Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem:

The #1 Mathematical Discovery of the 20th Century

kurt godel Gödels Incompleteness Theorem

In 1931, Kurt Gödel delivered a devastating blow to the mathematicians of his time

In 1931, the young mathematician Kurt Gödel made a landmark discovery, as powerful as anything Albert Einstein developed.

Gödel’s discovery not only applied to mathematics but literally all branches of science, logic and human knowledge. It has truly earth-shattering implications.

Oddly, few people know anything about it.

Allow me to tell you the story.

Mathematicians love proofs. They were hot and bothered for centuries, because they were unable to PROVE some of the things they knew were true.

So for example if you studied high school Geometry, you’ve done the exercises where you prove all kinds of things about triangles based on a list of theorems.

That high school geometry book is built on Euclid’s five postulates. Everyone knows the postulates are true, but in 2500 years nobody’s figured out a way to prove them.

Yes, it does seem perfectly reasonable that a line can be extended infinitely in both directions, but no one has been able to PROVE that. We can only demonstrate that they are a reasonable, and in fact necessary, set of 5 assumptions.

Towering mathematical geniuses were frustrated for 2000+ years because they couldn’t prove all their theorems. There were many things that were “obviously” true but nobody could figure out a way to prove them.

In the early 1900′s, however, a tremendous sense of optimism began to grow in mathematical circles. The most brilliant mathematicians in the world (like Bertrand Russell, David Hilbert and Ludwig Wittgenstein) were convinced that they were rapidly closing in on a final synthesis.

A unifying “Theory of Everything” that would finally nail down all the loose ends. Mathematics would be complete, bulletproof, airtight, triumphant.

In 1931 this young Austrian mathematician, Kurt Gödel, published a paper that once and for all PROVED that a single Theory Of Everything is actually impossible.

Gödel’s discovery was called “The Incompleteness Theorem.”

If you’ll give me just a few minutes, I’ll explain what it says, how Gödel discovered it, and what it means – in plain, simple English that anyone can understand.

Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem says:

“Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle – something you have to assume but cannot prove.”

Stated in Formal Language:

Gödel’s theorem says: “Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory.”

The Church-Turing thesis says that a physical system can express elementary arithmetic just as a human can, and that the arithmetic of a Turing Machine (computer) is not provable within the system and is likewise subject to incompleteness.

Any physical system subjected to measurement is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic. (In other words, children can do math by counting their fingers, water flowing into a bucket does integration, and physical systems always give the right answer.)

Therefore the universe is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic and like both mathematics itself and a Turing machine, is incomplete.


1. All non-trivial computational systems are incomplete

2. The universe is a non-trivial computational system

3. Therefore the universe is incomplete

You can draw a circle around all of the concepts in your high school geometry book. But they’re all built on Euclid’s 5 postulates which are clearly true but cannot be proven. Those 5 postulates are outside the book, outside the circle.

You can draw a circle around a bicycle but the existence of that bicycle relies on a factory that is outside that circle. The bicycle cannot explain itself.

Gödel proved that there are ALWAYS more things that are true than you can prove. Any system of logic or numbers that mathematicians ever came up with will always rest on at least a few unprovable assumptions.

Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem applies not just to math, but to everything that is subject to the laws of logic. Incompleteness is true in math; it’s equally true in science or language or philosophy.

And: If the universe is mathematical and logical, Incompleteness also applies to the universe.

Gödel created his proof by starting with “The Liar’s Paradox” — which is the statement

“I am lying.”

“I am lying” is self-contradictory, since if it’s true, I’m not a liar, and it’s false; and if it’s false, I am a liar, so it’s true.

So Gödel, in one of the most ingenious moves in the history of math, converted the Liar’s Paradox into a mathematical formula. He proved that any statement requires an external observer.

No statement alone can completely prove itself true.

His Incompleteness Theorem was a devastating blow to the “positivism” of the time. Gödel proved his theorem in black and white and nobody could argue with his logic.

Yet some of his fellow mathematicians went to their graves in denial, believing that somehow or another Gödel must surely be wrong.

He wasn’t wrong. It was really true. There are more things than are true than you can prove.

A “theory of everything” – whether in math, or physics, or philosophy – will never be found. Because it is impossible.

OK, so what does this really mean? Why is this super-important, and not just an interesting geek factoid?

Here’s what it means:

  • Faith and Reason are not enemies. In fact, the exact opposite is true! One is absolutely necessary for the other to exist. All reasoning ultimately traces back to faith in something that you cannot prove.
  • All closed systems depend on something outside the system.
  • You can always draw a bigger circle but there will still be something outside the circle.
  • Reasoning inward from a larger circle to a smaller circle is “deductive reasoning.”

Example of a deductive reasoning:
1. All men are mortal
2. Socrates is a man
3. Therefore Socrates is mortal

  • Reasoning outward from a smaller circle to a larger circle is “inductive reasoning.”

Examples of inductive reasoning:

1. All the men I know are mortal
2. Therefore all men are mortal

1. When I let go of objects, they fall
2. Therefore there is a law of gravity that governs falling objects

Notice than when you move from the smaller circle to the larger circle, you have to make assumptions that you cannot 100% prove.

For example you cannot PROVE gravity will always be consistent at all times. You can only observe that it’s consistently true every time. You cannot prove that the universe is rational. You can only observe that mathematical formulas like E=MC^2 do seem to perfectly describe what the universe does.

Nearly all scientific laws are based on inductive reasoning. These laws rest on an assumption that the universe is logical and based on fixed discoverable laws.

You cannot PROVE this. (You can’t prove that the sun will come up tomorrow morning either.) You literally have to take it on faith. In fact most people don’t know that outside the science circle is a philosophy circle. Science is based on philosophical assumptions that you cannot scientifically prove. Actually, the scientific method cannot prove, it can only infer.

(Science originally came from the idea that God made an orderly universe which obeys fixed, discoverable laws.)

Now please consider what happens when we draw the biggest circle possibly can – around the whole universe.
(If there are multiple universes, we’re drawing a circle around all of them too):

  • There has to be something outside that circle. Something which we have to assume but cannot prove
  • The universe as we know it is finite – finite matter, finite energy, finite space and 13.7 billion years time
  • The universe is mathematical. Any physical system subjected to measurement performs arithmetic. (You don’t need to know math to do addition – you can use an abacus instead and it will give you the right answer every time.)
  • The universe (all matter, energy, space and time) cannot explain itself
  • Whatever is outside the biggest circle is boundless. By definition it is not possible to draw a circle around it.
  • If we draw a circle around all matter, energy, space and time and apply Gödel’s theorem, then we know what is outside that circle is not matter, is not energy, is not space and is not time. It’s immaterial.
  • Whatever is outside the biggest circle is not a system – i.e. is not an assemblage of parts. Otherwise we could draw a circle around them. The thing outside the biggest circle is indivisible.
  • Whatever is outside the biggest circle is an uncaused cause, because you can always draw a circle around an effect.

We can apply the same inductive reasoning to the origin of information:

  • In the history of the universe we also see the introduction of information, some 3.5 billion years ago. It came in the form of the Genetic code, which is symbolic and immaterial.
  • The information had to come from the outside, since information is not known to be an inherent property of matter, energy, space or time
  • All codes we know the origin of are designed by conscious beings.
  • Therefore whatever is outside the largest circle is a conscious being.

In other words when we add information to the equation, we conclude that not only is the thing outside the biggest circle infinite and immaterial, it is also conscious.

Isn’t it interesting how all these things sound suspiciously similar to how theologians have described God for thousands of years?

So it’s hardly surprising that 80-90% of the people in the world believe in some concept of God. Yes, it’s intuitive to most folks. But Gödel’s theorem indicates it’s also supremely logical. In fact it’s the only position one can take and stay in the realm of reason and logic.

The person who proudly proclaims, “You’re a man of faith, but I’m a man of science” doesn’t understand the roots of science or the nature of knowledge!

Interesting aside…

If you visit the world’s largest atheist website, Infidels, on the home page you will find the following statement:

“Naturalism is the hypothesis that the natural world is a closed system, which means that nothing that is not part of the natural world affects it.”

If you know Gödel’s theorem, you know that all logical systems must rely on something outside the system. So according to Gödel’s Incompleteness theorem, the Infidels cannot be correct. If the universe is logical, it has an outside cause.

Thus atheism violates the laws of reason and logic.

Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem definitively proves that science can never fill its own gaps. We have no choice but to look outside of science for answers.

The Incompleteness of the universe isn’t proof that God exists. But… it IS proof that in order to construct a rational, scientific model of the universe, belief in God is not just 100% logical… it’s necessary.

Euclid’s 5 postulates aren’t formally provable and God is not formally provable either. But… just as you cannot build a coherent system of geometry without Euclid’s 5 postulates, neither can you build a coherent description of the universe without a First Cause and a Source of order.

Thus faith and science are not enemies, but allies. It’s been true for hundreds of years, but in 1931 this skinny young Austrian mathematician named Kurt Gödel proved it.

No time in the history of mankind has faith in God been more reasonable, more logical, or more thoroughly supported by science and mathematics.

Perry Marshall

“Without mathematics we cannot penetrate deeply into philosophy.
Without philosophy we cannot penetrate deeply into mathematics.
Without both we cannot penetrate deeply into anything.”


“Math is the language God wrote the universe in.”


Further reading:

Incompleteness: The Proof and Paradox of Kurt Gödel” by Rebecca Goldstein – fantastic biography and a great read

A collection of quotes and notes about Gödel’s proof from Miskatonic University Press

Formal description of Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem on Wikipedia

Science vs. Faith on CoffeehouseTheology.com

Information Theory: “If you can read this, I can prove God exists”

Comments on Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem »

  • Mary says:

    You are trying prove your point by using a set of examples (codes) all of which derive from the genetic code which is the very thing you are trying to prove the origin of.

    • Perry says:

      If someone says, “Produce a brand new code that has never existed before with a brand new alphabet, a physical substrate that has never been used for codes before, and a completely novel syntax – and it has to conform to a very special set of requirements and here they are…” then where do you get one?

      Can you get it by stirring chemicals together?


      Can you extract one out of DNA?

      No. No code all by itself is capable of generating brand new codes. That’s why “Strong AI” still only exists in science fiction.

      Can you get one out of some species in biology, at will?

      Not that I am aware of.

      So where can you witness that the instantiation of a brand new, totally novel code?

      You go to the smartest computer programmer or linguist you can find and ask them to do it.

      The inference therefore is that codes ultimately come from minds, nothing less.

      Webster’s Dictionary: MIND 2a the element or complex of elements in an individual that feels, perceives, thinks, wills, and especially reasons

  • Mary says:

    Perry, if I give a bee waggle as an example of a code, you will say it is not valid because it derives from DNA. So it is not a type of code that can be used against your argument. But we have to apply this both ways. So as you say, an example of a code that has its basis in the very genetic code is not a proof AGAINST the genetic code. And obviously not a proof FOR your notion either. It doesn’t work either way.

    • Perry says:

      The reason bee waggles aren’t helpful in this discussion is because they are products of animal intelligence, genetically hard-coded and/or instinctual. Human made codes are more useful because they are freely chosen and new ones can be invented at will. We’re all intimately familiar with the experience of creating a new code, even if it’s just an acronym.

      The real point though is that there is no evidence of any kind that codes can come from anything LESS than minds or DNA. Codes only come from things equal to or greater than minds or DNA.

  • Mary says:

    Sure, but you say “all codes we know the origin of come from a mind” – to use as a premise to prove the genetic code also came from a mind. But all codes we know the origin of, including computer codes, ultimately have their basis in the genetic code. So you are essentially using derivatives of the genetic code to prove the origin of the genetic code, which invalidates your argument.

    That’s my first objection.

    My second query is about the mind behind DNA. You gave the example of Mozart. Now, isn’t my syllogism below perfectly airtight and inferred 100%? Aren’t the premises true, the 2nd being your conclusion?

    P1) All minds we know the origin of come from a code ( 100% empirical confirmation)
    C2) DNA comes from a mind (your conculusion)
    3) Therefore this latter mind comes from a code (modus ponens)

    proves with 100% confidence that the possible mind behind the dna comes from a code, too. Necessarily.

    This syllogism proves with 100% confidence that the possible mind behind the dna comes from a code, too. Necessarily.What prevents me from doing that? If induction and modus ponens are valid ways to derive conclusions for you, then they should be valid to derive conclusions for me too, I hope, and if they are, then my conclusion is true with 100% inference.

