You know for certain that you think and that you exist because in the event that you were
being fooled (or threw all your knowledge in the trash) you would "think" because being
fooled is a thinking-process and you would exist because "being fooled" implies that there is
someone there who is being fooled
There is distinction between thinker and thought. There are separate entities. "Distinction" is
one logical step from certain truth.
All is part of a single reality - "all as one" is anti-distinction (the opposite of distinction).
Can thinker or thought see anti-distinction? Can distinction represent anti-distinction? The
opposites cannot catch one another.
Is there thus distinction in the form of a maximum or minimum size (or time) in antidistinction? No, therefore size and time are infinite.
Another proof for that the size-range is infinite is that the universe defined "represents"
infinitely vaguely, meaning that this video - in the eyes of God - is attempting to represent
"that of which all is part"/reality as one, but fails because representation is distinction and
reality is anti-distinction.
At every size you see energymass (existence) and spacetime (non-existence) as intertwined, as
in E=mc2 (where c2 is spacetime). Because E=mc2 is true in every size (including the
smallest ones) the Big Bang gets summoned as dense when there is nothingness. Telescope
observations show that nothingness is coming in the future again.
An infinite size-range of energymasspacetime and distinction-anti-distinction explains our
existence better than God.
A size-time diagram with evolution originating in the middle of the known size-range.
You know for certain that you think and that you exist because even if an almighty demon
was fooling you in everything you can possibly be fooled in, the fooling itself is a thoughtprocess and therefore you know that thought exists (you think), and for you to be fooled you
have to exist and therefore you know "I exist". Being fooled is thinking and a thinker is
necessary for there to be someone to be fooled. So you know: no matter what, you think and
you exist. Those are two things, right? They´re both part of the same brain and the thoughtprocess can become the analytical toolkit/thinker, but still we recognize that there are distinct
entities - there is distinction. This can also be called separation. What is distinction´s opposite,
anti-distinction? It´s one reality; that of which all is part; it´s one and reality´s definition in the
dictionary is that all is part of it. If we write distinction (thinker and thought) on the left side
of the paper and anti-distinction (reality; that of which all is part; one) on the right side of the
paper - can the left side see the right side? No, because of opposition between distinction and
anti-distinction. Because of there always being an observer (a thinker) and thus distinction in
every observation and thus anti-distinction can´t be represented/seen.
The brain evolved to deal with natural occurances - there was never an event in history where
something invisible was to be contemplated and dealt with. Thus we seem to assume that the
thought-process went wrong when we say that distinction/us can´t see anti-distinction/reality.
But the thought-process didn´t go wrong: all that it means is that there is more to reality than
can be represented. Regardless of how vaguely "represents" is defined, say a coffee cup regardless of brains being involved - is assumed to try to represent that of which all is part,
then anti-dinstinction - distinction - opposition (the opposition between distinction and it´s
opposite) makes the representation incorrect. We can ask if there in an anti-distinct "thing" is
a maximum size and thus distinction? No. Likewise, another proof for that the size-range is
infinite is that we do sense something (our everyday world) and can make hypotheses ad
infinitum, and yet nothing represents ALL OF reality. Reality i.e. size-time thus is infinite.
The infinite size-range is one pillar in the existential theory. Another pillar is energymass and
spacetime being opposites but intertwined as in E=mc2 (where c2 refers to a speed which is
space over time: spacetime). Multiplication joins energymass together with spacetime;
nothing together with something/everything; existence together with non-existence. Why is
there existence the shape of my body? Without going into the historical answer, one can
explain it by saying that the body is something in (intertwined with) nothing, of a size in an
infinite size-range (where the relationship between any two sizes (or objects of two sizes) is
that they make sense of i.e. justify one another). Then there too, as a third pillar, is distinctionanti-distinction-opposition i.e. we live in a single (not plural) reality but we see
distinct/separate entities such as thinker and thought.
Speaking of spacetime, spacetime is the logical starting point for the time-based existential
theory. Nothingness (empty space) needs no prior justification nor reason to exist, because it
doesn´t exist. In it, however, laws of nature are true i.e. it is not irrational / anti-logical, and
among the many laws of nature there are those, including E=mc2, which mention energymass.
