top of page

ONE GOD AND THREE GODDESSES

THE ONE AND THREE

Our theological concept is rather simple and polytheistic, though not in the same sense of what one may generally find among other belief systems. The explanation is also very simple in the very meaning of the term ONE AND THREE which is also rooted directly in a correct representation of sacred geometry and our cosmological concepts of the Drikeyu. 

Our most fundamental view is there is Only One God, and yet in unity with him, there are also three separate and distinct, as well as consubstantial, coequal and cooperative Goddesses who are his female counterparts. This means counting himself there is a total of four distinct beings and persons in this concept of Divine Unity.

WHAT WE DO NOT CLAIM

Unlike others, we don't attempt to forcefully combine diverse and distinct pantheons into a singular, confused amalgamation of concepts. Instead, we highlight how cultures that interacted shared similar concepts, even though their approaches differed. We do not claim that all deities are merely different forms, expressions, or manifestations of a single nebulous construct. However, we acknowledge that the One and the Three are too remote to know directly and beyond our ability to form a personalized relationship with.

At the same time, we do not deny or condemn the various types of deities imagined or conceptualized, including deified ancestors. We do not try to suppress or erase the recognition of these entities within different cultures, as it is not our focus. We do not regard all other deities as mere extensions or expressions of the One or the Three. As such, this is our simple way of respecting the beliefs of others even if that is not reciprocated. Simply put, their condemnation of our beliefs is regarded as nothing more than a condemnation of their own and childish at best. 

HISTORY OF THIS FOUNDATION CONCEPT

The basic foundations of the information that will be provided here goes back to as early as 1987 when I, the founder, Raymond Foster, was 14 years of age. While I was pouring through books on mythology, folklore, ancient known archeological sites and learning what various words meant by way of various books on etymology, linguistics and concordances, all while at a local public library, as subjects I was interested in yet were not being offered in public school, I took a lot of notes, made a lot of cross references, made a lot of sketches and began recognizing a lot of patterns that it seemed to me various authors made foot notes about at best while steering one away to a different focus. As such, I chose to focus on those obscured patterns and had the basic foundations in place by 1990.​

However, regardless of the work I did, no one would take such things all that seriously much less even pay much attention to what a then 17-year-old would have to say or present, especially in the areas of philosophy, theology, geometry or linguistics. When I turned 18, I shared some of this information with some friends who didn't quite know how to react to such information. Being surrounded mostly by Christians and a handful of atheists certainly did not help matters much. Because all of that, I put it all on "the shelf" as it were and forgot about it. By the time I was 23 and right after we had a heavy local flood, I had more or less kept it all to myself and most of my notes and sketches I tossed out, in part because they had become damaged and a mess to even bother trying to preserve.

 

In 1997 I began to venture back into my research, and though less openly, keeping it to myself mostly, I explored things more deeply and more seriously regardless of life's ups and downs as it were well into 2009 when I was 36 years old. Eventually some started taking more interest in my artwork expressing these concepts having made it my custom to simply give such artwork away. It was around that time I started sharing this information more directly online through a variety of platforms and free websites that eventually shut down, along with some virtual worlds where I expressed some of these concepts before those same companies closed down. In 2010 -13 I had presented the majority of this information before arriving at the name for this as Druwayu by 2014. I eventually made this name known as the name of the religion in 2015 more openly and have maintained it as such ever since with this theology.    

WHAT WE MEAN BY GOD

Many times, this comes up by those who, instead of seeking a genuine interest, use this question as a mean to invalidate beliefs based on diversity. That wasn't the original purpose of such a question. It was simply to seek clarification on how the concept of God is defined by the individual person one is conversing with and not one that is just a question asked by the atheist. Those asking this question are already aware what the answers of those to whom they ask of this what the answers generally tend to be. Yet the one thing they ignore is the actual meaning of the word itself, mainly because they ignore the language and culture from which this word has arisen in the first place. Without that information, everything else is essentially nonsense.  

THE REAL ORIGIN OF THE NAME GOD:

The first known source of the noun God is Guðan from the Codex Argenteus ("Silver Book"), an illuminated manuscript containing part of the 4th-century translation of the Christian Bible into the Gothic language, believed to have been composed under the supervision of an Arian Bishop named Wulfila who also constructed the Gothic alphabet, written sometime around 520 CE (6th century CE) for Ostragoths, also spelled Godan; meaning Good One. The '-an' suffix for "one" is all that was removed later as the noun developed to present, and prior to the historic "Gothic War" of 535-554 CE. Many sources tend to ignore the actual meaning and seek to associate it with all sorts of other nonsense.

 

He is and was the main deity common to many diverse clans and tribes such as the Winnili (later Lombards), Saxons, Heruls, Gepids, Bulgars, Thuringians and Ostrogoths to name just a few. It was mainly here we see through these Arians, as in those who followed the concepts of Arianism, named after named for Arius, a prominent teacher in Alexandria, Egypt, and more or less rejected the whole Trinitarian concept. 

However, most will only cite ​such sources as a Catholic monk later made a saint named Bede and proclaimed the Father of English History from the 7th century CE. In his work called the Origo Gentis Langobardorum (Latin for "Origin of the Gentile Lombards"), he wrote his own offering of a founding myth of the Longobard people and the naming of them by Godan which itself is an admission of the Pre-Christian source of the name. Being Catholic his presentations would naturally be opposed to Arianism despite both draw from the same sources. He is often cited as the first to write the Bible in Old English. However, the same never cites the previous. 

 

We see here there is admission (though suppressed and various methods are used to mislead and redirect readers to something else) that indeed Godan was the source of the noun reduced over time as the supreme being worshipped by the Germanic tribes, but seldom mentions he was also often associated with three wives. If these wives are ever mentioned, its often vague, or only one is mentioned, and the archeology relating to this is often set aside and claimed to be unrelated. 

What shall be shown here will prove this point, the context, the meaning, the history and etymology of the word “God” reflective of the often ignored and actively suppressed. This will include the more specific aspects of core concepts that were preserved directly or indirectly showing the factual and extensive cultural, linguistic, and philosophical influences, as well as specifics that shapes the essential foundations and structure of Druwayu overall. How such became and is often linked to other cultures and civilizations will also be demonstrated along with presentation of the distinct etymology involved so there is no confusion as is often applied elsewhere without clarifying these distinctions. 

 

GOD AS A GENERIC NOUN OR PREFIX:

The basis of the etymology is as follows: The English word god is an adjective also used as a verb and noun, which itself is derived from the cognates in other Germanic languages that include guþ, gudis (both Gothic), guð (Old Norse), god (Old Saxon, Old Frisian, and Old Dutch), and got (Old High German).

GOD AS AN ADJECTIVE OR SUFFIX:

 

As a clear proof of this one only has to examine the fact that the English word good comes from the Old English god, which itself is derived from the cognates in other Germanic languages include guþ, gudis (both Gothic), guð (Old Norse), god (Old Saxon, Old Frisian, and Old Dutch), gott/gutt (Old and Middle German). 

In both of these examples we see it is clearly the same word, from the same origin, from the same language groups, with the same basic meaning, and with the historical documents in question, we see this repeated as well. It occurs not only in the Codex Argenteus, the Heliand, and The Andreas: a legend of St. Andrew to name a few historical documents. However, it was actually in 1897, that one named William D. Whitney, first proposed that 'god' and 'good' are not related and was simply accepted at face value despite all the evidence to the contrary and still the basis behind much of false information and fictional etymology one will find pertaining to this subject. Nonetheless, here are the counter evidence to demonstrate his conclusions and those who simply regurgitate them are wrong.