    • Perry says:


      Minds do not ONLY come from code. A code alone is just a code, nothing more. You still need an entire cell before anything useful happens at all. There is a popular myth out there proposed by Dawkins et al that a “replicator” began to replicate in the ocean and then over time a cell emerged. 90% of the steps in that story are utterly devoid of evidence. There are no such replicators. Nobody has anything but the vaguest fiction story about how such a thing would turn into a cell. It’s a tooth fairy unicorn story.

      The actual fact is, every single cell on earth functions as though it has some sort of mind. That’s because every cell in existence has the capacity to cut, splice and re-arrange its DNA based on hundreds of sensory inputs. This is how and why bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics. There’s nothing random about it.

      Such is the chasm between life and non-life.

      No one has ever shown that just having code, or even a genetic code, is sufficient to produce a mind. What we do know is that by a process of strategizing and planning – a process we are very familiar with – excellent codes can be created by minds. It is most emphatically a “top down” process, not a “bottom up” process.

      So everything we actually know indicates that INTENTIONALITY is a prerequisite for the existence of any code.

      Thus intentionality precedes life. Because life is intentional.

      Everything I have said today is 100% supported by experience and evidence.

      The counterargument has no support from experience or evidence.

      • Mary says:

        Here is a brilliant research article on how codes can arise naturally;

        Nature 459, 239-242 (14 May 2009) | doi:10.1038/nature08013; Received 11 December 2008; Accepted 24 March 2009

        Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions

        Matthew W. Powner1, Béatrice Gerland1 & John D. Sutherland1

        RNA evolution and the origins of life

        Nature Review (16 Mar 1989)

        Peptide nucleic acids and prebiotic chemistry

        Nature Structural Biology News and Views (01 Mar 1997)

        RNA-catalysed nucleotide synthesis

        Nature Letters to Editor (17 Sep 1998)

        Nucleoside Synthesis under Potentially Prebiotic Conditions

        They all have many further references and citations. All show how the genetic code may have emerged.

        So far however no design proponant has offered any such information.

        • Perry says:

          If the authors can show that their discovery formally matches the criteria I’ve outlined at http://www.naturalcode.org I’ll pay them $10,000. I’m 99.9999% sure it does not.

          • Mary says:

            How is that related with the premises of my argument? Isn’t the cell, that will ultimately generate the mind, not coming from a code?

            If you want to attack my conclusion, you need to attack my premises and/or the way the conclusion follows from them. After all, you expected we do the same with your original argument, which you claimed stands on its own feet (because of the laws of inference and evidence). I hope we are not witnessing yet another case of special pleading.

            How the code generates the mind and what Dawkins thinks do not undermine the obviously true premise: all minds, we know the origin of, derive ultimately from a code.

            No code -> no mind. Bad code -> possibly defective minds or no minds at all. 100% empirical evidence.

            Therefore, if a mind is at the origin of DNA, then this minds derives from a code. 100% inference as well, I am afraid.

          • Perry says:


            Cells do not come from code all by itself.

            Cells come from cells. Nothing less.

            All minds we know of come from living, functioning cells.

            You cannot look at the code in isolation as though its mere existence will generate more cells and more codes. Life requires nothing less than a living functioning cell with a genome. And all living functional cells are SMART, in the truest sense of the word.

            Cells are SMART enough to re-arrange their own DNA to adapt to threats and this is why evolution is possible.

  • David H says:

    The movie CONTACT was made from a novel by the late Astrophysicist Carl Sagan who was famously agnostic. His wife said after his death from cancer in 1996 that neither she nor Carl ever expected to be reunited with each other.

    In CONTACT, thanks to SETI, an organization really created by the drive of Sagan, mankind intercepts signals from the star Vega, 25 light years away, that are discovered to be a series of prime numbers repeated over and over. At least that was the interpretation of what they were hearing. What could only be an INTENTIONAL code sent by intelligent beings.

    The interpretation that a pattern that seemed to spell out a series of numbers that matched our own mathematical discoveries on Earth had to mean just one thing: another superior intelligence on a planet orbiting Vega.

    What ELSE could it be? After all, it was a CODE. And Sagan in his story assumed we all instinctively knew that this was rock solid evidence for other intelligent life in the universe.

    And the fact that this could ONLY be CODE (intentionally written by great intelligence) also removed from scientific speculation in the movie that this was just a pulsating quasar intermittently transmitting with no intention or intelligent guidance.

    NO, now “we” knew that a Transmitter had to be responsible, a construction of BEINGS.
    Then, as a result of that faith in mathematical probabilities, money, time and human and equipment resources were focused on finding out all they could from these transmissions.

    Further investigation revealed audio and video signals that under DE-CODING resolved to an Earth transmission from the 1936 Olympic Games of Adolf Hitler’s welcoming address.

    The movie, and Carl Sagan, confidently assumed that we the audience would instantly identify with the worldwide elation and confirmation portrayed in the movie of having verified Extraterrestrial Intelligence and Life.

    But wait, there’s more! the same scientists who decoded the audio and video signals because the “aliens” embedded a KEY, a super decoder ring, that could only be recognized by other Minds, now had another bigger blockbuster.

    Jodie Foster’s character, Dr. Arroway, learns that the signal contains more than 60,000 “pages” of what appear to be technical drawings. The pages are drawings are meant to be interpreted in three dimensions. This reveals a complex machine allowing for one human occupant inside a pod to be dropped into three spinning rings.

    Hmmm, this is similar to the story of DNA. Isn’t it? Not too long ago in science we thought we all life was essentially blobs of cells who had figured out how to cooperate and synergistically use each cellular specialty to give life to the whole.

    Even Gregor Mendel’s observations and speculations on “genomes” and genetics in the 1850′s and 1860′s could not advance beyond his experiments until the technology to peer far more deeply into cells was invented.

    Then in 1868 a young Swiss physician named Friedrich Miescher isolated something no one had ever seen before from the nuclei of cells. He called the compound “nuclein”– nucleic acid, the “NA” in DNA (deoxyribo-nucleic-acid) and RNA (ribo-nucleic-acid).

    Around 1953 James Watson and Francis Crick presented the structure of the DNA-helix, the molecule that carries genetic information from one generation to the other. They had needed the technique of x-ray diffraction photography to reveal hitherto unknown features of the DNA molecule.

    When DNA structure was discovered we on this Earth received our “prime numbers”, so to speak, through an x-ray microscope, rather than a radio telescope.

    And every successive discovery concerning DNA and RNA over the years since up to this very day has far surpassed the complexity and impact of the diagrams in the movie Contact.

    The point I want to make now is that NO ONE in the world, and none of Dr Sagan’s scientific peers, that I can recall or Google, dismissed or sneered at the conjectures premised in the movie.

    Sagan, who intimately guided the whole scriptwriting process and the filming process, was not derided for unscientific conclusions and premises.

    Did not everyone intuitively understand the developing suppositions?

    Signal received from space. Possibilities for bogus noise or Earth generated hoax removed. Prime numbers. Prime numbers. We KNOW these are Prime Numbers because the signals have distinct Patterns that we KNOW “nature”, even Cosmic Nature, cannot randomly assemble and pulse from a natural radio source.
    Sagan’s reputation, even in a science fantasy, was intact, according to all critics.

    His fantasy was based on solid science and the math of probabilities. He was not derided for nonsense so far.

    Next, in Contact, more de-coding of what is now a “much more complex” signal. It’s not just Prime Numbers, Prime Numbers after all. They are a cover, a wrapper for more complex Code.

    The emergence of Audio and Video signals that replicate an Earth transmission are accepted as genuine alien reception because of the AGE of the SIGNAL. Already embedded from a time decades earlier.
    PROOF then that MINDS created this CODE because other MINDS (the movie scientists) know how to DECODE following INSTRUCTIONS created in another solar system.

    Then, finally, the clincher: “pages” of diagrams. DRAWINGS obviously conceived from creatures with eyes and appendages to manipulate and demonstrate what their eyes see.

    All DECODED on Earth from a complex Set of Instructions created Intentionally many decades ago and after the Hitler television transmission. It was Sagan’s own gold disc on the Voyager satellite and the television signals that signalled INTELLIGENCE to the alien world. They recognized and decoded these things for themselves, even how to play the Gold disc from Earth.

    No one of scientific prominence has ever dismissed these premises of Carl Sagan’s as invalid.

    There are approximately 3 billion (3,000,000,000) chemical letters (otherwise
    known as bases) in the DNA code in every cell in your body.

    If you tried typing the whole genetic code out (typing at 200 letters per minute) it
    would take 29 years of nonstop typing.

    Let the same scientific community, or Perry’s forum visitors, pore over all known discoveries concerning DNA that more than meet the “unbiased scientific mind” definition of Intelligently Designed Code and suddenly so many return nothing but scorn for the so obvious case for GOD in the LAB.

  • nick says:

    OK, applying computer science to biology is an apples/oranges comparison. Given that the environments for each are immensely different, and mutually exclusive, your continued comparison to it is nothing more than disingenuous tactical word play, and you know it. You can extol the virtues of information theory all you want, and make comparisons between computer code and DNA. It still does not equate them, and does not place them in direct correlation. Evolution does not require DNA to exist(in its entirety) , as you claim on your cosmicfingerprints site, first, just because a computer science pioneer made a genius statement about computer code. We don’t know where it started, but evolution makes more sense, because almost everything about religious origins has already been proved fictitious, fallacious, and ignorant.

    You simply cannot create the link between computers and biology, just because you see something you want to use. If you are going to use DNA as evidence of some supreme mind, you must first give a plausible case that such a mind even exists. No god has ever been proposed that was of any value in the real human world.

    Also, a proof of naturally occurring code is egg fertilization. The code is written spontaneously, with no act of intelligence whatsoever. The code was not written by itself, but by external circumstances, reactions, environment, conditions, etc. You are setting up a straw man, here. The genetic code is only inferred to have arisen from intelligence by those grasping at anything on which to base some form of ‘reasoning,’ for the existence of a god that the faithful refuse to relinquish. You state this inference with such an emphatic absolutist fervor as to be easily labeled a zealot. You keep pounding the line with ONLY one view. You flatly refuse anything else… That, in itself, infers far more than your ‘information theory’ ever could. DNA does not have digital information. Are you aware of what the term ‘digital’ means? You’re way off on that, and not just because of terminology. Digital information can only be produced/created/derived electronically. Further, the egg fertilization process does not derive from genetic code, absolutely. It uses DNA, but derives from it only what is needed. It is an apt rebuttal of your argument.

    You keep referring to Information theory as though there is no refutation left for anyone that seeks anything other than your already established view of the beginnings of the universe. The ‘landmark 1948 paper’ is not the end all, be all of information theory. How many pioneering thinkers have eventually been refuted, by those who follow in their footsteps? While I don’t share your passion for ‘information theory,’ I do find myself intrigued by DNA and genetics. Unless you are a geneticist, your view is exactly that: a view. Genetic code may or not be ‘literal code,’ but you are the only one I have ever heard cling to this so literally and so adamantly… It is not a universal fact, it is the best explanation we have, at present. It likely is debatable, but only by far greater minds than yours or mine. I’m not going to directly contradict you, on this, because I don’t have the background to back up a statement of that magnitude, and that kind of absolutist claim is best left to fundamentalists. Just as you claim that the code would have to come before the genetic ‘rewrite,’ wouldn’t your god have to come before the DNA? Shouldn’t that god be ‘irrefutable?’ Should there not be overwhelming evidence of its existence? Evolution still makes sense, whereas absolutely NO religious explanation ever has.

    Can you show me some irrefutable proof that states that ‘rules of a code are not derivable from physical law?’ On what did you base that statement? What thesis did you publish that shows that to be true? What have you read that demonstrates that to be fact?

    What symbols exist in DNA to which you could possibly be referring? What symbolic relationship could you possibly be referencing? You appear to be assuming that DNA, in its entirety, was written in a single process, and came into existence as a whole, This is an ignorant assumption; one which I attempted to demonstrate was not the only possibility, and that there is another possibility that actually makes more sense. Evolution is a far more likely candidate for having brought about the authoring of DNA than any theistic superstition.