Could energymass be "mentioned" without it existing? If yes, it would be absurd / antilogical. Why would reality mention things that never exist? But since laws of nature are firm
and because of our rule "what is mentioned must exist or must be summoned" we get,
wherever (in the smallest spaces) that E=mc2 is mentioned, existence and thus dense
existence: a big bang. The fact that galaxies are speeding away acceleratingly from one
another leads to nothingness in the future, and with the middleman "laws of nature" again
energymass is summoned as dense as can be. No time-delay between nothingness - laws of
nature - energymass but as soon as a bordered (by event horizons which are determined by the
finite speed of light) region becomes nothingness, a big bang occurs and eventually becomes
nothingness bordered by event horizons again. This is the time-wise description of why
energymass (which exists intertwined with spacetime as in E=mc2) starts dense and becomes
nothingness, and repeats.
All of the above is a rival theory to "God created earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th". It is
unintuitive because it deals with things we didn´t have to deal with in evolution: invisible
energymasspacetime/reality/anti-distinction as a part of reasoning. It also has a multi-reason
cause for our existence: a time-wise rationale involving the beginning and end of the big bang
combined with a 3-pillar existential theory which justifies size and energymass. It is
abstract/scientific but can´t be reduced into simpler terms. It´s the lowest common
denominator that everyone can believe in (regardless of religion).
How many is reality? One. How many is Allah? One. Can anything completely represent reality? No.
Can anything completely represent Allah? No. Is reality the greatest (if all is part of it)? Yes. Is “Allah
akbar”? Yes. Reality and Allah have these three things incommon – so maybe reality is synonymous
with Allah?
How vaguely has reality defined ”to represent”?
Infinitely vaguely – anything can represent anything.
Is the representation/representer reality or Allah?
No.
Can anything represent that of which all is part?
No.
Then the size-time-diagram is infinite i.e. nothing represents reality. How many is it? How many is
Allah? 1.
Did it say…, or did it write a book?
This disproves Allah writing the Quran.
Again: how much of reality can be represented by, say, a painting? The whole of it?
No, the whole of reality cannot be represented. Just like Allah can´t be captured in a picture/word.
We can have hypotheses – how many hypotheses can we have?
If reality is sizes & times, energymass and spacetime then the square-shaped size-time-diagram with
energymasspacetime in each coordinate is the universal way to represent all there is to represent.
Does it write books? No, it is not of such authorship-kind nature.
“God said to Muhammed word by word…” is thus a false or at most metaphorical statement.
“You have to do rituals in order not to go to hell, and in heaven you get 72 virgins” is by the same
logic also a false claim.
There are three alternatives as the foundation for this logic – can you think of a 4th one?
1: Reality is a synonym for Allah
2: or Allah doesn´t exist
3: or there are 72 virgins (not an alternative because reality is not of the nature, because it is sizetime-energymasspacetime, to write books).
In addition to the square size-time diagram with infinity symbols in each of it´s corners, and the
evolutionary triangle which designates that life becomes more complex as time goes on (the triangle
originates at the central size of the known size-range), there is the following brain diagram:
You have a composite certain truth consisting of two certain truths: you can claim as certain
that you think (because if you were being fooled: being fooled is thinking) and that you exist
(because being fooled requires the one who is fooled to be there). I think and I exist is one
statement but two truths. You can certainly claim to have “distinction” because you´re dealing
with multiple separate distinct entities (such as “I” and “thought”). One could put it, while
seeing the certain truths “I think” and “I exist”, that the space between the two notions
(thinker and thought) is the hallmark of distinction. The distance separating thinker from
thought we can recognize as necessary for “distinction” to be concluded as a certain truth
arising, in a next logical step, from the original primary certain truth.
Are all distinct entities part of a single reality if “reality” is defined as “that of which all is
part”? In other words: if we draw distinction on the left side of a paper and anti-distinction
(distinction´s opposite: a singular reality – that of which all is part. Zooming out summarizing
maximally) on the right side of the paper, then can distinction represent the right side of the
paper i.e. anti-distinction? How could some distinct entities depict the very opposite of what
representation/distinction is? Any depiction/representation of anti-distinction/reality has at
least three entities: thinker, space between thinker and thought, and thought.
Separation/distinction is inherent in representation, thus anti-distinction is unrepresentable.