 

  1. Evergood: from a’er from æfr “ever” + god “good.”   

  2. Gospel:  from god “good.” + spel “story/news."

  3. Godhouse: from god “good.” + hus “house.”Also used as a term for a shrine or memorial that is dedicated to the divine or considered holy.

  4. Godwill: from god “good.” + wil “will.”

  5. Godspeed: from god “good.” + sped “speed.”

  6. Godwin:  from god “good.” + win “win/gain.”

  7. Godfather: from god “good.” + fodor “father.”

  8. Godmother: from god “good.” + modor “mother.”

  9. Godhead: from god “good.” + hed “head.”

  10. Godhood: from god “good.” + hod “hood.”

  11. Godlove/Gottlieb: from god “good.” + leib/lib/lief/liev/lif/liv/lef = “love/beloved.” Akin to life/leaf/live/leaves. 

  12. Godstow: from god/got + stow “stout/strong.” Figuratively stow is used for stand/enduring as well. 

  13. Godfred: from got (god) + fried (frid) “freed.’ More or less holding the sense of God sets free. 

 

EXAMPLES OF USAGE

  1. Godspeed - May good fortune and success be with you.

  2. Godkin - A close relative or family member, viewed as good and beloved.

  3. Godless - Not good, lacking goodness, unethical or immoral.

  4. Godward - Moving or directed towards goodness.

  5. Godric - A 'good ruler' with the favor or blessing of goodness.

  6. Godsend - A sudden or unexpected benefit, perceived as being a gift of goodness.

  7. Godhead - The essence or nature of goodness.

  8. Godparent - A person who takes on the responsibility of guiding a child in goodness.

  9. Godspell - Good news or message, synonymous with the term gospel.

  10. Godbound - Dedicated or committed to goodness.

  11. Godchild - A child who is guided and nurtured in goodness.

  12. Godhouse - A place of worship or sanctuary, dedicated to goodness.

  13. Godling - A minor figure or being endowed with goodness.

  14. Godman - A person characterized by saintliness and moral integrity.

  15. Godrood - A sacred or revered cross, symbolizing goodness.

  16. Godwottery - An ornate or sentimental style in gardening, embodying an appreciation for the goodness of nature.

  17. Godspire - A church spire or tower, reaching towards goodness.

  18. Godmonth - A sacred or significant month, celebrated for its association with goodness.

  19. Godstone - A sacred stone, revered for its connection to goodness.

  20. Godstow - An old English term for a place of religious retreat or sanctuary, dedicated to the pursuit of goodness.

  21. Godwardly - Acting in a manner directed towards goodness.

  22. Godyear - A year marked by prosperity and good fortune.

  23. Godcroft - An old term for a small, enclosed field used for burials, implying a 'good croft'.

  24. Godsteading - An old term for a homestead or place of residence, which could also refer to a sacred burial site.

  25. Godwick - An ancient term for a dwelling place or settlement with a burial ground, implying a 'good wick'.

  26. Godmote - An old term referring to a divine council or assembly, often associated with sacred sites, including burial grounds.

  27. Godyard - An ancient term for a graveyard, implying a 'good yard'.

  28. Godacre - A historical term for a piece of land set aside for burials, implying a 'good acre'.

  29. Godmound - An ancient term for a burial mound that is considered sacred or blessed, implying a 'good mound'.

  30. Godground - Refers to a burial ground or cemetery that is considered sacred or blessed, implying a 'good ground'.

  31. Godvale - A valley or lowland area used for burials, considered holy or blessed, implying a 'good vale'.

  32. Godrest - The state of rest or peace granted by goodness, often referring to the final resting place of the deceased.

  33. Godgrave - A grave that is considered sacred or blessed, implying a 'good grave'.

  34. Godburial - A burial conducted under divine guidance or blessing, implying a 'good

HISTORICAL GENDER BASED VARIATIONS

There are those that will still try to deny the gender based specific words and titles and names and adjectives out of personal delusions, yet just because such reject reality does not make reality go away. As such, the following clarifies these gender specific words many get wrong all the time while others intentionally perpetuate such words in neutral forms by which they do not actually apply. We must not allow ourselves to submit to such nonsense.

MASCULINE = MALE GENDER/SEX 

These Masculine words are indicative of male gender/sex, as the word gender is akin to the words generate, generation, genetics, and gene all related to concepts of procreation and biology whereas the term sex is used also in the sense of the gender role in reproduction and physics. 

FEMININE = FEMALE GENDER/SEX 

These Feminine words are indicative of female gender/sex, as the word gender is akin to the words generate, generation, genetics, and gene all related to concepts of procreation and biology whereas the term sex is used also in the sense of the gender role in reproduction and physics. 

MASCULINE SINGULAR

  1. Godan = God

  2. Götten = God

  3. Gudan = God

  4. Gudhan = God

  5. Gothen = God

  6. Goðan = God 

 

 


FEMININE SINGULAR

 

  1. Godin = Goddess

  2. Göttin = Goddess

  3. Gudinne = Goddess

  4. Gudinna = Goddess

  5. Gudinde = Goddess

  6. Gyðia = Goddess​

MASCULINE PLURAL

  1. Godannen = Gods

  2. Göttennen = Gods

  3. Gudanner = Gods

  4. Gudhannor= Gods

  5. Gothener = Gods

  6. Goðanir = Gods

 

 


FEMININE PLURAL

 

  1. Godinnen = Goddesses

  2. Göttinnen = Goddesses

  3. Gudinner = Goddesses

  4. Gudinnor= Goddesses

  5. Gudinder = Goddesses

  6. Gyðiur = Goddesses

CROSS LINGUSTIC MASCULINE AND FEMININE FORMS:

 

It must be noted that it was not till the 1500s that the majority of these kinds of cross-cultural linguistic comparisons were being made mostly to equate everything to Latin, and when the feminine forms of the reduced name Godan to Godd and then God was being developed, such as Godd-es using the masculine prefix, applying it neutrally as an adjective while ignoring the meaning, and combining it with a Latin feminine suffix -es combined as godd-es and refined as goddess. The previous examples were and are simply examples of native linguistic variations rooted largely in Scandinavian dialects. 

  1. God: Latin and Greek Deu and Theo, Hebrew and Aramaic El/Al

  2. Gods: Latin and Greek Diosi and Theoi, Hebrew and Aramaic Elim/Alu

  3. Goddess:  Latin and Greek Dea and Thea, Hebrew and Aramaic Elat/Alat

  4. Goddesses:  Latin and Greek Deae and Theae, Hebrew and Aramaic Elatim/Alatu

A COMMON FALSE ETYMOLOGY:

 

When confronted with these facts, others have attempted to claim (and still due despite it is a widely known academic fact to be false) that the noun God and Gad are the same. It's already been proven where the noun and adjective of God stems from. Gad, also spelled Gat is from Semitic sources and means "portion" and figuratively "luck." It occurs as a generic term and a name with no negative connotations as many foolish people proclaim, such as in Gaddi and Gatti (Gad is pronounced like 'dad' and gatti is usually pronounced g-at-tee). The false claims are made mostly by those who have no actual comprehension of basic linguistics. 

ANCIENT AND MODERN COMPARISONS:

 

Now, while it is generally assumed this has no historical context or reflection anywhere else, that is actually false. In fact, there are several examples from the ancient world found in modern times where the following comparisons were made though the mythological foundations varied or were different. For most, it was clear such lore were considered simply different stories expressing different ideas and opinions without conflicting with a sense the same deities were being represented among these cultures that had a much older and longer interaction with one another than once claimed. Take it or leave it, these examples are factual.