    At present, the egg fertilization is the best example that I have at my disposal, given my current level of information. I will research a response, and present it, when I am versed enough to speak without speaking from ignorance.

    I have researched Yockey. I found that you and those who speak with you have actually hijacked Yockey’s work, for your own purposes. I further found his daughter’s (Cynthia Yockey) blog on the topic of her father’s work. Here is a short excerpt, therefrom:

    “So, Hubert P. Yockey points out, the discovery of DNA, the genetic code, the genome, the sequence hypothesis, information theory and coding theory, and the tools of gene sequencing have allowed scientists to elucidate WHY Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and the Origin of Species is such an apt explanation for the phenomena of biology and therefore now deserves to be called Darwin’s LAWS of Evolution and the Origin of Species.”

    This is a direct quote, as well:

    “One of the most cunning arguments that religious people make to deceive people into believing that their religious dogma should be accepted in the scientific marketplace of ideas is that Darwin’s theory of evolution is “only a theory” — in order to capitalize on lay people’s incorrect belief that “theory” and “speculation” are synonyms in science — and that therefore their “theory” of Creationism/Intelligent Design is equivalent and should be taught in schools along with Darwin’s theory of evolution because it’s “Darwin’s theory,” not “Darwin’s LAW.””

    I am, by far, more inclined to accept Yockey’s own daughter, as an authority on the subject of her father’s work, than you. Further, the very fact that there are irrefutable citations, from his own family and from himself, which prove that you are doing exactly what I have suspected, all along: disseminating, for the purposes of your own preconceived dogmatic fallacies, prove the disingenuous nature of your ‘argument,’ and its purpose…

    You consistently quote Yockey in:

    “”The reason that there are principles of biology that cannot be derived from the laws of physics and chemistry lies simply in the fact that the genetic information content of the genome for constructing even the simplest organisms is much larger than the information content of these laws.””

    You are willing to make this statement, while directly correlating computer code. Are you even remotely aware of the dichotomy you are presenting? You are going on, about things for which I have easily been able to uncover virtually irrefutable evidence. Here is the link to Yockey’s Amicus Brief: http://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/kitzmiller/2005-10_amicus_briefs/2005-11-16_Hubert_Yockey_reply_to_FTE_amicus.pdf

    In it, Yockey takes exception to the hijacking of his work for the purposes of propagating the intellectual carcinogen known as “Intelligent Design.” Yockey, himself, criticises ID, for its hijacking of his work and papers.

    NOTHING that I have been able to find on Yockey depicts him as anything other than an agnostic, who sought to apply information theory to biology. Never once, in any of his work, did he equate this to any form of evidence for creationism. Again, theists hijacked his work, as they always do, with the results of science.

    While you have regurgitated his words, you have not accurately delivered his conclusion or his message. I expected no less, but to be able to confidently call you out on this (I must admit) is genuinely satisfying. If you read this article: http://wasdarwinwrong.com/kortho33.htm

    you’ll discover that the term “creation science” is an oxy-moron, as it deserves to be known. Theists have hijacked Yockey’s work (much to his annoyance) in the same manner they have attempted to label Einstein a ‘believer.’ Your entire argument was dismantled with just ten minutes of research and objective reading. There is actually more information readily available about Yockey’s work being hijacked by ID people than there is about Yockey’s actual academic publications (you have to dig a little deeper, for that). Your assessments of Yockey’s work and what they ‘infer’ are, hereby, summarily dismissed.

    • Perry says:

      Another anonymous atheist. 99% of those who come here and only use their first names are cowards. Please use your full name. Tell us who you are and what your credentials are for discussing this topic.

      Information theory applies no differently to biology than it does to computer science. In either, a code is a system of symbols for communication. Look up “claude shannon dna genome” in Google Scholar and you’ll get thousands of articles over the last 60 years. You can argue with Claude Shannon and Von Neumann and a thousand other scientists if you want.

      Yockey’s opinion of ID people doesn’t change the fact that all codes we know the origin of are designed. Show me ONE naturally occurring code and I’ll write you a check for $10,000. Specification is at http://www.naturalcode.org.

      If you know anything about my work you know I am a staunch advocate of evolution. See http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/new-theory-of-evolution/

  • Mary says:

    Perry, I simply hope you understand that you ultimately cannot give me an example of a code that doesn’t come from DNA, directly or indirectly? I can use your logic perfectly in the opposite way against your argument.

    • Perry says:

      Another way of saying what you are saying is that life ONLY comes from life. We also know that the majority of instructions to build living things (though not all) come from the information that is encoded in DNA.

      Life comes from life. That is the ONLY properly scientific statement you can make with full proof and evidence.

      Beyond that we have to make inferences.

      Does life come from code?

      Strictly speaking, no it does not. Code is not sufficient.

      Does code come from life? Yes, it is correct to say that.

      Cause and effect says life had to begin somewhere. The code had to come from somewhere.

      So what can we infer, based on what we do know?

      We know that code always and without exception is generated as a result of an intelligent being’s ability to make conscious free choices.

      We do not know of any other source of codes.

      Therefore we have 100% inference that the code came from an intelligent being’s ability to make a conscious free choice.

      We know how to make codes but we do not know how to create life.

      If humans someday attain the ability to create life, we can be fairly sure it will be the smartest people in science who manage to pull it off. Therefore whatever created life was intelligent.

      We have no evidence whatsoever to support or infer an unintelligent cause for the origin of life.

      • Mary says:

        I could, again, use the same argument to prove the contrary.

        Since all intelligence we know the origin of come from a code, i infer, based on this knowledge that intelligence is the result of codes.

        You need to provide external reasons Perry, otherwise we will be stuck in this mutually excluding and “equally” valid inferences. I hope you can see that ?

        • Perry says:


          No, I’m sorry but you are wrong. The intelligence we know of did not just come from code. It came from an entire living cell.

          If you disagree, show me a code that produces intelligence apart from the miracle of life.

          • Mary says:

            If you have a problem imagining a mind created by a code without a cell, I wonder why you have no problem to imagine a code created by a mind without 100,000,000,000 cells :)

            If you disagree, show me an intelligence that produces code apart from the “miracle” of life (and the relative neuron cells).

            In other words, the presence of living cells is an empirical precondition for both arguments. Requiring it for one and not for the other is special pleading, I am afraid.

          • Perry says:

            Yes. All the minds we are familiar with have billions of cells.

            What you have stated here is what we empirically know: Life only comes from life.

            So the question is, does the sophistication of life infer an even greater Mind, or are we justified in assuming some kind of bottom-up simple-to complex process where life comes from mere matter?

  • Mary says:

    Note: I can stop posting if you want, if you do not intend the replies to be long conversations.

    Yes, and as I said *everything* we know about intelligence also suggests that it is always the result of information. Same point, again. An even greater mind would require even greater information, it’s back to square one.

    And how can you imagine a mind that operates in the complete absence of any information whatsoever? Ever seen a brain with no information in it? Do you believe that this notion belongs to the set of things we know about? Of course not. I’m sure you can see that.

    You say code all by itself is not sufficient to produce a mind, hence my point is moot, but you cannot have a mind *without* a code. The code is a requirement – based on all minds we know the origin of.

    • Perry says:

      So we have two choices:

      1) Information, minds and cells come from blind material processes, or

      2) Information, minds and cells come from a higher intelligence

      Do we have evidence for (1)?

      Actually, no. None whatsoever.

      Do we have evidence of (2)?

      We have the fact that in quantum mechanics, all events are only potentialities until perceived by a conscious observer.

      We have Godel’s incompleteness theorem which says if the universe is rational, it necessarily depends on a boundless indivisible entity.

      We have the spiritual experiences of literally billions of people.

      We have the fact that if God does not exist, absolute morality does not exist either, and there is no objective criteria for human rights.

      We have the extreme fine-tuning of the universe and the anthropic principle.

      We have the fact that humans everywhere are irrepressibly religious.

      We have Godel’s ontological proof which was recently validated algorithmically.

      We have the fact that the argument I give at the top of this very web page is remarkably compatible with Aquinas’ Via Negativa.

      We have Aristotle’s argument for the existence of God which is remarkably sophisticated, yet elegant.

      We have the logical necessity of an uncaused cause.

      And I have not even brought up any theological arguments.

      Does the scale tend to tilt more to one side than the other? I for one think the inference to a Mind outside of space and time is quite robust.

      • Andrew Sanderson says:

        Hi Perry,

        Last week I made a submission about a code that does not come from a mind. It fits all your criteria. However, I haven’t heard anything back. Can you please let me know your thoughts on the matter.

        I’ve had some more thoughts since then. They are below.

        I’ll repost my submission as a second comment.

        Kind regards,

        Andrew Sanderson
        New Zealand

        * Astrology In the Bible *

        Right at the beginning of the Bible, God says He created the sun, moon and stars to convey information:

        “And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years.” (Genesis 1:14, KJV)

        In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus Himself acknowledges astrological code.

        “And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars.” (Luke 21:25, KJV)

        Whatever way the word “signs” is interpreted, it simply means “meaningful information.”

        The Bible also says:

        “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge.” (Psalm 19.1-2, NIV)

        I know that in some churches some people do not like astrology. In my opinion, they are throwing the baby out with the bath water. Yes, it is true that gossip magazine astrology is superstitious and preys on the lower nature of people. Yes, it is true that some people get confused about free will. But it is also true that there is merit in understanding astrological code – as pointed out by God and Jesus in the Bible.

        I believe in free will and that “whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” (Galatians 6:7). IMHO astrology is a record of our past actions. Thus we are not compelled by some exterior force, but by the momentum of the actions we have sown in the past. We are 100% responsible for our lives and if we want good results then we need to do good actions.

        It is hard to understand how information can come from mindless inanimate objects in the sky, but it is also hard to understand how burning bushes speak, seas are parted, people walk on water and rise from the dead, heal by faith, experience miracles and are visited by angels. Some of these things we take on faith, but others we know are true from our own experience.

        In my view, astrology is empirical evidence of God’s word. To deny that there are signs (i.e. meaningful information) in the sun, moon and stars is to contradict the teachings of Jesus.

        * The Skeptics Society *

        There is no doubt that astrology is unpopular in the scientific world. It is received by scientific people with about as much warmth as a priest at a Richard Dawkins convention. But all the scientists I’ve met who have denied astrology – I’ve discovered that not one of them has studied it to any degree. Not one.

        It makes me very skeptical of the scientific community when their biases override empirical evidence. Evidence for astrology is easy to come by – you can do blind tests in your own home. Or watch this clip of the founder of The Skeptics Society. Michael Shermer – on his own TV show – does blind experiments and reveals that there is an astrological code. See it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6k7xa1NrCc

        So I think your philosophy is best:

        “When empirical results do not conform to mathematics or reason and logic, it’s because the reason and logic needs to be extended. That is EXACTLY what science is. Extending reason and logic and scientific and mathematical models to account for empirical data.”

        Astrology is not outside of science – it’s just not yet understood.

        * Conclusion *

        God says there is a code. Jesus says there is a code. Churches say there is a code. Skeptics say there is a code. The evidence shows there is a code. Do you acknowledge that there is an astrological code?

        If I have not provided enough proof, then please let me know what standard you require.

        • Perry says:

          The decoder is a human, without a human no decoding takes place. Therefore this doesn’t count. The encoding and decoding ALL have to happen independently of any human.

          I didn’t see your post from last week, it might have been caught in a spam filter.

          I do not really know what to make of astrology. Christians have traditionally avoided astrology and it is not generally spoken well of in the Bible, for example

          “Keep on, then, with your magic spells and with your many sorceries, which you have labored at since childhood. Perhaps you will succeed, perhaps you will cause terror. All the counsel you have received has only worn you out! Let your astrologers come forward, those stargazers who make predictions month by month, let them save you from what is coming upon you. Surely they are like stubble; the fire will burn them up. They cannot even save themselves from the power of the flame. Here are no coals to warm anyone; here is no fire to sit by. That is all they can do for you—these you have labored with and trafficked with since childhood. Each of them goes on in his error; there is not one that can save you. (Isaiah 47:12-15)

          I suspect that it may have legitimacy or be useful in some respects but I distrust it. In the Bible it tends to be associated with mysticism and idolatry.

