognize that not only does the entire structure of the universe and the realm of science completely reject the myth of evolution, but so does the behavior of evolutionary scientists themselves.

If evolution is such a widespread and accepted theory, then why do evolution proponents conduct all their scientific study and research under the assumption that all living things are intelligently designed? When are evolutionary scientists ever undergoing studies about the current “natural selection” of life forms and their resulting change over time into new species? Why aren’t they researching burn victims to see if their offspring will eventually evolve fireproof skin? Why aren’t they offering money to case-study people who have survived gunshot wounds or 100 foot falls and encouraging them to generate offspring who will someday evolve wings and resistance to bullets? How about getting everyone to perpetually drive drunk to see if we can’t evolve past alcohol-related auto fatalities? If scientists proclaim that evolution is so slow it cannot possibly be studied or observed, why aren’t they researching ways in which evolution can be sped up? If evolution is irrefutable, why aren’t scientists clamoring to be the first to identify what controls the rate of evolution and discover ways in which it can be accelerated? Why are evolutionary scientists completely disinterested in studying children with birth defects, and excitedly researching these wondrous genetic mutations that are supposedly the beginning of evolution toward new species? Why are evolutionary scientists the ones who fret over the temperature of the earth and the polar bear count, when life forms are so adept at evolving that polar bears, lacking ice shelves, could simply evolve back into walruses or whales? When the news of earthquakes, floods, fires, “global warming,” famines and widespread viruses make headlines, why are evolution proponents not shrugging their collective shoulders with callous indifference, instructing us to shut up and deal with natural disasters by evolving resistance to them and improving our fitness for survival? If life is so rough for humans, why can’t we evolve back into simpler and less energy-consuming organisms like, say, cockroaches? If living things share common DNA, then it should be fairly easy to disregard our genes that code for Homo sapiens and express only the genes for Periplaneta americana.

The truth is, all scientists know evolution is a sham, that all living things exist according to the immutable laws of intelligent design, and if these laws are violated, life forms perish. This is the cause of their panic; in the face of tragedy and disaster, we humans with our unalterable, indestructible intelligent designs are subject to utter annihilation as there is zero chance of evolving survival abilities beyond our pre-established designs simply because evolution does not exist. Change exists, but only according to the dictates of intelligent design. Intelligent design is responsible for what kinds of changes an organism is allowed to make, or whether change is permitted at all. Scientists know not to waste time studying children with birth defects because all mutations are violations of intelligent design laws which is why the term “defect” is used, because when something required to function according to intelligent design fails to do so, it is defective, not effective. The scientific world revolves around and is dependent upon the invariable laws of intelligent design. Without intelligent design, scientists would have no possible way to study life forms, as all life forms would exist randomly, lawlessly and without definition. There would be no way to study ANY organism, living or non-living, were it not for the universal application of intelligent design. (The real kicker is that even if a life form could exist at random and without law, it must have been designated as such according to the laws of intelligent design.)

It is then not only the behavior of scientists that affirm the reality of intelligent design, but science itself. Science can only be described as an acknowledgement of intelligent design. Science is the study of the laws or designs that govern all living and non-living things. If evolution were true there would be no design to study as all things would exist at random, without law and without truth. Nothing would be testable or verifiable because there would be no constant law to test against, and nothing to test for. As was mentioned above under “unintelligent design,” if there were no pre-established design or pre-set laws by which living things function, there would be no such thing as illnesses, defects, or death. Illnesses, defects and death are nothing more than violations of pre-determined laws, which laws cannot be created nor destroyed. If a law requires an organism to function a certain way and it fails to do so, then according to intelligent design there would be an illness or defect associated with that failure, and according to evolution there would be no such thing as an illness or a defect simply because there is no pre-established law or design by which it could be dysfunctional. Life forms would have no reason to experience death as there would exist no law requiring it to die. Is there such a thing as illness, defects or death in all life forms? Yes. Therefore it is a scientific fact that all life forms exist according to pre-established designs or in violation of them. Organisms which abide by their pre-established designs are functional, and organisms which violate laws established by their designs are dysfunctional. Can we now go further than simple true and false and prove that these designs were established by intelligence higher than our own? Do any life forms, while intelligent to varying degrees, understand all of the laws governing their functionality? No, they do not. In fact, it is only human beings who have obtained enough intelligence to even begin to study our own pre-established designs such as cellular respiration, DNA, etc. If we cannot fully comprehend our own pre-established design and cannot do anything to change it even if we did, then that means whatever did establish our design does understand it. If we, being intelligent do not understand something and cannot establish our own laws, but something else does comprehend and has established our laws, then the latter must be intelligent – even more so than we are.

Because science itself is an acknowledgement of intelligent design, and the behavior of all scientists is also an acknowledgement intelligent design, the entire realm of science must be reestablished upon the basic principle that all things are intelligently designed. To not do so would be unscientific.