  1. The God 'An' (cognizant with One), and the Three Goddesses Nammu, Kia and Uras (Middle East).

  2. The God Al, and the Three Goddesses Astarte, Asherat, and Anath (Middle East).

  3. The God is Kronos, and the three Goddesses Dione, Aphrodite, and Rhea (Philo of Byblos).

  4. Theos/Deus/Zeus Moiragetes, and the three Goddesses (Moirae) Klotho, Lakhesis, and Atropos (Greek).

  5. Jupiter Dux Parcae, and the three Goddesses (Parcae) Nona, Decuma and Morta (Roman).

  6. The God Shai, and three Goddesses Meskhenet, Renenutet, and Shepset (Egyptian).

  7. The God Ptah, and three Goddesses Sekhmet, Bastet and Wadjet (Egyptian).

  8. The God Brahma, and three Goddesses Savitri, Sarasvati, and Gayatri (India).

  9. The God Vishnu, and three Goddesses Lakshmi, Bhumi and Ganga (india).

  10. The God Shiva, and the three Goddesses Parvati, Durga and Kali (India).

  11. The God Rod, and the three Goddesses Rozhanitzy, Narucznica, Udelnica (Slavic).

  12. Godan, and the three Goddesses Friya, Rinda, and Iurda (Scandinavian).

  13. The Mimir and the three Norns generally named Urd, Verdandi, and Skuld (Icelandic). 

SPECIFIC DETAILS OF THE ONE AND THREE

THE CORE DETAILS

 

Now that the actual meaning of the words has been clarified, we will be using the more basic concept of One God and Three Goddesses in the general sense of One Male Deity and Three Female Deities above and beyond all others within the Druan perspective. We have no concern who acknowledges or agrees with this as outside conclusions have no relevance beyond mere opinions and presumptions. ​

ASSOCIATED ATTRIBUTES:

 

The next thing to consider is shared attributes and abilities. Like so many other things they are not properly clarified as to the actual sense of their base concepts and how they are in fat interconnected and mutually complimentary when placed in proper perspectives. Some of these words will likely be unfamiliar to most so there is clarification of the meaning and he association. In this case it is not that people are stupid in this regard as much as most are no longer taught about these concepts properly which is unfortunate. 

PRIMARY ATTRIBUTES:

 

  1. Omnibenevolence (All good, as in good at everything)

  2. Omnicompetence (All capable, as in order to do anything and everything)

  3. Omnipotence (All power, meaning the center and source of all other powers)

  4. Omnipresence (All Present, meaning everywhere present)

  5. Omniscience (All knowing, meaning having all knowledge of the actual and potential)

  6. Eternity (Time without end)

  7. Infinite (Without Limits). 

SECONDARY ATTRIBUTES:

 

  1. Aseity (Self Existence, meaning source and continuation of existence is from within self)

  2. Immutable (Unchanged, unchanging and unchangeable)

  3. Impassible (No experience of any suffering, pleasure or pain of or like others)

  4. Immortal (Not subject to and free from death)

  5. Impeccable (Does not act contrary to one’s own will or nature)

  6. Incomprehensible (Not able to be fully known or understood)

  7. Incorporeal (Does not have a base material body, but does not mean lacking a body)

  8. Immovable (Not able to be moved or removed).

  9. Incomparable (Cannot be compared or likened to anything or anyone else).

  10. Infallible (Not able to be or proven wrong or false, and the essence of impersonal truth)

  11. Ineffable (Beyond the he capacity of symbol or language to fully describe or express).

 

SYMBOLIC ASSOCIATIONS

 

The next thing to consider is shared attributes and abilities. Like so many other things they are not properly clarified as to the actual sense of their base concepts and how they are in fat interconnected and mutually complimentary when placed in proper perspectives.

GOD’S THREE ASPECTS

 

Over this same period of coming up with ways in which to draw from these native concepts of God and the three Goddesses as well, the specific terms or concepts were likewise developed as part of this processes of creating corresponding terms related to these various ideas that actually were to some degree rather similar and so were applied as such within those same contexts. For Latin trained theologians the term Divinity was applied as Godhead or Godhood. The identity or person of God was applied as shown already to that of Deus that was originally Deu, and his expressed Divine Power was applied as God’s Spirit.

  • GODHEAD: Also known as Godhood, it represents all of Divine attributes, abilities and nature that makes God to be God. This aspect is not in itself a separate part or entity unto itself. Theologically it is this aspect is linked with Deism that tends to focus mostly on this impersonal, remote and incomprehensible and unknowable nature of God himself. It sometimes refers to God the person but only vaguely.

  • GOD: The person, mind, soul, self, identity and being of God himself that is personal and entirely male. This means he as a personal being, though not knowable in the sense of his mind or thoughts, desires or will, is purely male because he is not a union of opposites but rather the absence of them. Theologically this aspect is linked with Theism most directly. It may acknowledge his other aspects but only in part.

  • GOD’S SPIRIT: This is sometimes metaphorically referred to as the life-giving breath of God as the word spirit means wind, breathe and air. And like a breath he projects it out as an expression of his power and presence and life-giving essence but can also withdraw it as inhaling to withdraw his life-giving essence, power and presence. This is used metaphorically that when he exhales, he creates and gives life, but when he inhales, he destroys and ends life.

CONSIDERATIONS

  1. Theologically this aspect is linked with Pantheism that God is present in and expressed though all things and is the essence of all things. While it vaguely references God himself in his personhood, it focuses more on how through his common essence of God is imminent and transcendent and can be sensed and experienced in and through everything, though some places and things are considered as having a higher or less concentration of this power and presence than others.

  2. It also tends to carry a sense that there is no need to try and represent him because he is already represented by all that was, is or will ever be. It also is often used to present the sense that even if all the forms and expressions of him and therefore existence as we perceive it were suddenly to cease to exist and return by to this essence.  

GOD’S THREE WIVES

 

The following examples are used for clarification of concept and context and are not to be considered as synonymous with any particular sets of mythologies or blurring of them, though for some ancient philosophers, similar considerations were very much part of their own contemplations and expressions. As to those who proclaim God does not have or does not need wives, two simple rebuttals exist for that. The same will claim with God all things are possible.

 

So, to deny the possibility of his three wives as realities not only denies all things are possible with God statement is to also deny known historical examples where the contrary is true. The second is to assume a lack of need means a lack of reality which is definitively nonsensical.

 

We can offer a simple third rejection of such a conclusion; they are putting themselves in place of God and decreeing what God can or cannot do or what God does or does not have, or what God can or cannot have which is more or less proclaiming themselves to be and know the mind of God himself which by their own decrees is at the very least slanderous and deceitful. 

CREATIVE ASPECTS: AS THE THREE GRACES

 

We can liken the three Goddesses in their coequal creative aspects as in the concept of the three Graces, also called the Charities. In this sense they are associated very frequently with charm, beauty, nature, creativity, goodwill, festivity, rewards, compassion, mercy, desire, potency, friendships, marriages, and fertility. They can also sometimes be associated with diverse arts and crafts as well as commerce. But in this role, they are also weavers in the acts of creating. More often than not, these are the aspects that tend to be over focused on by most, often to the disregard of the other two which are just as important to recognize.

MAINTAINING ASPECTS: AS THE THREE FATES

 

We can liken the three Goddesses in their coequal maintaining aspects the three Fates or Establishing Ones, though they are also named as Apportioning Ones or Sharers. The more accurate sense in English is the Three Sisters that maintain and regulating the harmonies of things in accordance with God’s own laws. In this sense they are associated very frequently with harmony, order, focus, logic, reason, purpose, necessity, knowledge, wisdom, understanding, judgment, and root causes, as well as to a factor teaching and learning. This makes them often expressed as being inexplicable and more mysterious because they also radiate this from God himself.