          • Andrew Sanderson says:

            Hi Perry,

            I just googled DNA and found this:

            “Basically, DNA goes through a machine that reads the code and creates proteins based on what the code says. These proteins are very specific, complex molecules that influence every trait of an organism – what color you eyes are, how tall you are, whether or not you have a lot of body hair, is all dependent on what your DNA says.”

            So let me change my submission. The decoder is not the astrologer, but the human body. The human body is created according to astrological code – independent of any mind.

            The astrological codes “influence every trait of an organism – what color you eyes are, how tall you are, whether or not you have a lot of body hair.”

            The astrological code conveys information to the body and creates a predictable form. Just like DNA.

            In DNA and astrology an objective language exists that carries information about the form of the organism. In both cases it may be read objectively by human researchers. Both astrological code and DNA operate independently of any mind and occur naturally.

            In Michael Shermer’s video, the astrologer correctly predicts physical features in the blind experiments – such as one subject’s loud voice. The loud voice occurred independently of the astrologer reading the code.

            It is my speculation that the astrological code and DNA are correlated and convey the same information – ie two ways of looking at the same thing.

            As far as astrology being related to mysticism and idolatry, a similar charge may be levelled at science which is rife with atheism and morally questionable attitudes to human life (ie nuclear weapons, genetic engineering, abortions, etc.) Or to religion with its history of immorality and superstition (ie burning witches, keeping slaves, priests molesting children.)

            In their pure form science, religion and astrology are avenues for people to search for truth and a deeper understanding of life. IMHO sincere ontological research is ultimately a gateway to theology.

          • Perry says:

            “The human body is created according to astrological code – independent of any mind.”

            You would need to prove that by showing that astrological forces can create NEW codes or cells or humans, independently of any other existing life.

  • Andrew Sanderson says:

    Hi Perry,

    Here is my submission on information that doesn’t come from a mind.

    Kind regards,
    Andrew Sanderson.

    “Show an example of Information that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.”

    Information that doesn’t come from a mind is found in astrology.

    Real astrology is a language that conveys information in an objective way. It has been acknowledged and seriously studied for thousands of years.

    For many people, their only understanding of astrology comes from newspapers and gossip magazines. That kind of astrology is superstitious nonsense and gives real astrology a bad name. It is irrelevant to this submission.

    Astrology meets the criteria of a naturally occurring code.

    1. Humans can design the experiment, with all manner of state-of-the-art laboratory equipment, ideal conditions etc. They just can’t cheat: the submitted system cannot be pre-programmed with any form of code whatsoever.

    The position of the planets in the solar system is naturally occurring and is not programmed by man.

    2. Since the origin of DNA is unknown, the submitted system cannot be a direct derivative of DNA or produced by a living organism. Bee waggles, dogs barking, RNA strands and mating calls of birds don’t count. Such codes are products of animal intelligence, genetically hard-coded and/or instinctual.

    The position of the planets is not the product of a living organism.

    3. The origin of the submitted system must be documented such that its process of origin can be observed in nature and/or duplicated in a real-world laboratory according to the scientific method.

    The planets are plain for all to see in the night sky. The exact positions of the planets are determined by astronomers with very accurate technology and methods in real-world laboratories according to the scientific method.

    4. The submitted system must be digital, not analog.

    The system of astrology is a language with an alphabet and syntax, as described below.

    5. The submitted system must have the three integral components of communication functioning together: encoder, code, decoder.

    The encoder is the solar system.
    The code comprises the locations of the planets in houses and signs of the zodiac.
    The decoder is the astrologer.

    6. The message passed between encoder and decoder must be a sequence of symbols from a finite alphabet.

    The finite alphabet comprises:

    * The Inner Planets
    Sun, Moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus, Saturn

    * The Signs of the Zodiac
    Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius, Pisces. These 12 signs of the zodiac are 30-degree divisions of the ecliptic.

    * The House System
    Houses 1 to12. These 12 houses are 30-degree divisions of the ecliptic. The first house starts at the eastern horizon at the moment of birth.

    7. A symbol is a group of k bits considered as a unit. We refer to this unit as a message symbol mi (i=1, 2, …. M) from a finite symbol set or alphabet. The size of the alphabet M is M = 2^k where k is the number of bits in the symbol. For a binary symbol, k = 1, M = 2. For a quaternary symbol in DNA, k = 2, M = 4.

    8. A character is a group of n symbols considered as a unit. We refer to this unit as a message character ci (i=1, 2, …. C) from a finite word set or vocabulary. The maximum size of the character set C is C = M^n. For a standard computer byte, M = 2, n = 8, C=256. For a triplet group of quaternary symbols in DNA, M = 4, n = 3, C=64.

    9. The submitted system must be labelled with values of both encoding table and decoding table filled out.

    * Encoding Table *

    The encoding table is an ephemeris or astrological software. You can look at some free online software here: http://mykundali.com

    At the time of writing the planets are located as follows according to mykundali.com:


    The time of birth of the person is required – preferably down to the exact second, but the nearest minute is usually good enough. The date and location are also required to discover the encoded table. The encoded table is usually displayed graphically as a “chart.”

    * Decoding Table *

    Below are basic decoding tables that are standard amongst Eastern and Western astrologers. The principles of decoding astrological code is found in many books on astrology.

    I am familiar with the astrology of India and I speak mainly from that point of view. While Indian astrology has some different calculations and methods to other cultures, there is a lot of commonality between them. Likewise languages such as French, German, Spanish and English all use a common alphabet to convey the same information but in greatly different ways.

    * The Basic Meanings of the Planets *

    The planets may be interpreted in many different ways, but their meaning essentially parallels the archetypical royal court.

    Mars…………Military General

    * The Basics of Interpretation *

    The primary factor for decoding is looking at each planet and the house and sign it is located in. The qualities of the planet are modified by the house and sign.

    Here is a simple table for interpretation.


    * A planet is comfortable if it is located in the sign that it rules. It will give good results. eg Mars in Aries.

    * A planet will give very strong or positive results in its sign of exaltation. eg Sun in Aries.

    * A planet will give weak or negative results in its sign of debilitation. eg Saturn in Aries.

    * The Meaning of the Houses *

    The 12 houses are abstract divisions of the ecliptic at the time of birth. Each house is 30 degrees. The first house starts at the eastern horizon at the time of birth.

    Each house has many different meanings. Below are the primary meanings:

    1. Self
    2. Wealth
    3. Siblings
    4. Home/Mother
    5. Children
    6. Enemies
    7. Spouse
    8. Transformation
    9. Good Fortune
    10. Career/Father
    11. Gain
    12. Loss

    * Examples of Interpreting the Code *

    - Venus in Libra in the 2nd house indicates wealth and luxury.
    - Mars in Cancer in the 4th house indicates a disturbed home life, disruption with the mother and the relationship with her.
    - Mercury in Gemini in the 5th house indicates intelligent children.
    - Saturn in Aries in the 7th house indicates major difficulties in the relationship with the spouse.
    - Jupiter in Cancer the 9th house indicates extremely good fortune, wisdom and higher education.
    - Sun in Aries in the 10th house indicates a stellar career (like Al Pachino who has this.)

    These are extremely basic examples of how to interpret a chart. It is certainly much more complicated in practice. The examples above are like looking only at nouns in a sentence.

    Like any language, to properly decode the message we need to consider the whole context – all the other qualifiers like nouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs, commas, speech marks, apostrophes and exclamation marks. In astrology these qualifiers are just as numerous and include aspects, the location of other planets, house rulers, etc. These qualifiers give more meaning and make the language more accurate.

    * Codes with the Code *

    There are also abstract methods of decoding such as the “navamsha” chart which is calculated by dividing each sign into ninths. This makes a sub-chart which has no direct correlation to the night sky but is used by the vast majority of Indian astrologers because it reveals what a person is like on the inside. This is one example of the many codes that are found within the original code.

    It can be astonishing how much valuable information these sub-codes reveal. For example, I emailed my birth details to an astrologer in another country who I had never met, talked to or had any contact with. He looked at my chart, determined a certain sub-code, recorded his findings in an mp3 and emailed it back to me. The sub-code revealed specific information about how my particular body works and what foods I should and shouldn’t eat. This has been extremely helpful to me. He told me accurate information that no doctor has ever been able to tell me – even when I stand right in front of them.

    I spent quite a bit of time trying to reverse engineer the calculation of this sub-code but without success. Fortunately, I met someone who showed me how to do it. Since then I have amazed people with practical information about their own body. It’s the type of information that can’t be gained through medical tests or observation. It is a unique system of diagnosis that I am certainly glad to have discovered.

    * Computer Generated Interpretations*

    There is software around that will automatically generate interpretations of charts by applying the principles of astrology. Sometimes these programs can be very accurate. Unfortunately most of them are vaguely accurate and generalised. They are like the early versions of online language translators – you can see what they are trying to say but they don’t really translate well.

    But it is not because it cannot be done. With the help of the enormous resources of companies like Google, online translators have improved dramatically. If Google were to give astrological software as much time and attention then I am sure they would produce automatically generated interpretations of a much higher quality.

    My point is that astrological code follows objective principles of interpretation. The system works regardless of the beliefs of the person. It is simply reading the code.

    10. For the submitted system, it must be possible to objectively determine whether encoding and decoding have been carried out correctly. For example when you press the “A” key on the keyboard, a letter “A” is supposed to appear on the screen and there is an observable correspondence between the two. In defining biological gender, a combination of X and Y chromosomes should correspond to male, while XX should correspond to female. For any given system, a procedure should exist for determining whether input correctly corresponds to output.

    Information about a person is encoded in astrological language. It describes the characteristics of the person. This is a fact. I have a lot of experience with this and know it to be true.

    * How to Prove Astrology *

    1) Get an astrologer to look at your own chart

    If you have an accurate birth time, then email it to a random competent astrologer and get them to send you a recorded mp3 interpretation about your chart. It is very surprising how much someone can know about you only from your birth details.

    Do this with a number of other competent astrologers and they will all give you similar interpretations. This simple blind experiment should be enough to prove that a code is being read.

    If you don’t have an accurate birth time then there is a process called “rectification” in which the astrologer looks at your life – your career, education, marriage, children, etc – and works backwards to find the chart that fits.

    A friend of mine asked me to look at his chart, but he didn’t know the time of day he was born. So I worked backwards. Out of the 24-hour period of his birthday I determined that he must have been born at 2:35am. Some time later I met his mother and asked if this was correct. She confirmed it and said, “How do you know that?!?!?”

    I discovered it by aligning the circumstances of his life and his personality with a corresponding chart. Contrary to popular belief, charts change quickly throughout the day. There is a very wide range of possibilities on any given day.

    2) Get an astrologer to look at the charts of your friends and family

    If you have friends or family with an accurate birth time (ideally down to the minute) then I hesitate to say it but there are plenty of astrologers on Fiverr.com who could give you an interpretation quickly and cheaply. There is no guarantee of competency, but it should be enough to prove that at least some level of information may be reliably extracted.

    For the purposes of genuine investigation into the astrological code I recommend using only experienced, highly skilled astrologers in the same way that you would prove the efficacy of heart transplants by only going to a qualified heart surgeon.

    Some charts are easy to read while others are complicated and difficult. So even if you don’t have an accurate birth time sometimes it is still possible to get meaningful information. If the person was born on a day when the Moon was very close to another planet, then it won’t matter what time of day they were born because the effect will be clear.

    The Moon (ie the queen in the royal court) represents the mind and emotional nature. If Mars (the general) is located a few degrees away from the Moon then martial qualities will be evident in their mind and emotional nature, like anger. If Venus (the courtesan) is close to the Moon then qualities of art, beauty, romance, sexuality will be prominent in them. If Saturn (the servant) is close to the Moon then the person will have limited emotional expression, melancholy and a serious disposition.

    (If you need a chart to experiment with you can borrow mine. Send my birth details to a good astrologer and he or she will tell you what I am like. Send it to a few and hear the same story repeated. There are a few clear characteristics that they will all pick up on.)

    3) Learn some basic astrology principles and look at the charts of famous people

    Another way to prove the astrological code is look at the lives of famous people. Birth details of famous people are plentiful on the internet, like at http://www.astro.com which has the birth details of 23,000 celebrities.

    Plug the details into some software to determine the location of the planets at their time and place of birth and then apply the principles of astrology to interpret the code.