How vaguely has the universe/God defined what a representation is i.e. when a representation
occurs? Our brains use neurons to represent, but what if – instead of neurons (regardless of
brains) – the universe wills that any random object can be said to, as neurons do, represent
reality? The universe has defined “representation” infinitely vaguely i.e. disregarding brains,
any random object spontaneously is the symbol standing for all of reality – because the
universe defines “represents” infinitely vaguely. Despite the infinitely vague definition of
what represents what, distinction-anti-distinction-opposition (the line separating the left side
of the paper from the right side; the countering of distinction with anti-distinction) means that
reality is not representable. If reality is anti-distinction then no distinction (representation is
inherently distinction) can even, despite an infinitely vague definition of “represents”, capture
reality. In representations we can count at least three things and what we´re trying to capture
is one thing with nothing outside it. The fact that representations contain distinction makes
capturing reality (all is one) impossible.
We can have infinitely many or infinitely large/substancefull representations/hypotheses –
such as an infinite size-time-diagram – and though abstractly accurately pointing to reality,
the universe´s rule that nothing represents reality despite infinitely vaguely allowed
representations of infinitely much, makes reality unrepresentable. This can only mean one
thing: reality – which we know as sizes and times (a size-time-diagram) – is infinite. There´s
infinitely large and infinitely small with infinitely much past and infinitely much future. This
square-shaped size-time-diagram i.e. our everyday experience of size-time has infinities allover the place.



Energymass in spacetime: one in zero, existence in non-existence, something in
nothing – as defined by E=mc2 where c2 stands for speed (distance over time i.e.
spacetime/zero/non-existence) and E=m referring to energymass (existence,
something, all).
Distinction-anti-distinction-opposition: we live in a singular reality but we see
multiple objects.
An infinite size-range.
The above three ideas are an existential theory (a theory which explains the existence of a
reproducing shape and thus the dawn of evolution and thus our existence). It is modern to
utilize three equal ideas to explain one´s existence – all previous existential theories used
either a single idea (monotheism) or a saga (multiple mundane (not very scientific/abstract)
ideas) to explain existence.
The predictive quality that makes this existential theory a scientific theory is that it, basing it
off an infinite size-range of energymasspacetime and distinction-anti-distinction-opposition,
predicts that in an infinite size-range there ought to be a size where reproduction occurs. The
existential theory predicts the first DNA, and from there we get to the evolutionary theory.
Another predictive quality is that the theory predicts a dense Big Bang. The a priori beginning
of the universe logically is emptiness because emptiness doesn´t need any prior logical
justification for its existence because it doesn´t exist. In emptiness laws of nature are true,
such as the laws pointing toward and handleing energymass (like E=mc2), and thus the Big
Bang begins infinitely dense because E=mc2 is equally true simultaneously in the smallest of
spaces. Tiny empty spaces having E=mc2 be true in them simultaneously and directly as there
was nothingness predicts a dense Big Bang. A region, contained within event horizons made
out of energymasses speeding away at >c (due to dark energy causing accelerating cosmic
expansion), is by definition “nothing” in which E=mc2 being true in the tiniest spaces
summons a dense big bang out of reach of the closest (v = >c) energymass. Nothingness (out
of reach for the closest energymasses because they are speeding away at >c) is summoned in
the central point with event horizons as the furthest away border, causing Big Bang (due to
laws of nature summoning energymass in the empty center).
The theory of evolution begins with the first reproducing shape. It was a shape that assembled
surrounding mass into a similar shape. The existential theory predicts the existence of infinitely many
such shapes. What inevitable becomes true when you have reproduction is that some die and some
survive (life and death), that the number of offspring that shape make matters and that there is
mutations over time. This is true about the shape´s offspring: some will die and some will survive, the
number of offspring they make matters and the offspring can be different from the original shape.