DESTRUCTIVE ASPECTS: AS THE THREE FURIES

 

We can liken the Three Goddesses in their coequal destructive aspects as like unto the concept of the three Furies. In this sense they are associated very frequently with retribution, consequences, chaos, destruction, vengeance, jealousy, torment, punishment, pain, suffering, warfare, violence, plagues, and also fulfillment of responsibility, retribution and consequences. One can say metaphorically this is their aspect along with God when the gloves come off and things it’s about to hit the fan. However, to assume this aligns with evil or being all dark would be a grave mistake and trying to delve into this too deeply will only be overwhelming and self-destructive because this destructiveness is based in reciprocal justice.

One important thing to note is many times each of the three Goddesses are given figurative names, just like God is given such names and spoke of from time to time in veiled way, in both Greek and Hebrew. It's a known fact that unfortunately those who wish to push out the clear polytheism even from their own texts choose to ignore and further obscure which is itself simple theological and cultural dishonesty. Nonetheless, the main ones are provided:

From Greek feminine nouns (all three happening to be associated with speech)

Note that Greek is written here from left to right rather than right to left in native form. 

  1. Γνῶσις: Gnosis. Knowledge

  2. Σοφός: Sophia. Wisdom

  3. Σύνεσις: Sunesis. Understanding.

 

From Hebrew feminine nouns (all three also happening to be associated with speech)

Note that Hebrew is written right to left rather than left to right in native form.

 

  1. דֵּעָה Deah. Knowledge

  2. חָכְמָה Chokmah. Wisdom

  3. בִּינָה Binah. Understanding

 

Some claim or use the excuse that this is only a reflection of "King Solomon's sin" of embracing foreign deities into the worship of the main deity of his kingdom because of the influence of all his "foreign" wives and concubines. Others try and identify them as a single female counterpart in three modes of action or try and identify two as one and the same such as Asherah/Asherat was revered as Athirat and set the other off to the side.

LINKING NAMES WITH MONTHS OF THE YEAR 

 

The following are based more on Scandinavian rooted language sources and based on meaning and not a particular mythology to be the main guide behind the associations with the particular months and related seasons. This should not, therefore, be considered some sort of attempted "reconstruction" of any one particular source or attempted "reconciliation" of conflicting myths and folklore.

 

THE THREE SUB-NAMES OF GODAN

  1. WINTER/DECEMBER: WULDER (WIELDER) Associated Winter Storms and with festivity and sharing of resources and gestures of peace and friendship.

  2. SPRING/APRIL: SADAN (SEEDER). Associated Light and Life, with young male animals beginning to fight for dominance and to attract mates of the opposite sex.

  3. SUMMER/AUGUST: GRIM (GRIME) Associated with hunting and harvesting and the selection of animals to be slaughtered for food resources.

THE THREE AS THE THREE SISTER GODDESSES

​​

WEVA (WEAVER), SPINNA (SPINNER) AND KUTA (CUTTER): All three associated with crafting tools, clothes, and mending such as tents used for temporary shelters, making of nets to capture fish and other animals, as well as measuring the conditions of life for all things. They are various known as the Wayward Sisters, the Wyrd Sisters and the Nornir/Norns to name but a few. The following will be the associated sub-names and will show how they connect with the sub-names of Godan. 

FOR GODDESS 1: WEVA (THE WEAVER)

  • JANUARY: LITA (LIGHTS). Consort of Sadan.

  • MAY: BLOMA (BLOOMS). Consort of Grim.

  • SEPTEMBER: GIFA (GIVER). Consort of Wulder.

 

FOR GODDESS 2: SPINNA (THE SPINNER)

  1. FEBRUARY: FULLA (FULLNESS). Consort of Sadan.

  2. JUNE: GRANI (GRAIN/GREENS). Consort of Grim.

  3. OCTOBER: HELIA (HEALER). Consort of Wulder.

 

FOR GODDESS 3: KUTTA (THE CUTTER)​

  1. MARCH: BRYD (BRIDE). Consort of Sadan.

  2. JULY: RUNA (RED). Consort of Grim.

  3. NOVEMBER: SKADI (SHADY). Consort of Wulder.

SACRED GEOMETRY'S ACTUAL SECRET

WHAT SACRED GEOMETRY IS

Sacred Geometry, as a word, comes from the combination of Sacred from Latin sacrare meaning Set Apart + Geometry meaning Earth Measure; from Greek gemetria and Latin geometria combining gē/geo "land" + metria "measuring. Old English used holi "holy" + Old English used eorðcræft "earth-craft." It all began as civilizations were beginning to measure the seasons to improve upon hunting, then the domestication of animals once hunted which inspired the development of agriculture, and from then on, the establishment of villages, towns, cities, states and nations as plots of land were measured out to establish claimed plots of land and private properties.

In short, it was all derived from observations in nature which inspired the symbolism, and all based on the concept of a dot, line and circle. All of this also gave use the foundations of all mathematics. As such the symbolism was derived directly from observations of nature and simple realizations of underlining laws or rules of nature all things are bound to and by. These realizations also brought to the forefront a realization of the theological and philosophical qualities of these early sciences which we, more or less, use as our own creation story and how this expresses the concepts of the One God and Three Goddesses expressed in and through everything.

RULE ONE: INFINITY

Infinity and eternity cannot be properly represented by any image or object. The very notion of infinity and eternity by finite and temporal beings is by default entirely inconceivable and incomprehensible. As such, a simple circumference or outer circle is drawn to retain any and all patterns within it to isolate the designs, but this has no other association than the infinite and eternal. Its number is zero.

RULE TWO: INDIVIDUALITY

The faculty of mind and what we define as the self cannot be seen but only expressed. So, a central dot, point or sphere represents Personality, Individuality and all concepts of Personhood such as the Soul complete with Mind, Intellect, Emotion, Desire, Will, Self Awareness and Consciousness. It is therefore all that is relative and relational, knowable and definable as a personal distinctive being. Its number is one.

RULE THREE: MALE STRAIGHT LINES

Based on the rigid human male form of roughly squared shapes, all straight lines composed of energy represent the male, and the masculine nature and gender identity that is the wellspring of life. It is associated more with the force based in hardness, thought, concreteness, rules, projection, singularity, penetration and action. Thus, all straight lines are male. Its number is two to represent the male as active or inactive.

RULE FOUR: FEMALE CURVED LINES

Based on the softer and flexible human female form of roughly smooth shapes, all curved lines composed of energy represent the female, her feminine nature and gender identity and the womb of creation. It is associated more with the force based in emotions, empathy, instincts, intuition, abstraction, absorption, multiplication, reception and passiveness. Thus, all curved lines are female. Its number is three.

NECESSITY TO ABIDE BY THE RULES

The process for sorting out the geometric lines and their meaning is based on following these rules from 1-4 and not backtracking on them. Many examples are presented which often do just that, or the sources of such deceptions engage in skipping over specific processes rather than following the processes step by step from rule 1 on through to rule 4 as they should be doing to create a deceptive narrative. Others still simply repeat the same deceptions having been taught the wrong way to do things and often ignore the rules all together and insert their own assumptions which causes the system to break down and never have any real sense of connection with objective reality. The following will be straightforward, abide by the sequence of the rules and clarify the context of that information so that it is understandable and coherent.