    Have a look at Adolf Hitler’s chart. His Mars (the planet of war) is really strong. Or look up some Hollywood stars. Predictably you will find many with Venus strongly placed because Venus indicates arts, movies, drama. Or look up business leaders or religious figures or adventurers (like Edmund Hillary) or sports people and see the predictable common elements in their charts.

    * Difficulties with Astrology *

    In my experience, I have found that there is definitely a lot of code/information in astrology, but it’s also easy to misinterpret it. Nevertheless, even if only a little bit of information can be reliably gleaned from a chart in blind experiments, then it still proves the conveyance of information.

    It is not necessary for the astrologer to get it all right. Astrologers often make mistakes when trying to predict the future. Personally I don’t use astrology to predict the future. Rather I use it to understand more about the present.

    When I look at someone’s chart I gain insight into their personality and life. Some things are very clear, other things are not. So while I don’t expect perfect knowledge, I do find it very useful.

    I am not trying to prove that astrology is a perfect science. Like most sciences there is still a lot to learn. But for the purpose of this submission, I am trying to show that there is a conveyance of information that did not originate from a mind.

    * Some Personal Experiences *

    As an amateur astrologer I have looked at many charts and been able to reveal to people information about their lives. While astrology is a hard subject to master, the first 50% is relatively easy. And by knowing a little bit you know a lot. So even with my basic knowledge I have been able to look at charts and identify types of career, illnesses, good and bad relations with spouses, siblings and parents, personality traits, their emotional condition and many more things.

    When my cousin was about 12 years old he asked me to look at his chart. There were a lot of really strongly placed planets. I told him that he had an exceptional chart that indicated a lot of talent and wealth. He went on to win prizes for his studies in finance, beat very strong competition to land prestigious corporate positions and is currently amongst an elite crowd doing an MBA at Stanford University. He is as rational and pragmatic as they come, yet he has to admit that I identified his success a long time before it began to express in his life. As skeptical as he wants to be, he cannot deny that what I told him was correct.

    Astrology can be simple. I know a woman in The Netherlands who has the Sun (the king in the royal court) well placed (in Leo) in the 11th house of gains. A simple interpretation would be “gains from the king.” Her husband died while she had a child under the age of 14. This qualified her to receive financial payments from the Crown (government) for the rest of her life.

    A man consulted me about his chart. The principles of astrology indicated a seriously strained relationship with an older sibling, injuries to his head and lower back pain. It turned out his older brother was a deadbeat drug addict, as a teenager he’d nearly died from a head injury and he did suffer from lower back pain.

    I have endless stories like this. Astrology for me has become very ordinary and normal. I have learnt to recognise the planetary archetypes in people without even having to look at their chart. Some people can easily spot other archetypes like the Mother, Father, Warrior, Priest, but I see them as Sun, Moon, Mars, etc.

    Sometimes I’ll look at someone and see a really strong Mars quality and then when I look at their chart and apply astrological rules – unsurprisingly – the planet often features prominently. My point is that the astrological code doesn’t exist just on paper – it is plainly obvious in everyday life to those who are trained to see it.

    If you look at the charts of astrologers you will likely find a strong Mercury. Mercury indicates intelligence and skill with analysis and language, which are definitely required for astrological study. Genuine astrological research is very popular and has grown rapidly with the advent of software and the internet. Nevertheless, most people don’t know much about it. Most people don’t appreciate how profound, complicated, rational, fascinating and real it is.

    * The Case Against Astrology *

    Frequently, I hear people summarily dismiss astrology, but they don’t know what they are talking about. They are uneducated. Any genuinely open-minded investigation will quickly reveal that there is at least some truth to it. And a deep and serious investigation will reveal that there is a profound and undeniable truth to it.

    Astrology was known to many ancient cultures. There is nothing new about astrology. However, recently some religious and scientific groups have closed their minds to it. But the simple fact is that it works regardless of personal beliefs.

    Skeptics try to explain why astrology cannot possibly be real and drift into arguments about causation, probability, precession (which has been adjusted for in India for a very long time), etc. These arguments are meaningless because facts trump skepticism. Without knowing how it happens, astrology does contain a code.

    I offer no comment about free will or predetermination. I am simply presenting a code/language/information that did not come from a mind.

    * Conclusion *

    Astrology reveals detailed information that comes from interpreting the planets in the sky. It gives information about a person that can be read from their chart objectively and independently using pre-established principles of interpretation. It conveys information just like a book, except it doesn’t come from a mind.

  • David H says:

    Andrew, nice try, I will say.

    But, so demonstrably, Astrology is a pseudoscience.

    What you are “decoding” is a language developed by humans dating back at least to the Sumerian and Babylonian culture and revised and modified over the centuries.

    I am surprised that you truly missed that HUMAN MINDS devised all of the astrological symbology that you are so expert in “decoding”!

    The “meaning” is completely a human construct, a layer of interpretation applied to what the night sky displayed over seasons. Right?

    Hitler believed so much in his own astrologers that he defied military intelligence and lost his war to establish the Third Reich. His astrologers guaranteed that their interpretations of the signs “in the stars” augured for victory during World War 2. His generals couldn’t pound any sense into Hitler’s astrology enamored brain. THANK GOD.

    Astrology is a poor, poor tool for predicting anything important that could not be guessed by other means, including “hunches”.

    If Astrology was valid it would be in the toolkit of bonafide scientists and not the almost exclusive property of television and website soothsayers.

    When the farthest a prediction derived by “astrology” can go, after thousands of years of use and no improvement in deductive powers, is to say “Mars is strong in your house, Adolph, keep on keepin’ on!” then I say, stop the nonsense.

    Andrew, it is your very faith in falseness that blocked you from the seeing the true meaning of the scripture you quoted:

    You claimed —

    In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus Himself acknowledges astrological code.

    “And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars.” (Luke 21:25, KJV)

    Jesus was most assuredly not even referencing the “astrology” of his time. The “signs” he refers to are NOT Astrological signs at all.

    “There SHALL BE” is an important series of words to note.

    As an astrological wise man do you not read before and after such a “one liner”?

    Before verse 25, to put things into needed context:

    Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God. But Jesus said, “As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down.”

    “Teacher,” they asked, “when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to take place?”

    And Jesus spends the next couple of paragraphs telling them how they will recognize the times of his Return to Earth.

    When he then switches from Earthly events to heavenly events his “signs” are not Astrological, are not confirmations of Astrology, but REAL LITERAL EVENTS that will be readily seen and identified by all of humanity not as minute perturbations of the mythical houses of the Zodiac.

    And you only cherry picked one sentence from your “example” of Jesus’s faith in Astrology. Let’s pick up where you conveniently left off:

    “And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars.

    On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea.

    People will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken.

    At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.”

    Andrew, this is quite a Big difference from the Truth of Jesus’s own words and the false case you have tried to make. Right?

    “. . .for the heavenly bodies will be shaken.”

    The SIGNS are huge visible events, catastrophic, frightening PHENOMENA in the skies that will shake the Zodiac, the houses, the planets, the stars into a jumbled mess of permanent disarray.

    These unprecedented events in the skies will powerfully demonstrate that it is GOD ALMIGHTY who left his Word to believe and obey and to walk in faith by.

    The Word of the Everlasting God. Not the timid, pagan-inspired, pagan practiced ruminations of people who flee the light of truth and retreat to ancient myths to hide from God. The God who will even shake up the false foundations of astrology forever.

  • Mary says:


    There are two sets; 1. The set of codes of known origin. And 2. The set of codes of unknown origin.
    For your syllogism to have any merit set 1. must be known to be identical to set 2. – which is clearly not the case. At best you have a weak inference drawn from an argument from ignorance.

    Given that all known codes derive from minds, and all known minds derive from DNA your syllogism is not only a weak inference and an argument from ignorance, it is also circular and begging the question.

    The fact that you start off with the premise that DNA is a code, and you go on to say that all codes we know the origin of come from a mind, while ignoring the fact that all minds we know the origin of come from / or at the bare minimum *need* DNA, shows that your premises hide a circular logic.

    The simple fact remains that syllogisms of the form you are employing can be wrong. They prove nothing and are at the very best no more than an inference.

    It is just unsound reasoning, and not at all a persuasive case.

    An argument is valid if it is impossible for its premises to be true while its conclusion is false. In other words, the conclusion must be true if the premises are true.

    An inference, even a ’100% inference’ as you like to refer to it – remains an inference and not a certainty. Now you could argue about probability but the fact remains that it is not IMPOSSIBLE for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. Which by definition renders your syllogism to be invalid.

    So let’s examine your argument further;

    The sequence of base pairs in DNA is a code.
    All codes that we know the origin of come from a mind.
    Therefore DNA came from a mind.

    Now the glaring problem here is that DNA is not a code we know the origin of. The simple fact is that it is not in the set of codes of known origin, and therefore the conclusion can not be drawn from the set of codes of known origin.

    In order for your syllogism to work DNA would need to be in the set of codes of known origin. You can not draw the conclusion from a premise that is formed from a known characteristic of a set that DNA is not a member of.

    A valid syllogism would be;

    The sequence of base pairs in DNA is a code.
    All codes come from a mind.
    Therefore DNA comes from a mind.

    Now that syllogism is valid, however it is not sound because the second premise is not in fact known.

    By adding the caveat, ‘of known origin’ you have invalidated your syllogism. If you remove that caveat your syllogism becomes valid but not sound.

    An inductive argument can be valid and yet still false, all you need is a counter example. In your case, the examples given to you like bee waggles and ant pheronomes were dismissed because they originate from DNA – which of course would also exclude all of the examples you use to draw your premise.

    So even if your argument were valid (which it is not) the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning is that inductive reasoning is reasoning in which the premises seek to supply strong evidence for and NOT ABSOLUTE PROOF OF the truth of the conclusion. The conclusion of an inductive argument can only give a conclusion that is probable, not as you seem to imagine a proof, a certainty or a fact.

    Which is why you simply need a better case.

    Your case is simply insufficient – we do not have experience of codes of unknown origin.

    classical example of an incorrect inductive argument:

    All swans we know of are white.
    Therefore all swans are white.

    Note how it takes the exact same form as your argument;

    All codes we know the origin of come from minds.
    Therefore codes we do not know the origin of come from minds.

    The nature of inductive reasoning is that it draws uncertain conclusions from limited experience.

    In the end, you are conflating 2 different sets of code, which are not conflatable.

    • Perry says:


      I appreciate the fact that you follow the logic and you know the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning. But beyond that you are contributing nothing that I myself have not already said at least 50 times.

      I have made it perfectly clear that there are 999,999 codes we know the origin of and ONE that we don’t. We have to INFER that DNA is designed because we cannot PROVE it. How many times have I said that??? 250 at least? But the ratio supporting the design inference is, to put it a bit informally, 999,999:1.

      Yes it is a white swan / black swan problem.

      Now when you spend any time considering what is actually involved in creating a code (which I am deeply familiar with, because I am the author of the book “Industrial Ethernet” and because I spent 8 years of my life entrenched in the battles over dominance of dozens of different digital communication protocols in the automation industry) the inference to Design is not merely strong, it is blazingly obvious to anyone who has basic common sense.

      Not only that, as you begin to peel the layers of the genetics onion and discover how much MORE sophisticated and elegant it is than anything man made, the conclusion is inescapable.

      You are always free to reject that line of reasoning. But you become an inconsistent hypocrite as soon as you apply inductive reasoning in some other department of your life. Which inevitably you will, and probably sometime in the next 25 minutes. As you say, “The nature of inductive reasoning is that it draws uncertain conclusions from limited experience.” You do it EVERY DAY OF YOUR LIFE.

      By your own standard of judgment, you will be judged.

      • Oh but I cannot resist the temptation.

        I’m not an expert in genetics, my Master’s in the subject was over ten years ago now.

        But while “sophisticated” and “elegant” it is also, obtuse, chaotic, error prone, excessively redundant, deadly and a host of other things.

        But you keep saying only a “mind” can devise a code.
        And that’s not true.
        Firstly, life is not a code, life is a process.
        The only thing a code requires is rules.
        The only thing a process requires is rules.

        And rules don’t need a mind, they don’t need an originator, they don’t even have to make sense.

        They do need to be relatively stable, and not immediately self contradictory. Both of which are conditions imposed simply by the fact that we exist.

        If we didn’t exist, we could not observe the fact that the conditions do or do not apply, so the fact we exist is at best extremely weak evidence of anything at all.