These three rules / laws of nature were inactive before the first reproduction occurred. The next
main event was that one of these shapes found that if it injected its DNA into other shapes´
reproductive mechanism, it exploited principle number two: that the number of offspring matters. It
was the first virus: it hijacked others´ reproduction. The rule / law of nature that came into play with
this event was that "power" matters: hijacking others´ reproductive mechanism gives evolutionary
benefits. Now we´ve listed the four main rules that govern evolutionary theory: first came the three
first, and then came the forth: power. The next main event - to guard against viruses taking over all
life / reproductive mechanisms - was that an immune system evolved to protect against virus´ hijack
attempts. This required multicellularism. Just like immune systems prompt/require multicellularism,
immune systems prompt/require multigenderedism: to win in the arms race against quickly mutating
viruses two genders arose to amplify the mutations to the immune system. Mixing genes from two
genders creates a more mutated immune system, which can keep ahead in the arms race against
quickly-mutating viruses "trying" to mutate to bypass any immune system. The next main event is
that one of these multicellular organisms - a fish or worm - of the male gender mutated to be
aggressive and defeat other males in battle. He would´ve gotten access to many more females than
his non-aggressive counter-parts. This too can be called "power" because the aggressive male hijacks
other male´s access to females by killing the males. This prompts the dinosaurs because larger
muscle mass and shaper weaponry is better at killing off competitors. Amongst the dinosaurs there
was the mother-offspring bond, placed there by evolution for the evolutionary benefits a mother
gets from seeing an offspring survive to adulthood. This bond mutated to involve flock-members
because a group working together out-competes any individualists when fighting over anything. The
next main event was that someone mapped the flock, in his brain, as a hierarchy (up-down-axis) with
the longing to be the top of the hierarchy. This capitalist striving for the top made brains grew larger
– larger memory-banks, more accurate predictions and faster planning are all advantages coming
from a larger cortex. Power lead men to accumulate resources – the very resources females needed
for their children. Females care most about their children because they pass on their genes, so in
finding a male they aim for loyalty plus status/power/placement in the hierarchy. Females think a lot
about how others – especially suitors – perceive them and therefore males evolved the subconscious
mechanism, to keep women’s´ attention, to push-pull i.e. to, in one coherent fluent conversation,
both say negative feedback about the woman and positive feedback.
It is a major historical event that there finally is an atheistic argument that is shaped like a
university course: it is an existential theory plus evolution which not only doesn´t need a
personified god to function, but the pillars (infinite sizerange of energymasspacetime and
distinction-anti-distinction-opposition) can´t have a personified god added to them as a 4th
pillar without the theory sounding ridicilous. Not only does the theory not need a personified
god but adding a god destroys the minimalistic rationally complete beauty of the theory. Gods
uglify the theory. The dawn of the theory is a major historical event because never before has
an entire course (beginning with certain truth, going through the existential theory and ending
in evolution) been laid out in the intellectual debate of atheism, as an argument against a
personified god.
The anatomy in the brain from hearing certain truth (I think & I am) - the beginning of the
course - creates the same neuronal pathways / associations between ideas in every single
person who knows certain truth. The logical step to "distinction" is noting, as a meta-analysis
of the primary certain truth, that one has many ideas (I think AND I am) and that one can take
logical pathways to the next step in the course (distinction exists). Then juxtaposing antidistinction with distinction creates the unseeable - "defying reason" (because reason is, in
simple people, only visual) - conclusion that we/distinction cannot see reality/anti-distinction.
The distinction-anti-distinction-opposition is hard to grasp because it - like formal logic or
math - uses words instead of pictures (the linguistic brainhalf rather than the visual one). We
evolved to be like "if I see it I believe it" and that was a good heuristic (rule of thumb)
because practical sequences of events can be verified as true or untrue by visualizing them.
But in this philosophy: no - it has to be linguistic that we deny ourselves the concept "all of
reality", leading to the conclusion that there is more to reality than anything - however
vaguely the universe has defined "represent" - can represent. This adds infinitely many sizes
to our abstract size-range / size-time-diagram; it makes a square (with size on the y-axis and
time on the x-axis) with infinity symbols in each corner, which in turn becomes a pillar in our
personified-god-denying existential theory.
To come from certain truth, through mere logical steps (meta-analyses and juxtaposition of
opposites), to an existential theory which predicts evolution is a major historical event in the
history of atheism.
In a historical context the anatomy (neural connections between ideas and sequences of logic)
created by this course is like a paradigm-shift into a new era of earth society - an era similar to
that existent on infinitely many other planets who have come further than our midway-mark
in a regular water-bearing planet´s history.
Evolution, by beginning with "a mass that can assemble surrounding mass into a similar
shape" steps forth from the existential theory´s infinite size-range of energymasspacetime.