STAGE ONE

GOD and the unknowable totality or fullness are indistinguishable and as such it is expressed as the infinite point before God defines and more or less creates himself. He does so by withdrawing himself from his own infinity to a singular point as the point of his Mind and creates a vacuum or void, still connected with his infinite Godhead, and his presence still within that void. From there he sets the parameters for 3D space as three beams or axes as projections of his power as God's spirit into six opposite directions creating seven points. This becomes the Seven Fold Spirit of God. then all he does is connect all the end points creating the octahedron as his Spirit Body. In 3D form it appears as a hexagon. This fulfills the first 3 rules.

0
1
2
3

STAGE TWO
 

GOD then rotates on his own center the three axes at 180° so both ends of each axis completes three different rings as parameters of a perfect circle. This is the reverse process of his own formation as it is from this point that he then separates them from his own center or mind generating three other minds as the centers of all three coequal, yet separate and distinct rings, and rotates them on their own centers wherein he generated the three Goddesses from himself without diminishing himself by converting his masculine force into three distinct female forces.

 

They are not his daughters because he did not birth them nor sire them from or through another. This makes their qualities in complete opposition to his own without that opposition being conflicting or conflicted. He then simply reconnects with them equally and mutually having established them from "all eternity" before anything else.  .

4
5
6

STAGE THREE
 

GOD and the Three GODDESSES now form the Divine Unity. The next stage is their acts of replicating their forms or geometry constantly till the density of the nonphysical power, energy and mathematics becomes encoded and eventually collapses in upon itself, converting the nonphysical into the physical and ruptures in what is known as the big bang and inflation takes over as the converted physical forces and substances of the universe rush forth to fill the vacuum of the primordial void.

 

The One and Three being non-physical entities above and beyond all are not affected by this and the established laws and dynamics encoded by them into the primordial seed of being take over. In addition, the One and Three are not Bound by these laws or mathematics because he and they defined them through their activities.  

 

In this way they are reflected in and through all to those who are able to realize it even if they cannot fully grasp or comprehend all of it, much less the One and Three. Eventually as all the galactic seeds form and so forth eventually our solar system, like many others, takes shape, the Earth forms with the moon and so forth, and the mysteries of life take over.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

STAGE FOUR
 

The One and Three are not themselves condensed into their creation which is something that must be understood. The combined energy or power that becomes the essence of the primordial seed or singularity  from which this universe emerges as a conversion of the nonphysical into the physical is instead separated from them and this power so that the universe energy is equal to its mass and massless-energy relationships calculated more accurately in physics as E2 = (mc2)2 + (pc)2 or more or less complete form of the energy-momentum relation equations with lack of motion equations.

 

In any case it is from the moment of the conversion of non-physical massless energy into physical mass and physical massless energy and particles that from the moment of its eruption and inflation, the processes programmed mathematically into this primal seed of the universe that expands back out into the vacuum within the unknowable fullness of infinity takes over and abides by the principal concepts of the Drikeyu (The Three Keys of Laws, Dynamics and Life Energy). So, we see there is both compatibility and continuation of the same core foundations. 

From then on the processes of the formation of the Scaffolding associated with "Dark Matter and Dark Energy" of the Universe allows for the formation of clusters of galaxies around super massive black holes and formation of stars, and from the formation and explosion of stars producing the denser materials and gases forms into planets, moons and other cosmic debris all eventually allows for the formation of solar systems like our own and here on this planet the formation of life and eventfully us. This is represented as:

16
17
inflation
18
solar system
19
20
21
life in the water
22
prehistoric life in the land
life in the lands
human madness

Clearly, we as human beings, as any other being we share this world and universe with, are not the main or central focus over any others when to comes to creation. We also cannot declare with any truth or certainty why One and Three would create anything in the first place as in motivations, goals, desires or interests regardless of who claims some sort of special inside knowledge so as to elevate themselves over all others.

 

Unfortunately, many in the ancient and still in the preset times do just that regardless of its related to an acceptance of the belief in the One and Three or no belief in such things whatsoever. What is clear is we have, as a species, lived up more to our worse rather than better potentials which is sad, though there have been the rare better of us.

life wheel concept.png

If one is comprehending all this so far, then it should be easy to understand that in concept we have everything initiated by the One and Three converting the non-physical into the physical and back again.  This can be presented as:

 

From Pure Energy (PE) is produced Pure Matter (PM).

(PE) and (PM) combined produce all living things or biology as Living Matter (LM).

When the (PM) form decays and dies it releases Living Energy (LE).

(LE) is the entity one can call a ghost, composed of memory patterns, personalities and states of awareness.
(LE) can then reunite with (PE) without becoming lost or erased in the process and eventually return to a new (LM) state or remain in a (LE) to have some amount of influence on the physical (PM) and (LM) states of being, albeit, in a limited way. 

This all goes back to the simple factor everything is reciprocal in one form or another, while also acknowledging that fundamental essence we call energy cannot itself be created or destroyed, but its patterns can, which then allows this same energy to be more or less recycled and simply change forms or be converted into new patterns, since forms are themselves simply patterns that give rise to the concepts of structure and embodiment. All the potentials and specifics are merely the details. This then also makes clear all concepts of an afterlife and reincarnation are both natural processes and realities unto themselves.

 

This also in no way diminishes the concept or potential of multidimensional realities, innumerable universes, or worlds in the unknowable totality of things far beyond our knowledge or perceptions or imaginations. In fact, we can also increase the patterns leading up to all this adding even more complexities which increases diversity of dimensions at every step of these processes and still arrive at the same final results, just more intensely so.  

a1
a2
a3
a4
Cosmo Const

Many will not even recognize such things that are right before their very eyes, and some will literally talk themselves into willful ignorance about such matters, especially when the things of the scientific also align with the things of the spiritual, theological, and philosophical. ​As a case in point, this has 6 Primary Cosmological Constants. While there are indeed even more, these are the main ones that are better known to show clearly that the purely materialistic view of existence as being something occurring by pure chance or dumb luck is nonsensical. They are represented here within this geometric design by the specific symbols of associations often described as being the Fine-Tuning observable within the expressions and measurements of the mathematical expressions of natural laws that are eternally expressed everywhere. It's known to be real and simply cannot be accounted for by dumb luck or mere chance.

These are the 6 dimensionless physical constants broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects 'fine-tuned' for the allowance of the emergence of physical biological life and emergence of intelligences. These concepts present the same basic perspective of intelligent agency and causes within information theories as an essential foundational reality expressed through everything. 

  1. N, the ratio of the electromagnetic force to the gravitational force between a pair of protons, is approximately 10 to the 36. If it were significantly smaller, only a small and short-lived universe could exist.

  2. Epsilon (ε), a measure of the nuclear efficiency of fusion from hydrogen to helium, is 0.007: when four nucleons fuse into helium, 0.007 (0.7%) of their mass is converted to energy. The value of ε is in part determined by the strength of the strong nuclear force. If ε were 0.006, a proton could not bond to a neutron, and only hydrogen could exist, and complex chemistry would be impossible. If it were above 0.008, no hydrogen would exist, as all the hydrogen would have been fused shortly after Inflation (the Big Bag) commenced though it’s also possible substantial hydrogen remains as long as the strong force coupling constant increases by less than about 50%.

  3. Omega (Ω), commonly known as the density parameter, is the relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the universe. It is the ratio of the mass density of the universe to the "critical density" and is approximately 1. If gravity were too strong compared with dark energy and the initial cosmic expansion rate, the universe would have collapsed before life could have evolved. If gravity were too weak, no stars would have formed.

  4. Lambda (Λ), describes the ratio of the density of so called ‘dark energy’ to the critical energy density of the universe, given certain reasonable assumptions such as that dark energy density is a constant. In terms of Planck units, and as a natural dimensionless value, Λ is on the order of 10 to the 122. This is so small that it has no significant effect on cosmic structures that are smaller than a billion light-years across. A slightly larger value of the cosmological constant would have caused space to expand rapidly enough that stars and other astronomical structures would not be able to form.