        • Perry says:

          You have heard all kinds of accusations that DNA is full of “junk code” and that it’s “excessively redundant” and these are immature, premature judgments by people who could not create life or re-create that code if their life depended on it. You have been sold a bill of atheist propaganda. DNA is the code that built your children and your pets and your eyes and your ears. The Junk DNA hypothesis has been overturned, by the way, see http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/06/science/far-from-junk-dna-dark-matter-proves-crucial-to-health.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

          Until you can build an eye as good as the ones God gave you, you are in no position to criticize.

          If you say that anything besides a mind can create a code, I have ten thousand dollars waiting for you. Just show me an example that meets the spec at http://www.naturalcode.org and I’ll write you the check.

          • Mary says:

            Fine, I accept your explanation of your use of inductive logic in your reply. But you ask for a code not known to come from an intelligence. Acacia pheremone communication is an example of a code not known to come from an intelligence, whether it is ‘genetically hardwired/instinctual’ or not. Not to forget that it was not intended to be proof of a naturally occuring code – it was an example of a code not known to come from an intelligence.

            Doubtless you will say that it is a derivative of DNA (as are all codes if you trace them back far enough) , but it does not change the fact that this instance of code comes about through non intelligent means.

            So, all our experience does not tell us that codes are always originated by an intelligence. There are many exceptions, codes found in nature like the above, for example.

          • Perry says:

            Yes it is a derivative of DNA. So it does not further your case at all. Not to mention the fact that by any reasonable definition of “machine intelligence” every cell in existence is intelligent. How intelligent? Watch this – it will fascinate you

        • David H says:


          In the past 10 years since you got your “Masters” in “the subject”, imputed to be in some field of “genetics”, may I guess that you did not actually find a job in the field.

          Moving on to THIS amazingly non-scientific presumption on your part:

          “The only thing a code requires is rules.”
          “The only thing a process requires is rules.”

          “And rules don’t need a mind, they don’t need an originator, they don’t even have to make sense.”

          Starting with “The only thing…” The ONLY thing? The ONLY thing??

          By prefacing “the only thing” do you think you have denigrated, downgraded, reduced, or maybe even eliminated the significance of “a code requires rules”?

          Let’s take it from the part of the sentence you evidently have to acknowledge with no imagined diminishing qualifiers: a code requires .. rules.
          Definitely. No small thing at all.

          But rules are such strict things, are they not? The speed of light, the force of gravity, molecular motion, intermolecular forces of attraction or repulsion between neighboring atoms, molecules or ions, and the stronger intramolecular forces, the forces which keep a molecule together, Dipole-dipole electrostatic interactions between permanent dipoles in molecules….

          The list of RULES operating at this moment in the universe and Keokuk, Iowa are a staggering immense list of just the RULES science has so far discovered.

          And every Rule that science catalogs and continues to observe, attempt to explain, and finally attach a label and description (as best as they can) is an OBSERVATION of a Rule, a principle, a force that indeed RULES OVER our present moment of life.

          Every Rule already in place. Every rule already harmonized to work as a synchronous, synergistic, inexplicably complex and balanced orchestra of BEINGNESS.

          You say, Roger:

          “And rules don’t need a mind, they don’t need an originator, they don’t even have to make sense.”

          PROVE THAT. PROVE ANYTHING in that string of illogical, (I must be honest) arrogant nonsense.

          I would wager a philosophically minded fish in a fishbowl proclaims the same stuff in Fish Forums.

          This fish is so supremely confident that he arrived in his bowl by “natural processes” that somehow happened between the glass walls of his little world. The sand, the kelp, the bubbling aerator oxygenating the water for his life sustainability, the natural “rain” of fish food floating down from above at predictable intervals if Roger Fish has a time sense.

          For a fish his or her existing world of Aquarium is PROOF that there is no NEED for such myths as the surrounding world of Air where other Aquariums are mass produced and made “fish friendly”.

          • Perry says:

            If Roger was ever asked to create a digital communications protocol similar to TCP/IP, he would not be nearly so flippant about his “rules.”

  • David H says:

    I have been following this forum for a few years now.

    Every, and I mean, EVERY SINGLE “argument” that has been posted here in the past month or so that posits to teach the rest of us something new has been posted over and over in the same form, same arguments, same…. ignorance.

    The refutation to every single naysayer has been made over and over.

    Convincingly, scientifically, mathematically, you have been trumped.

    You have been answered. And your ignorance on genetics and what constitutes life and “intelligent design” and Gödel’s theorems and genetic code embedded in living cells that can divide into a whale or a house fly or Lady Gaga is mind-boggling indeed.

  • Andrew Sanderson says:

    Hi Perry,

    This post is in four parts:

    1) Clarifying the standard of proof you require
    2) Proving the Astrological Human Blueprint
    3) Astrology as a spiritual code
    4) Astrology in Genesis


    (Part 1) Clarifying the standard of proof you require

    Andrew: “The human body is created according to astrological code – independent of any mind.”

    Perry: “You would need to prove that by showing that astrological forces can create NEW codes or cells or humans, independently of any other existing life.”

    Can you please explain your requirements a bit more. DNA seems to be the gold standard in this matter of codes, but as far as I can tell DNA does not create “NEW codes or cells or humans, independently of any other existing life.”

    I don’t see why astrology needs to be proven to do things that even DNA doesn’t do.

    * DNA Doesn’t Create Independently *

    Please correct me if I am wrong, but DNA is a code and it doesn’t actually create anything all by itself. It doesn’t exist in a vacuum.

    DNA => sends information (via RNA) => to ribosomes => that create proteins

    Thus the extent of the DNA’s job is sending information. The ribosome does the creating. It is like a man who sends his “code” to a woman and the woman creates the baby. The man does not act alone. Nor does DNA.

    DNA simply conveys information from matter in one location to matter in another. The information in DNA helps to create protein, but it is only one part of a creative process that depends on “other existing life” – amino acids, ribosomes, etc.

    DNA doesn’t create anything out of thin air. It does not create new matter, but uses information to rearrange existing matter into new forms.

    * Chemistry and Biology *

    Perhaps the point you are trying to make is that inanimate DNA leads to the creation of animate things? That DNA is the point where chemistry turns into biology and life begins? Is that what you are pointing at in this discussion about the origin of life?

    The problem with this is that all biological things never stop being chemicals. And the animation that is attributed to chemicals actually exists independently of chemicals.

    => Chemistry + animation = biology.
    => Animation = biology – chemistry.

    It seems this whole analysis of DNA and code is to discover the origin of life – the origin of this animating principle. Is that fair to say?

    * The Definition of Life *

    Some say that the definition of life is something that eats, breathes and poops. To me that is a mind-numbingly narrow definition. When your body dies and stops eating, breathing and pooping – do “you” die? No, of course not.

    I know some readers may say that what happens after death is speculation – and it is – but the distinction between you and your body may be clearly observed within you now. You can clearly distinguish the part that dies from the part that doesn’t.

    You can isolate the essential “you” that is absolutely independent of eating, breathing and pooping. It is the valuable “I Am” that I have mentioned in previous posts. It is the clear distinction between the mortal and immortal parts within you. It is clear experience of your soul (which you are) as distinct from the body (which you have).

    So while DNA participates in the chemical process of rearranging matter, it does not create animation. It does not create the essential you. It does not create souls. It doesn’t create “life.”

    I assume that you are not trying to convince me that chemicals created life – that microscopic matter created souls that animate bodies. That is the evolutionists’ point of view. Likewise, I am not trying to convince you that astrological forces created life – that macroscopic matter created souls that animate bodies.

    Both play a part in the transformation of matter by passing information, but neither are truly independently creative forces. That creative force belongs to the Creator, who is inferred by the codes found in DNA and astrology.

    * Proof of Astrology *

    So when you ask me to prove that astrological forces are an independent creative power, I think that even DNA doesn’t meet that standard. It is like asking me to prove that a man can create a baby independently of all other existing life.

    DNA comprises atoms that combined to make a molecule containing a code. The solar system comprises atoms that combined to make a planetary system containing a code. The codes send information that participates in rearranging matter, but they are the effects of a higher creative force, not the cause.

    So can you please clarify what you mean when you ask me to prove that “astrological forces can create NEW codes or cells or humans, independently of any other existing life.”


    (Part 2) The Human Blueprint

    Andrew: “The human body is created according to astrological code”
    Perry: “You would need to prove that”

    In the same way that homing pigeons know the way home, or butterflies fly from Canada to Mexico to trees their ancestors visited – I speculate that the human body at some level is aware of the wider environment at birth, including the positions of the planets.

    It may be that the body takes a snapshot of the solar system at birth and uses it as a blueprint for building the body. But no matter how the body gets the astrological information, it will build the body according to that information.

    “We are born at a given moment in a given place and like vintage years of wine we have the qualities of the year and of the season in which we are born. Astrology does not lay claim to anything else.” – C.G.Jung

    You don’t choose how tall you will be, or the colour of your hair. These things are given. And so are strengths and weaknesses in the body. These strengths and weaknesses and other physical, mental and emotional characteristics can be determined long before they physically manifest by looking the location of the planets at the time of birth.

    How can I prove this to you? Here are some ways that I’ve mentioned before, plus some new ones:

    1) Get an astrologer to look at your own chart

    2) Get an astrologer to look at the charts of your friends and family

    3) Learn some basic astrology principles and look at the charts of famous people

    4) Consult an authority. If you wanted to know if climate change is real, you’d find the smartest people who were most educated in that area. You can do the same with astrology.

    5) Biblical testimony. Consider the statements of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke and God in Genesis.

    6) Revelation. The truth about things can be determined through spiritual insight – ie you “get it” in an intuitive flash. Direct knowing instead of intellectual speculation.

    7) Inference. Astrology has been studied for thousands of years by advanced cultures all around the world. This infers that it has merit.

    8) Blind experiments. I can supply you with birth times of people with physical afflictions and you can hire an astrologer to look at the charts and determine the physical affliction in a blind experiment.

    9) Research. There are over 26,000 books at Amazon.com on astrology. Like any subject, a small percentage of them will be genuinely good ones. It was a book by Edward Tarabilda about health and astrology that lead to me discovering my body’s underlying dietary needs. He discovered the precise astrological formula that I mentioned in an earlier post. His work is advanced, but he is one of the good ones.

    10) Perception. Go to a university graduation ceremony. Look at the types of physical bodies that go with each department. As a whole, the people in each department will have distinct physical themes.

    I went to a graduation and as the various departments crossed the stage I sat there thinking, “Engineering is represented by Mars and that group of engineers displays a lot of Mars’ physical traits. Venus represents the arts and those fine arts graduates all look Venusian. And those geologists are Saturnian.”

    The physical traits of the planets follow the archetypes of the royal court:

    Sun (King) – bright, radiant, energetic, confident, balding, pronounced nose and chin, average height
    Moon (Queen) – watery, well nourished, motherly, sensitive, milky eyes, pale skin
    Mars (General) – short to medium, fiery, energetic, square jaw, muscular, masculine, powerful, intense, thin waist, red eyes
    Mercury (Prince) – nerdish, youthful face, talkative, eyes move quickly, a mixture of the other planets’ physical traits
    Jupiter (Priest) – solid, grounded, deep voice, steady, balanced, cheerful, thick hair, cool skin
    Venus (Courtesan) – soft, gentle, beautiful, luscious, colourful, feminine
    Saturn (Servant) – tall, thin, low energy, slow, crooked features, dry skin, dull eyes

    Some may say the university departments are created by similar minds associating together. Yes, there are psychological similarities – but I’m talking about innate physical characteristics – like height.

    This university parade made me laugh just watching it. It was such a clear demonstration of the physical astrological code. Though I must admit it is much easier to spot these trends if you are experienced in profiling.


    (Part 3) Astrology as a Spiritual Code

    While pondering the relationship between astrology and the process of creation, I realised that astrology does create something that chemistry doesn’t. Astrology creates creative people. I know this introduces a “mind” into the equation and is thus outside the brief, but for the sake of interest I’ll discuss it.

    The astrological code creates creative people – like musicians, inventors, writers, geniuses and poets.

    Pure inspiration doesn’t come from DNA. Proteins didn’t write Mozart. A series of chemical reactions wasn’t the inspirational force behind Psalms.

    The heights of inspiration and creativity do not have a material origin. People know this when they experience it. I’m sure you know this in your own life.