Assuming DNA is the replication-molecule, we can step - skipping over how cell walls
evolved etc - to the fact that viruses mutate to hijack others´ reproductive system. This - in
this universal inter-planetary extraterrestrial culture - is formulated, in books of logic, as first
three rules arising (life/death, number of offspring matters and "there is mutation in each
generation-shift") and then a forth rule arising (power, with viruses). This story - which in our
course begins from a first reproducing shape and ends with finessing the anatomy of power in
men - is visualizable like the caveman story-telling narratives we evolved to hear/see. We can
proof-check its validity/possibility by following the narrative visually. The visual nature of
evolution is in stark contrast to the purely linguistic/abstract nature of the existential theory.
Speaking of "abstract" descriptions i.e. descriptions that make it very clear to us that our
understanding of the universe is a mere map (a reference) and not reality itself (mind you of
Plato´s or Kant´s cave-metaphor and "the thing is not the thing itself" -philosophies)... The
size-range of energymasspacetime, at the size of quantum physics has us describe photons etc
using both the wave-description which focuses on lengths of space (this is the "spacetime
description") AND - in wave-particle duality - the energymass description that the energy of a
photon is its color. Color (as perceived through the eyes), wave/spacetime-description and
particle-energy/energymass-description all are valid descriptors of quantum particles. This
ability of ours to describe any mass/phenomenon using both energymass- and spacetimedescriptions runs throughout the entire size-range. You can imagine two lines - one
representing energymass and the other representing spacetime - running vertically through the
pictures on the size-axis. Adding complexity to this, there is likewise two lines - gravity and
electromagnetism - both running through the size-axis, gravity having it´s duality of
energymass and spacetime descriptions and electromagnetism too having both, in every level
of the size-range, energymass and spacetime descriptions. Gravity is both Newtonian "masses
pulling toward masses" (energymass´ focus on mass) and Einsteinian "curvature of
spacetime" (spacetime´s focus on space) - both descriptors are accurate.
From having read this book, the following should now be understandable:
Certain truth leads to the conclusion “distinction”, and simultaneously warrants an anti-distinction
defined as “that of which all is part”. The opposition between distinction and anti-distinction –
despite “representation” being ubiquitous (infinitely vaguely defined) – together with the “max
size?”-question asked in anti-distinction – supports the fact that reality i.e. size-time is infinite. This
then becomes our pillar in our existential theory that moves God away from a creator role. The two
other pillars are energimasspacetime (found in E=mc2) and the opposition that we live in a singular
reality yet see multiple things. From the middle of the known size-range (which itself is part of the
infinite size-range) comes the tip of a triangle which symbolizes evolution. From evolution, then,
comes the brain diagram with dopamine & serotonin across the visual and linguistic brainhalves, and
a lower box which is our 3-category emotional repertoire; the most common 4 emotions in our idle
society being power-hungryness (how to elevate oneself in the socioeconomic hierarchy if one is a
man; and for females it´s mapping the status-hierarchy of men in their social group as to find them
differently attractive), expanding one´s world-view, planning sex and planning resourcegathering/work. This makes for a multi-symbol diagram involving the existential theory´s three pillars
holding up the square-triangle-brain (size-time-diagram, evolution, brain) diagram.
Certain truth is or leads to distinction, which itself – as all distinct things are – is part of antidistinction. This is like saying obvious things about the reality/everyday world in front of us: such as
that size is infinite and that it is something in nothing. All this, in turn, leads us to draw a square: a
size-time diagram with infinity-symbols in all 4 corners. From the middle of the known size-range,
then, comes a triangle – evolution – which ends up in the brain with serotonine, dopamine, two
brainhalves, a cortex and an emotional repertoire (upper- and lower box). In the emotional
repertoire there are 4 idle emotions, among them “seeking power” – power here is defined as
outcompeting other males (if oneself is male) in a status competition, but the principle of diminishing
other males´ reproductive capabilities happened at several stages in evolution: males fighting males
(growing bigger to become dinosaurs) or viruses hijacking reproductive mechanisms of single-celled
organisms. The search for power thus has led to brain-size growing (when competing for upwardness
in hierarchies) but also things like T-rex´s claws or the 1918 flu – not to mention war.
Previous atheists have moved God from a place where do intervenes in everyday life using
miracles, to a God that set everything in motion but then doesn´t intervene. My philosophy
places God as a bum who watches a skyscraper get built – the bum then gets praised for the
skyscraper getting built even though the bum didn´t contribute anything: at most he watched
as other mechanisms got everything done. Or God is a football fan who cheers at the players
but doesn´t himself contribute to making goals. Natural mechanisms create the world – no
need to praise God.