  5. Q, the ratio of the gravitational energy required to pull a large galaxy apart to the energy equivalent of its mass, is around 10−5. If it is too small, no stars can form. If it is too large, no stars can survive because the universe is too violent.

  6. D, the number of spatial dimensions in space-time, is 3; specifically, width, length and depth, often expressed as three planes along their own X, Y and Z axes vital to motion.


The design also contains the primary Platonic Solids associated with elemental forces and principles, 5 primary ones to be specific and as shown. The following chart demonstrates how these are tied together with five primary elemental concepts with the center point being most commonly defined less as an elemental force than its specific link to the concept of the mind.  

Earth/Solids: Associated with the direction of the North, Midnight and the Season of Winter. The element of Earth as solids represents the ordered pattern of atoms into structured forms and likewise expresses the core concepts of its nature a such as immoveable and is also the force that gives things a solid a definite volume and shape. Examples of solids include rocks, wood, metal, and ice. Therefore, it represents these qualities of the One and Three as the source of all stability, design and purpose throughout all existence.

In a solid, the atoms are packed closely together in an ordered pattern and cannot move, giving a solid a definite volume and shape. Examples of solids include rocks, wood, metal, and ice as well as such things as sand, bone, glass to name bit a few such expressions. Its geometric shape is the cube.

 

Wind/Gases: Associated with the direction of the East, Sunrise and the Season of Spring. The element of Wind as Gases less condensed atomic structure of atoms into structured forms but with the quality that these atoms can move around unrestricted and able to diffuse and spread and produce such things as atmospheres and changes in pressure. Examples of the expressions of this quality include steam, vapor, and such chemical gases as hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, methane, and helium as well as essentials for the previous two elements. Therefore, it represents these qualities of the One and Three as being likewise boundless, inspiring and everywhere present.

In a gas, there is more space between atoms. The atoms can move so freely that if the gas is not trapped in a container, the atoms will diffuse and spread throughout the atmosphere. Examples of gases are oxygen and nitrogen (in the air we breathe), helium, and steam (water vapor). Its geometric shape is the octahedron.

 

Fire/Plasmas: Associated with the direction of South, Noon and the Season of Summer. The element of Fire as Plasma is the most loosely connected patterns of atomic structure. Structured somewhat similar to gases, there is so much energy in plasmas that the atoms split into smaller pieces allowing them to carry electrical current and generate magnetic fields and expressions such as light, fire storm and solar winds, and lightning which also produces the sound of thunder. This expresses qualities of the One and Three as being likewise energizing, as well as their creative and destructive powers, and power over life and death.

In a plasma, the atoms are spaced similarly to gas except there is so much energy in plasma, the atoms actually split into smaller pieces. Plasmas are able to carry an electrical current and generate magnetic fields. Examples of plasmas include lightning, solar wind, the sun, fluorescent lights, and neon signs. Its geometric shape is the Tetrahedron.

 

Water/Liquids: Associated with the direction of West, Sunset and the Season of Autumn/Fall: The element of Water as liquids represents the ordered pattern of atoms into structured forms but with the quality that these atoms can move around each other and likewise can take the shape of whatever contains it. Such expressions of this fluidity include fresh and salt water, rain and mist, various chemicals and various states of other forms of matter such as mercury, and hot lava, but can also apply to snow, sand and soil that can move freely.

In a liquid, the atoms are close together but can move around each other. This allows a liquid to take the shape of whatever container it is placed in. Examples of liquids include room temperature water, room temperature mercury, and hot lava (molten rock). Its geometric shape is the Icosahedron.

 

Spirit/Power/Essence: Associated with all and no direction as well as all and no times and seasons. The word itself literally means being in the sense of an indefinable thing that can only be known through other things that express it when used in the context of essence or power though the word Spirit itself means breath and also wind or air, though it's now in the sense of energy/power/vital essence. It is sometimes called energy which literally means inner working. This connects it of course with the concept of Wihas which itself simply means life and akin to Latin Vita since this essence is the force or principle that powers the ‘being’ of everything known and unknown alike.  

Since we have reached this point in which I have mentioned this principle of Wihas, which can be pronounced "wey-haws, wih-hoss, or the like based on one's personal linguistic dialect, it is time to clarify another concept that connects the One and Three and also the connection with the concept of Wights with cosmological concepts that can be likewise expressed and is expressed in the scientific, theological, philosophic, social and more. It's called the Drikeyu which means Three Keys and each Key has its own name and associations. 

As such, in a more or less "spirit body" type concept, though some may go the route of more anthropomorphic representations, the One and Three are all four expressed each of these elemental principles and concepts accordingly in the sense of being embodied as Elemental Deities rather than the more generic sense of elemental beings of which there is a difference, even though it isn't always readily realized by that many people for the most part. 

The pentagram also contains another curious secret that most seldom ever realize. It is composed of three irregular triangles as pyramid shapes. When one slits out these three irregular triangles and adjusts their positions, the recombine into a tetrahedron or regular triangular form. This is often regarded as the "unknown" expression of the One and Three in the very essence of every person in a way that most also would never come to realize without it being demonstrated first. This is of course the center point is associated with the One God and the three end points with each Goddess.

ne can also readily see that this would be, by the regular triangular form alone a representation of 3 angles of 60° or 3 x 60° = 180°. 180° is as such the triangulation of a half circle. Creating a hexagram form, as well as a double pentagram called a decagram would then represent 360° of a whole circle which also expresses the concept of completion and wholeness, and for some, the unbroken circle also represents the totality of all creation, as well as eternality and infinity which aligns with the original rules of True Sacred Geometry. From this we can also come to make some other very clear connections that are symbolic expressions of the One and Three reflected in and through nature from the following associations also often placed within a geometric based context and symbolism. 

Divine Unity and 22

In this structure, we have the central point representing the Point of God as the "Cosmic Light." It is white as it represents and is a known observation that White Light, when it passes through a prism, breaks into a spectrum six primary light colors of a rainbow in the six directions of 3D space using the basic color. These primary six colors are: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, and violet. From these there are then an infinite range of additional colors in the various wavelength spectrums of visible and invisible light. This is then followed by the triangulation of the three Goddesses, each usually associated more with the material shaping of the universe often in a similar sense of demiurges using a philosophical term. Each one is associated most commonly with the classical elements of Wind, Fire, and Water since Earth represents the physical universe. "Earth" as the material universe is broken down into twelve segments usually associated with months and the Zodiac. 

In this case the next principle is rather simple to sort out the connections which can again be simplified and made more comprehensible which other sources tend to make over complicated and seldom point out, or if they do, they often try to impose some other concept in the mix that violates the afore mentioned rules to be maintained. Simply put the point associated with God and the 6 "rays" of the 6 directions associated with 3-dimensional space, and in some cases the concept of 3-fold time as past, present, and future, equals 7. This is because the 1 central light and 6 prime spectrum colors. This also often covers what is often called the Solar alignment.

With the three Goddesses expressed and 3 mother elements and the 12 points as a duplication of the previous 6 rays, associated also with months, the calculation is usually 3 + 12 = 15.  15 + 7 = 22. This of course is aligned to the Old Phoenician letter system composed of 22 consonants and no vowels. However, there is another way this can be counted which is also often missed if one is also paying attention still. The 6 directions from the center and the 12 external points = 18. We can also achieve similar with the decagram if we count the points of a pentagram correctly which most don't. This will also be demonstrated.