    Is your creativity a product of some genetic binary code? Are your spiritual experiences merely chemicals bubbling in your brain? Is your identity limited to your body? Are you more than flesh and bones?

    Why are some people exponentially more creative and inspired than others? Lucky genes? God blesses some more than others?

    The answer is found in astrology. Astrology is a spiritual code. It creates inspired and creative people in the same way that it creates uninspired and uncreative people – by the location of the planets at the time of birth. (As explained before, I don’t think astrological code is random, rather it’s a record of what we have sown in the past and hence our responsibility.)

    In astrology, Venus is a planet of incredible inspiration. It makes artists, musicians, poets and creative geniuses. Venus is renowned for it depth of beauty and love. It is even beautiful in the morning and evening sky.

    Mercury is another planet that creates inspired geniuses. It creates brilliant mathematicians, linguists and writers. Mercury people have intelligence that can invent, synthesise and be flexible.

    The other planets can also give wonderful gifts, but when I think of pure creative inspiration and genius I think of Venus and Mercury.

    It is not that creative and inspired people are channelling a planet in the sky, no more than they channel the Greek goddesses the Muses. Pure inspiration comes from some high place, but the astrological code reveals who will receive it and who won’t. If your planets are well placed at the time of birth you’ll get a lot, and if poorly placed then not so much.

    Astrology also reveals when people will go through phases of huge creative productivity and other times of artistic drought. Maybe you can look back over your life and identify periods when your creativity began or ended. For some people it’s as if someone had flicked a switch, for others just a general increase or decrease.

    It’s not that creativity and inspiration can’t be developed, but some people hit the ground running with an open connection to this external, higher creative force. Astrological code creates creative people. It creates them the moment they are born.


    (Part 4) Astrology in Genesis

    While ruminating on astrology and the creative process I thought about this. Maybe you will find it interesting.

    In the old Eastern and Western astrological traditions, they believed that life was created in “seven days” – like it says in Genesis. The seven days are:


    The old astrological traditions say that creation happens in a sequential way. That sequence is reflected in this ordering of the planets. The ordering is very important. These are the inner workings of how astrological principles participate in the manifestation of the world.

    So in the beginning there was pure potential. Then according to astrologers (and apparently Genesis) there was light (the Sun), then water (the Moon), territory (Mars), knowledge (Mercury), abundance (Jupiter), reproduction (Venus) and then rest (Saturn).

    Day 1 – And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. (1.3)
    Sun (King): Sun governs light.

    Day 2 – And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. (1.6)
    Moon (Queen): Moon governs water.

    Day 3 – And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. (1.9)
    Mars (Military General): Mars governs territory.

    Day 4 – And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years. (1.14)
    Mercury (Prince): Mercury governs knowledge.

    Day 5 – And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. (1.22)
    Jupiter (Priest): Jupiter governs expansion and abundance.

    Day 6 – So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (1.27)
    Venus (Courtesan): Venus governs male/female interplay.

    Day 7 – And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. (2.2)
    Saturn (Servant): Saturn governs rest.

    In my mind, Genesis and astrology are correlated. The number of the days mentioned in Genesis correlates with the number planets in the sequence. The themes of the days correlate with the themes of the planets. And the ordering of the days matches the ordering of the planets.

    In astrology the Sun represents people who come first – like kings, leaders and winners. And Saturn represents people who come last, rest or are finished. So according to astrological principles, the first day of the week is Sunday, and the last day of the week – Saturday – should be the day of rest.

    The astrologers also say that this process happens not just at the beginning of the universe, but as a cycle in every moment. Life is ever in a state of becoming – it’s always being created – tomorrow hasn’t been created yet.

    I know this is very esoteric, but it shows how astrology participates in creation. It shows how life unfolds according to codes and principles. This astrological sequence is like the 80/20 principle and other laws that are found universally. You won’t see them under a microscope, but nevertheless they govern creation.


    So, Perry, please let me know if I have my facts right about DNA and the standard of proof required for the astrological code.

    As you can see, I do not present astrology is as a proof for atheism. I believe that atheists haven’t really grasped the facts. I believe astrology strengthens your case that “codes that do not come from a mind” infer that there is a greater mind behind the scenes.


    • Perry says:

      The DNA transcription – translation process, which is DNA -> RNA -> Amino acids is a complete encoding / decoding process. This encoding and decoding is observable and identifiable as such by humans, but does not require our creation or intervention in order to happen. We merely recognize it is already taking place. It is black and white and rigorous. It is digital. Nothing ambiguous about it.

      If you want to demonstrate a naturally occurring code, you have to discover a process that includes encoder, message and decoder doing their work, without designing one. Your example of astrology requires a human to decode the message. So it doesn’t meet the specification. You will see this clearly if you draw a diagram as the spec asks you to do and begin to label the components.

      In the astrological view, the solar system is the encoder but the human is still the decoder. So it doesn’t count.

      In order to accept your astrological account of Genesis, I have to assume in advance that it’s permissible to impose the astrological conceptions onto the Genesis story. However if I have no prior knowledge of astrology, I would never get astrology OUT of the Genesis story. Or the rest of the Bible for that matter. I invite others to comment on this.

      Genesis and astrology are correlated in your mind because you come to Genesis with a prior “lens” of astrology to begin with.

  • Mary says:

    Incidentally, the fact that random strings contain more information explains the origin of new information in our genome. Natural selection operates on strings containing always something new. And this novelty comes from the imperfections of the duplication mechanism that introduces noise. No design needed, for random noise is the best source of new information Nature can choose from, as Shannon showed.

    • Perry says:

      Shannon did NOT show that. He showed the exact opposite. Have you read his work?

      In any case, prove your assertion. If you can I’ve got $10K waiting for you.

    • Perry says:

      Oh, and by the way – this is for Mary and also everyone else – From now on, everybody uses their real first name and last name. No more anonymous people. I find that people with actual evidence and arguments to present aren’t ashamed to use their real identity.

  • Tim Kaplan says:

    I’ve come to the conclusion that ultimately, as believers, we see evidence for God, Atheists do not; Evidence is subjective. There is no objective yardstick by which evidence turns into proof. For me, daybreak is evidence, the unity of the universe is evidence of a creator. The Atheist cannot fathom why, which I can understand, but I simply ask that they acknowledge that they their position is also unfathomable to the believer.

    I must be able to demonstrate that a piece of evidence, to convince an Atheist, is not explainable by any other means except through God, and also get through his preformed notions. Since I lack total knowledge of the universe, I cannot do that.

    Both the believer and unbeliever interpret the world through a circular process of self affirmation. They both start off with assumptions about the existence or non existence of God, and filter everything they see through that lens. We choose what to believe on the basis of inclination.

    Since we know nowhere near enough about the universe to *know* the existence or non existence of God, we have to choose whether to believe or not. We choose based on what we desire. That choice is: a meaningful universe created with a purpose that spills into eternal life and where justice is inherent, or a random accident within an accident, where our actions have no consequences apart from the immediate physical.

    I desire to live in a created and meaningful universe, so I choose to believe in God. The other choice, the far less attractive of the two, is also based on a desire. I believe it stems from the desire to not be judged. The very idea of being held accountable for how one lived their life is sickly to a lot of Atheists. I might be wrong about the nature of the desire. But it is a desire. It is a motivation. But I find Atheists never like to admit that their “belief” is based on a desire.

    • Perry says:

      You are certainly right, it is based on desire. People see what they want to see.

      I would also add that a lot of atheists are disappointed in how the world is, and it is distasteful to them to grapple with the idea that God could still care about people despite all the horrors.

      Another point which needs to be made is consistency. Atheists have no problem inferring an outside cause that they have no direct evidence for, like aliens and panspermia, which some would consider to be an explanation for the origin of life. The movie “Contact” shows atheists clearly believe that intelligible digital signals from outer space are evidence of an alien civilization, but they refuse to make the same inference with respect to the origin of the genetic code.

      It’s hypocrisy.

      Also: We DO have evidence for God. We have tremendous documented support for miracles for example, see http://www.coffeehousetheology.com/miracles – included peer reviewed papers, videos, etc. Is faith required? Yes it still is but it is no leap. It is a small jump – and it is logical.

  • Tim Kaplan says:

    I decided, for once, to use some of my marketing/algorithm knowledge towards promoting rational belief in God, so I ranked a video on Google pointing to this page.

    If you go into Google and type ‘irrefutable proof for intelligent design’ you’ll see a video at the top of page 1 titled ‘irrefutable proof of intelligent design’, it’s not really a “video”, it’ just a single slide quoting you + a link to this page, but it’s enough for someone interested in the subject.

  • David Hunter says:

    Because we were all made by one God we have some common things built into us human beings.

    We know WHICH God we are all talking about when the question is simply asked “Do you believe in God?”.

    We know that “Yes I believe in Gaia, Yes I believe in a Oneness, Yes I believe in Teojushin the earth goddess of the Gashin cult of Korea” just is not going to truly answer the question.

    The GOD in this question looms over all of us.
    Because we all know instinctively or culturally that if WE, our little selves, ME, my little self were to take the leap that it is a HUGE leap into the unknown, in one way.

    But, we also know that what we DO know we don’t like about “believing in God”.
    Ridicule from friends, family and society is one very real possibility.

    But the biggest “known” is that we would have to CHANGE drastically.

    We KNOW that much.

    We love to do our own thing. We love to decide for ourselves what is right and what is not right.
    We love to make up our own minds about everything in this world from moment to moment.

    And we know that this “GOD” may have some pretty strongly stated ideas and helpful nudges to shut down some of our choices.

    To believe in God is to give up things. Certain emotions that may be destroying our lives but, hey, I will give them when I am good and ready to. Some day.
    And since we don’t know what new emotions and thoughts God is going to give us in the bargain we can’t know which is preferable. To still be ME or to go with the God thing.

    As unbelievers have said –
    Lord knows you won’t catch me lifting my arms and acting like a lunatic — babbling and singing and, for God’s sake, “Praising Jesus”!

    Spare me!

    The truth that bubbles around unspoken in all of the back-and-forths of this forum is that no amount of logic or math or theorems has the power to lead you to God.

    If such things were so powerful no one would still be smoking cigarettes. Most smokers know people who have died from cigarette caused cancer right in their own spheres of acquaintance or even close family.

    So Gödel’s theorems and study of the supreme code embedded in DNA are hardly going to rattle your tree if you are afraid to submit any part of yourself to whom you know to be the God of Israel.

    This forum will not bring any epiphanies to non-believers who parry Perry with conjectures.

    Remember the popular song by Hal David and Burt Bacharach, sung by Dionne Warwick?

    “You’ll never get to heaven if you break my heart
    so be very careful not to make us part
    You won’t get to heaven if you break my heart
    Oh no!”

    I am going to do my very, very best not to break the heart of Yeshua HaMachiach, my Lord, my SAVIOR. The Way, the Truth, and the Life.

    And for you who do not believe:

    You’ll never get to heaven if you don’t take His heart
    Oh no!

    • Perry says:

      Bravo! Beautifully put. I especially like

      “The truth that bubbles around unspoken in all of the back-and-forths of this forum is that no amount of logic or math or theorems has the power to lead you to God.

      If such things were so powerful no one would still be smoking cigarettes.”

      The good news is, the truth about cigarettes does influence those who are on the fence.

  • Andrew Sanderson says:

    Hi Perry,

    >Your example of astrology requires a human to decode the message. In the astrological view, the solar system is the encoder but the human is still the decoder.

    No, this is not correct. No human mind is required to decode the astrological message for it to work.

    The human body builds itself according to astrological code. No human mind is involved in that process. Your height and the colour of your hair and eyes are given, along with physiological strengths and weaknesses. They are not determined by a human mind, but they are revealed in the astrological code.

    The process is naturally occurring in nature. The code is not designed by man. It doesn’t need to be interpreted by man.

    Encoder (solar system) => message (red hair) => Decoder (the body makes red hair)

    Encoder (solar system) => message (tall) => Decoder (the body is made tall)

    No human mind is involved in this process. I don’t think I can be any clearer than that.