We are half-way in a planet´s history – 4.5 billion years have passed and 5 billion remain. The theory
you now know is, in other words, in cosmic majority – more planets have it than not (if it takes
approximately half of a planet´s history to invent it and if it remains true for the rest of the planet´s
history). Most other planets i.e. the majority of extraterrestrials are ideological adherents of the
theory. Spread this theory to get approval of the majority even though it lives light-years away.
Currently 99.9% of the world´s population lives in the era of religions – spread this theory to end
religious wars and terrorism like 9/11. The world-view (the view/diagrams that explain the world) is
the same in the cosmic majority.
I´ve worked 10 years to invent this theory and as alone bearing it it´s my responsibility that it
spreads. The future civilization in which everyone has the same world-view thus is dependent on me.
I feel a unique ability to influence earth´s future. You, as one who has partaken of this rare
knowledge, should also feel a responsibility about spreading it to change the world.
I´ve talked about the emotional repertoire in the brain-diagram. If we were to genetically engineer
(DNA-manipulate) a next generation, we would A) give it an incredible sense of humor and
knowledge so it could entertain us, and/or B) make it a super-happy retard – retarded because
positive emotions don´t motivate – they pacify – so super-happy is equal to looking like a mongoloid;
needs and wants and everything that drives us is painful – pain motivates while super-happiness
pacifies. We would, by creating these DNA-engineered emotional repertoires (to accomplish the dual
goal of incredible happiness and incredible entertainers/comedians/philosophers), be doing
something that is done on other planets – these are universal engineering goals.
You know that gold plate we sent up into space for aliens to find? It had etched on it images of man,
some music, some other pictures… We didn´t send up the diagram discussed in this book. If the
aliens see the gold plate we did send up, they´ll read between the lines – seeing that there is no
universal diagram – and conclude that: “on earth they still believe in gods”.
You know how most people dedicate a large part of their lives to religion? Once they understand my
tattoo (diagram) they´ll ask themselves: “what the hell have I been praying to?” It resembles a tiny
needle popping a big balloon.
If this book goes mainstream, the future becomes so interesting that one forgets one´s everyday
problems. Interesting important things relieve anxiety (especially when they contain humor like a
universal tattoo).
Nazis were friends with Nazis, communists were friends with communists, USA was friends with USA,
when jihadists meet they share the same ideology and thus bond quickly. My
theory/ideology/religion-replacer is empathy-increasing. The more things people agree upon the
better.
In the diagram/tattoo there are about 16 “lines” (hundreds if we consider the emotional repertoire
being drawn the same on other planets). The sport is to draw as many universal lines as possible –
drawn from science so they can be drawn from science anywhere in the infinite universe.
God is a war-motivator. They say “there are no atheists in trenchholes”. You need a bit of God to do
war. It´s hard to be an atheist warrior. My book, by disproving god, thus makes motivation for war
less.
Gods contribute nothing – one will have the full human experience-repertoire without gods.
Rather no direction than the wrong direction – gods only contribute to war; it´s better to be
tolerantly caveman, uncaring of ideologies/world-views, than to be religious.
It seems mean to say that “it´s their fault that religious wars keep on going – those that won´t study”,
but it´s good marketing. Accomplices.
This book is worth you reading if it solves (or significantly helps) a major problem. It is good
marketing of my book to outline the problem that I solve here. USA is better than war, right? USA has
poor folks committing crime – that´s far better than nations waring. I move the problem from a
macro-scale where nations fight eachother over oil, to an individualistic/family-based/friendshipbased micro-scale where everyone feels as ideological/religious comrades – empathy and friendshipbuildingly sharing the knowledge of this book. I can get everyone to have the same ideology/religionreplacement so that there´ll be no war over the oil that has made us rich enough to not witness
babies dying every day. Nations, races, ideologies, religions – large groups – makes the difference
between war and crime. I solve the problems of macro-war and the friendship problem once
everyone knows my diagrams. The post-oil decline isn´t going to be pretty but we can take all
measures to alleviate it – spread this book.
If God is defined as “the reason for existence” and I present a complete existential theory as a
diagram, and I tattoo the diagram on my arm, is my tattoo then God? No, just a symbol for the
reason for existence. One can tattoo an explanatory model for existence and God has during
thousands of years been defined as the cause for existence.
Jonatan Mustonen, Sweden
[email protected]