 

Then there are the points used often for representing the One God and Three Goddesses as = 4 for the obvious reason they are four distinct beings unto themselves, and 18 + 4 = 22. This is often linked to the 22-letter system of writing created by the Canaanites, otherwise known as the Phoenicians by the Greeks. It should also be noted that once again, even the Canaanites held the same concept of One God and Three Goddesses as his consorts and likewise were also often represented as personal beings unto themselves but otherwise remote from everyone and everything. Likewise, the association of the One God with numbers and Three Goddesses with writing is also extremely ancient. 

One must be extremely careful to guard themselves from many of the various occult distortions behind such things as these, especially when such examples as these demonstrate the connections with such as hexagrams, pentagrams, triangles and the like only to impose some sort of fictitious "diabolical" constructs or delusional concepts of androgyny completely ignoring and breaking the rules and the factual histories of such things to then simply impose their own rewriting of history or inventing history about the past that has no actual attested and incontestable proof of such claims being remotely probable, and more often than not based off inaccurate and incomplete data all together. Such deceptions, are, unfortunately, diverse. 

hexa_cross

A good example of how one side of this will be presented as irredeemably "bad" will only have the same sources see something like this example and use this instead as some sort of claim of proof of the true "evidence of divinity" expressed through their own particular redirected set of assumptions and beliefs. As this shows, we have the connection of the forms of the hexagon, converted to a hexagonal cube, which we can break apart into 6 faces, but also unfold unto a cross form, while also using the same to change the angles of view to create the structured form of an octahedron. As shown previously, all of these are once again able to be linked directly with the forms of the pentagon, pentacles, demonstrate such things as the golden spiral and rectangles, back to the form of irregular triangles and angular basic pyramid form. No one ever realizes Pyramid is a compound of Latin pyra from Ancient Greek πυρά (purá), from πῦρ (pûr, “fire”)+ Mid as a short form of English Middle.

SEXUAL ALIGNMENTS OF THE ONE AND THREE

 

Aside from the basic rules of Sacred Geometry, another common expression of the distinction from male or female symbols are in fact similar, but also distinct, and are examples of different cultural context that has to be taken individually so as to not create the error of blurring things in ways they should not be so applied which occurs far too often. 

I use these examples here of the triple horns, the triple spiral and trident fork as a symbol of the male. The other with the inverted triple triangles, the triple rings and the triple loop knot are most frequently used symbols of three females (not one). The usual tendency is all three are sisters, not aspects of separate personalities of a single female entity. Such an imposed concept is a modern invention no older than the 1970s. 

To be clear, I debated whether to include this information or not, especially as this pertains to the associated alignments with the qualities of their spiritual bodies and how this also applies to their mutual bonds and what that is suggestive of. It's not really all that much of a concern for myself since they are them and I am not them and they are not me. However, for some, it can be a and addition source of contention. Basing then my own requirement for complete openness and honesty and not engaging in keeping things secretive or private in such matters, I determined I must present this information with clarity and consistency. That being stated, we can now proceed to examine this detail before going further with other relevant information. Do note, not everyone agrees with this.

GEOM-SEXUAL

THE BASICS: This simple example shows that each Goddess has a heterosexual union with God and a homosexual union with one another rendering them bisexual in nature and orientation. The One God remains purely heterosexual in his relations with the three Goddesses as their mutual and collective unity is exclusive rather than inclusive of any others but transcends the orientations.

It should also be noted that this concept is also based in the concept that since the three Goddesses where derived from the one God, that they naturally inherited some of his gender qualities which also contributes to their bisexuality. 

 

On the other side of this is the basic concept that sexual relations serve, when applied properly, as necessary mechanism for creating deeper emotional bonds more effectively than such bonds being forged purely through mutual awareness and becomes a form of sexual psychology. 

In other words, the sexual differences and orientations are not just solely for the purpose of a procreative capacity but also serve as catalyst of creating mental, emotional and spiritual bonds and conveys a sense of mutual need and shared importance by necessity. It is natural for most to be shocked by because of being conditioned to ignore, reject or avoid addressing such matters logically, culturally or even linguistically.

One of the means by which this is 'avoided' is using the statement that terms like homosexual, heterosexual and bisexual are much more modern terms, especially bisexual when it comes to orientation which is true. It is, however, a half-truth as other terms and expressions made clear these relations by means of phrasing such matters, sometimes in such ways often called loaded language. 

GEOM-SEXUALq

Now then, because the One and Three establish the essential bonds of the binary in the male and the female distinctive genders, there are made manifest three other primary variations of these concepts that we do observe in other species and their particular peculiarities that are necessary for their own adaptations for survival reasons. As such we have 5 kinds of expressions as demonstrated here and from which many other subcategories can be expressed in the sense of reproduction. 

The first two is the distinctive male and the distinctive female. Then there are the two forms in which both the male and female distinctions are present in a single being. This is often defined as Hermaphroditic which procreates with another like itself, and Androgynous which reproduces spontaneously without a mate. The final one has neither gender, only reproducing through self-dividing into more or less clones. 

Now then, regardless all the forms of these combinations of these primary five concepts, there still remains a basic factor that does not change at all. There are still only 2 genders of male or female. If a being has both genders within them as part of their being, this does not equal a third gender or "sex" to use the alternative term regardless of the varieties of the expressions of life forms that are hermaphrodites or androgynes, some taking on dominantly masculine/male traits, while others take on dominantly feminine/female traits. 

 

For example, there are species that if all the individuals are female in a group, one will have a chemical response that will cause it to develop into a male and the female traits fade away. The reverse can also occur though the change is usually permanent. Then there are species that procreate as hermaphrodites but also clone themselves through dividing into new pairs, and those pairs continue the same process. Even things as simple as plants and fungi exhibit all these varieties based off of the five primary types of M, F, H, A, and N with only M and F being actual genders.  

One must also use caution not to confuse gender/sex with sexual orientation which bases in the Heterosexual (union with the opposite sex), homosexual (union with the same sex), and bisexual (union with both sexes). Nor should one make the mistake as to confuse sexual origination with that of sexual preferences. An example of sexual preferences is sexual and emotional interest in someone of the same age, or someone older or younger than oneself, but it can also include the way in which one prefers to have sex, which is usually applied to as one's 'kink,' but not always. 

All of these factors can contribute as well to such things as what structure of unions one agrees with and engages in or refuses to accept or be involved with, or has no issues with such for others, however, that same one also avoids such involvement for or within regards to themselves. This is where we get into such relational terms such as monogamy (two people only), polyamory (a modern term originally rooted in the concepts of swingers and partner swapping, especially during orgies), polygyny (one male with two or more females), polyandry (one female with two or more males), polygamy (which is a generic term the covers multiple partner marriages but not the same as bigamy), bigamy (marriage between two people, where one-half of the couple is already in an existing marriage without either knowing about one another). In a proper equation, The One and Three reside within the polygyny structure and definition exclusively. 

INFINITE REGRESS FALLACY

Infinite regress is a circular argument fallacy that essentially presents the context of ‘a belief is justified because it is based on another belief that is justified by a belief.’ It does not answer anything and simply circles back on itself ignoring its own original moment of being set into motion as an argument. In other words, you cannot prove a validity of a belief based on another belief since beliefs are not the same as facts.

 

While some may be based on facts beliefs are more along the lines of specific opinions and assumptions interpreting facts instead of simply accepting the fact as they are demonstrated irrelevant of previously held belief biases, or as the example shows, it’s an argument that A equals B because of A which equals B because of A ad nauseam.

 

Whether referring to the origins of the universe or any other regressive context, the answer simply moves the question back into infinite regress rather than answering it. Another more common fallacy that demonstrates this is a priori assumptions is an assumption that is presumed to be true without any assessment of the facts or without further proof. Atheists and Theists often mutually fall into this trap.
 