    To prove this, I propose a blind experiment. I write a letter like the following and you send it to an astrologer of your choosing:

    Dear astrologer,

    Please identify the common physical affliction in the following five people:

    Person A: 1:23am, June 1, 1980, Kansas City
    Person B: 12:01pm, July 15, 1962, Honolulu
    Person C: 4:59am, February 22, 1975, Madrid
    Person D: 5:11pm, August 9, 1990, Tokyo
    Person E: 9:44pm, March 3, 1934, Paris


    (These dates and times are fictional and just for example)

    I’ll select people that all have the same physical affliction – such as deafness – and let you know what it is in advance.

    You send these birth times to an astrologer of your choosing from this database: http://www.councilvedicastrology.com/vedic-astrology-teachers.html. These are qualified and competent astrologers.

    I’ll send you the money in advance to pay for the astrologer. I’m happy to put my money where my mouth is.

    When the astrologer reads the code and correctly determines the common physical affliction, it will prove that a code is embedded in the birth time. If there is no code, the astrologer won’t be able to get it right.

    The astrologer doesn’t cause the physical affliction (e.g. deafness).

    ******* The astrologer is simply reading a code and identifying what nature has already created. *********

    Perry, are you willing to participate in this blind experiment? Would you accept the success of this blind experiment as sufficient proof that astrology contains a code that:

    1) Doesn’t come from a mind
    2) Satisfies all the requirements in the Origin of Information Challenge
    3) Wins the $10,000 prize

    • Perry says:

      Andrew, read the specification. This does not meet the spec. “Since the origin of DNA is unknown, the submitted system cannot be a direct derivative of DNA or produced by a living organism.”

      Your example requires and presupposes living things in the first place. If I wanted this sort of example I could just use tree rings.

      • Andrew Sanderson says:

        Perry, the origin of astrological information is the solar system. There is no DNA on Mars or Jupiter or Saturn or any of the planets creating astrological code. The code is not originating from DNA. It is not a derivative of DNA. The code is not produced by a living organism.

        “Since the origin of DNA is unknown, the submitted system cannot be a direct derivative of DNA or produced by a living organism. Bee waggles, dogs barking, RNA strands and mating calls of birds don’t count. Such codes are products of animal intelligence, genetically hard-coded and/or instinctual.”

        It is very clear what your intention is with this statement: the origin of the information cannot come from DNA or a product of DNA. It can’t be pre-programmed by DNA. The solar system doesn’t come from DNA. Astrological code clearly satisfies the intention of this statement.


        Codes from bee waggles and tree rings obviously have a biological origin.

        Encoder (bee) => code (waggle) => Decoder (other bees)
        Encoder (tree) => code (ring) => Decoder (botanist)

        The origin of the astrological code are the planets in the sky, which are not biological.

        Encoder (solar system) => message (tall) => Decoder (the body is made tall)

        Codes from trees and bees have a biological origin. Astrological code does not have a biological origin. They are not comparable.


        There are three parts to the process: encoder, code, decoder. The first two are most relevant to this challenge because they show that there is a code and where it comes from. The code and its origin are the whole point of this challenge.

        In my proposed blind experiment, I say that the human body is the decoder. In that experiment, the astrological encoder-code-decoder is a complete, verifiable system. DNA has no influence whatsoever on the origin of astrological code (planets in the sky), so its presence in the decoder is irrelevant.

        Likewise, there are astrological forces present during the DNA encoder-code-decoder process, but we don’t say that invalidates it.

        Both the astrological and DNA processes stand on their own, despite the presence of the other.


        Astrological code doesn’t just influence biological organisms; it also influences the weather and earthquakes, which do not contain DNA. There is a famous astrologer here in New Zealand called Ken Ring who publishes weather forecasts a year in advance for 64 locations around the country, plus for Australia and Ireland.

        He is a household name and his is work is popular throughout New Zealand with fishermen, farmers, sportsmen, wedding planners and other people whose work is influenced by the weather. I have a friend who is a professional photographer and he uses Ken’s work because it helps him select good days for outside photo shoots.

        Of course, the science people reject it as bitterly as they reject the Bible, but his work is still very popular with many practical people. For most people, it is not much of a stretch to believe that the moon and other planets influence the weather and that Ken Ring has found a way to decode the message in advance.

        I’m sure the solar system was producing a predictable code that affected the weather on Earth before biological life appeared. Astrology doesn’t require or presuppose living things in the first place. It is naturally occurring and independent of living things.


        Perry, please answer this one question: do you believe that there is an astrological code that doesn’t originate from a mind? Yes or no?

        • Perry says:

          “Encoder (solar system) => message (tall) ”

          Tall what?

          Tall organism made by instructions which came from DNA.

          I am not convinced of your theory about astrology in general but that doesn’t matter anyway. The point is what I said yesterday. To win the prize, nothing in the system can be a living thing. End of story.

          • Andrew Sanderson says:

            “Encoder (solar system) => message (tall) ” Tall what? Tall organism made by instructions which came from DNA.

            If Saturn is 0-30 degrees above the horizon at the moment of birth, then prior to considering the position of the other planets, that is a message from the solar system that the person will be tall compared to the rest of the population.

            >I am not convinced of your theory about astrology in general

            I offered to prove it to you in a blind test, then you would be convinced. But you didn’t take up the offer. It seems that you don’t want to be convinced. You’ve already said, “I suspect that it may have legitimacy or be useful in some respects but I distrust it.”

            The fact is that there is an astrological code. It is information that doesn’t come from a mind. It is verifiable. The Origin of Information Challenge has been met, but I feel you are lawyering the specs to avoid acknowledging it.

            I’ve been studying astrology for 20 years and I have found it to be a powerful tool for opening the mind – especially because of the origin of the information. It forces the mind to confront the mystery of life. It shows a cosmic order in life. It yells that there is a greater mind at work. It provides an alternative to the arrogant sciences that think that life is a soulless product of “billiard ball” physics.

            At an advanced level, astrology is the study of wisdom and love. It shows that we cannot escape the consequences of our actions – thus there is no injustice in life, despite appearances. It also factually demonstrates that life is intimately aware of every single person. It expands puny, disconnected individuality to an awareness of cosmic entanglement.

            You cannot study astrology and not become in awe of creation. Imagine a person who goes to an art gallery everyday and appreciates an artwork. Eventually the artist hears about this and says, “Let me meet this person who admires my work so much.” Likewise when you sincerely appreciate the mysterious design of life, then eventually you attract the attention of the Designer. A deep study of astrology attracts divinity. It is not the only way to attract divinity, but it is one way.

            So, Perry, astrology is highly relevant in the Origin of Information Challenge. Personal information comes from the sky! It’s amazing. It is a “landmark discovery in the history of science [to] alter our fundamental understanding of the universe.”

          • Perry says:


            Astrology has been around for millennia. I am sure there is already a blind scientific study by now that you can refer me to.

  • Andrew Sanderson says:

    I haven’t found any scientific studies that prove astrology and I suspect there aren’t any. The closest I found is Michael Shermer’s blind experiment on YouTube. There is a study by a Frenchman called Michel Gauquelin in the 1950s who tried to demonstrate a statistical relationship between Mars and athletes. It was a good idea, but the experiment’s design wasn’t convincing.

    Some things we know are true but are inherently difficult to prove, like Euclid’s five postulates. Or Christianity. After two millennia and billions people, is there one scientific study that proves the existence of God?

    How long did it take to prove in court that smoking is bad for you? 50 years?

    There are many things that science has rejected as pseudoscience but are true – acupuncture is a good example. It’s now funded by government bodies and insurance companies even though science struggles to explain how it works. I hear scientists sniggering at the idea of chi, but for some people chi and auras and energy in the body are as obvious as the words you are reading.

    Faith healing, intuition and angels are also without peer-reviewed scientific proof, but that doesn’t mean they are not real. They are just hard to prove. I have witnessed many miracles, but would they meet the rigors of scientific testing? Nope.

    Over the years my faith in science has got less and less. I used to wear glasses and was emphatically told by a number of board-certified optometrists that eye exercises do not work and that my eyesight would never get better. After practicing some meditation techniques my eyesight did improve. I stopped wearing glasses and I was told it was due to a misdiagnosis in the first place! Now my vision is like blu-ray despite the science on the matter. My eyesight improved due to neuroplasticity, which used to be a dirty word among neurologists because the vast majority didn’t believe in it.

    Science is especially bad when it comes to existential questions. It has its model of reality, but it is very limited and easily falls apart. For the scientific model of reality to be real, it has to overlook some pretty basic facts. The scientific view is that there is an objective world that exists independently of any individual, but this cannot be proven.

    A few hours ago I looked out my window at my neighbour’s house. Since then the house may have burnt down or been covered in graffiti or hit by a truck or snatched by aliens or it may have simply ceased to exist for no apparent reason. The fact is I cannot speak for the existence of the house. I can say nothing. I don’t know its current status or if it exists at all. All I have are outdated memories.

    This is where the scientific approach completely fails – it is based on the unchallenged assumption that there is an objective reality – a world “out there.” Then it speaks with certainty about things that are obviously speculative. Who can really say how things are? Who can say if the Sun will rise tomorrow? Who knows what really happened in the past?

    In actuality, all possibilities exist and anything can happen at anytime – despite the apparent laws of physics. So when scientists try to tell me what is real and what isn’t, I just remind myself that they don’t even know what is going on behind their own back. (Turning around just continues the problem.)

    My point is that while science is practical for some things, it is not good at determining reality. I hope you understand what I am trying to say.

    Nevertheless, astrology can be proven in blind experiments as I proposed earlier. Others have tried in the past but it is a complicated matter. Even for me to find five charts that are easy to read and have a common physical affliction would require quite a bit of time, effort and cost. And even then it would rely on the astrologer being competent.

    So there are a lot of difficulties in objectively proving astrology. The easiest way to prove it is subjectively: personal experience. Either study it yourself or get an expert to read your chart.

    My friends said that I shouldn’t waste my time on this challenge because the bias against astrology is so great. It challenges scientific and religious views of the world, which makes it extremely unpopular. I have accepted that you are not going to accept my submission even though I know it to be valid. I like thinking these things through and writing about it, so it hasn’t been a complete waste of time. In fact, I’m grateful for having had the opportunity to voice my ideas. So thank you, Perry.

    • Perry says:

      I’m not sure about angels, but faith healing IS confirmed in peer reviewed scientific literature, see http://www.coffeehousetheology.com/miracles, the link to “Southern Medical Journal.” Heck you don’t even need scientific studies, you can watch people being healed in real time on video, such as Delia Knox. Her story is on my page for all to see. Psychic phenomena such as remote viewing and telekinesis are also well supported by scientific studies. See “Margins of Reality” by Jahn and Dunn.

      If astrology is anywhere near as valid as you say it is, it should be VERY easy to prove and frankly the studies should already be out there in abundance by now. Consider that faith healing is a relatively rare thing in the US; but horoscopes are in every newspaper every day.

      Burden of proof is on the astrology advocates. If there is none to be found thus far, I encourage you to ask why until you find the answer.

  • Simon Vlahov says:

    Even if Godel’s theorem is a proof of metaphysics, it is not proof of the existence of the “Christian”God. I agree that the ultimate reality must be indivisable, uncaused cause and infinite. However, there are many possibilities about its nature. Concluding that it is a sentient, conscious being is a huge leap in faith, having nothing in common with Godel’s hypothesis. It can be just an assembly of Platonic forms (universal mathematical laws). That will explain the ordered, information-bearing structure of the material world. Secondly, this endless metaphysical “substance”can be in fact divisable – it can be the mental energy of many monads, or gods. God is not necessarily one. Even though he be infinite, according to Hilbert’s Hotel Infinity paradox, there’s always a place for an additional god or even for infinite number of such gods. There is no sufficient reason that will thwart the existence of an infinite number of gods, provided that one exists. The monads may be mentally, not materially separated in this infinite reality. Also the proposition that the infinite reality is necessarily a conscious being is quite influenced by Western culture – a Hindu would say that it represents an unconscious life force that seeks to actualise itself. The taoist would call it the Dao, the Muslim – Allah and so on…

    • Perry says:

      Nowhere have I ever said that this proves the Christian God is the real God. It certainly is a vote for deism or theism and it shows that if atheism is true, the world is necessarily irrational. It does infer monotheism, as there is no place in Godel’s logic for an infinite number of gods. That would be equivalent to infinite regression.

  • This was a great revelation for me. Thanks, Perry.

  • Leave a Comment

    Notice: A cache module is enabled on this site. Your comment may take some time to appear.