So if one asks “what created the universe” and another says God, then asks who or what created God what you can add another deity after another ad infinitum, which is essentially what the regressive explanation for the origin of the universe does, never answering the question and inventing something else instead of accepting the reality of an initial uncaused cause. Yet the same also occurs with those who don’t answer with “God.”

 

Such will again be the moment when one asks ‘what created the universe, and the reply is “another universe” and continues ad infinitum ad nauseam without any actual proofs for the previous or the subsequent prior claims. It resolves nothing and simply pushes the question back to avoid arriving at a reasonable and logical answer which also contrary to the usual bit, an extraordinary claim does not need or requires an extraordinary answer or evidence to provide a logical, reasonable, rational and coherent answer with basic and comprehensible, demonstrable evidence.
 

Ultimately the whole infinite regression bit is logically incoherent because our premise exists within the space-time continuum. To conceive of a reality outside of this is not meaningfully fathomable and therefore irrelevant to the question and ignores the different kinds of causation such as dependent or accidental and the other issue with these is end results or current conditions cannot be used as a measure to indicate one or many possible prior initiating cause, especially if such thing are simply not able to be reproduced through some form of personal will and expression of it within the present; there are diverse ‘kinds’ of causation.

 

In addition, there are also factors such as paradoxes where what seems at first to be impossible and untrue actually is. Then there is the other issue of the universe in the concept of Totality of all things or the universe only as much as is observable and knowable and which one is being referenced.

THE UNIVERSE IS NOT ITS OWN CAUSE

A creation implies a creator, design implies a designer, and fine tuning implies a fine tuner just as laws imply a law giver. Of course, the question usually presented is who created, or designed God in the context of the creator of the cosmos and the observable known universe or the totality of all things? If God is indeed timeless, spaceless, and immaterial as an uncaused cause then why cannot nature and ultimately all existence, exist in the same way as a timeless, spaceless, immaterial uncaused cause? 

 

In other words, why cannot the universe be its own uncaused cause and its own origin and become JUST as marvelous and precise as is often attributed to the handywork God and the three Goddesses?

 

The answer to this really isn’t that difficult as there are only two options which is the universe caused itself spontaneously and unintelligibly and just happened to self-organize in the precise ways by blind chance and dumb luck, or the One and Three did it as where in the one retains his own Aseity and he and they are aware, conscious, mindful, intelligent and precise beings that made it all come about one way or another. So, we can demonstrate factually why the universe is not self-caused and self-organized blindly.  

  1. All the evidence of actual physics and cosmology demonstrate that the universe is not its own uncaused first cause such as the second law of thermodynamics which more or less states that heat always flows spontaneously from hotter to colder regions of matter which means the universe is running down and cooling off which means it had to have had some source that heated and rolled it up. This means we would have no form of usable existing energy if the universe was eternal.

  2. The universe’s space-time is expanding faster than the speed of light because space time is not particle based, and ever increasing in that velocity, and has been shown that everything came and expanded from a singular point where the non-physical was converted into the physical described as a point of ‘infinite density’ which makes it by definition a void singularity of nothingness, and therefore had to have had a prior beginning or original starting point.

  3. The fact of the radiating heat from the microwave background radiation also demonstrates and proves by its distribution that the universe emerged from this original beginning point and has been increasingly cooling down ever since which is also in alignment with the second law of thermodynamics as the ‘afterglow’ of the explosive inflation event often called the Big Bang.

  4. The great galactic seeds and gravitational spiraling waves, which were very fine temperature variations in that radiating afterglow that allowed galaxies to form in the early universe from which stars and eventually planets along with all the materials and gases produced from starts being born and dying and serving as factors for the necessary materials to allow life to be possible and abiding by primal laws that don’t change over time, prove it had an origin other than itself.

  5. And the proven fact that such things s time, space, and matter are in fact co-relative and came into existence together out of the available usable energy as the essence of everything here and beyond. That literally means that what we know as space, time and matter literally had a beginning which has been demonstrated repeatedly and independently to be true.

 

All this and much more all serve as observational and clear scientific proofs that the universe is not its own uncaused cause or first cause, which in this can only lead when using actual logic, reason, rationality and doing away with any A Priori assumptions and logical category error fallacies that there can only be something beyond and outside of the universe, and that something must be by definition timeless, spaceless, immaterial and its own uncaused cause.

So, this leaves only one simple question to which the answer is clear in itself. If such an entity is truly timeless, does it have a beginning? The only correct answer is no which is the nature of timelessness otherwise called eternity. As such since God possesses Aseity than he is indeed his own first uncaused cause and the ultimate cause of all other causes and the uncreated creator of created things. This is the very definition of the unmoved and immovable mover.

Naturally the rebuttal to this is there is no reason to assume that such an uncaused first cause would be such as a God the Supreme Being and such will then try and go back to the infinite regress argument with suggestions based on ideas also without actual supporting evidence of mindless other dimensions with properties that allow for the universe to be created without having an intelligence having a hand in any of it.

Such is still its own claim requiring faith in something without actual evidence as pure speculation and has never been able to be observed. In addition, it still requires such other dimensions if considered in the same concept as “other universes with their own properties actually increases the probability for the existence of God rather than diminishes it because with more dimensional universes it means such a being as God can also arise from a non-dimensional state. However, there is another factor of observational facts present in the universe that also reinforces rather than negates God as the ultimate source.

  1. The universe is understandable and would not be understandable if it was composed randomly by dumb luck and there is no reason why the universe should exist as it does or even exist at all, or in other words, the universe shouldn’t be able to exist, but obviously it does because we exist within it.

  2. The universe also retains levels of extreme complexities such as the cosmological constants that are too precise to have occurred randomly and such complexity to have occurred randomly would require that the laws of the universe and nature itself to have “eventually” arranged themselves to such degrees as they exist that would far exceed the age of the universe in order to accomplish such.

  3. Because the laws of nature and therefore the universe to which we are all subject are observably the same from the point of the formation of the singularity to the present state of the universe do not evolve or change over time they would either have to predate the universe itself or have been organized instantly at the same moment the universe’s singularity had first formed and would then make such laws themselves creations and thus imply a mindful and aware creator of said laws.

  4. The universe also demonstrated on many diverse and fundamental levels high levels of incomprehensible and clear intelligence behind everything and expressed through everything, and intelligence implies also mind, awareness and individuality of existence present in but distinct from the universe itself.

 

This is the moment when most will bring about emotional arguments or other questions mostly out of the frustration that much of the claimed logic behind their disbelief are more faith based than beliefs in such as the One and the Three. This goes to the first question of “if this is true, why is there theology and why do we worship the One and Three of such is so lofty and beyond us? That is not a question about existence or a refuting of existence but rather asking for a justification an opinion which is simply an opinion if one cares to bother with that ad fall into that distraction from the existence or non-existence questions.

THE UNIVERSE IS NOT A SIMULATION

The idea that we might be living inside the simulation of some more advanced civilization is nonsense. Yet in recent years it has been floating around as an ostensibly serious and respectable intellectual position, especially among tech utopianists (utopianism always fails for a reason regardless of what latest flavor it comes in). Often used as a way to avoid recognition of the existence of the Divine it actually supports such a thing. 

 

Rather than get into all the specifics and why it is all full of holes, riddled with absurd and implausible assumptions and contradictions, it basically proclaims the One and Three or Divine Unity simply given a different cover and is a poor atheistic attempt to try and deny the Divine but have the creationist concepts also.

 

Computers cannot exceed the inherent information processing limitations of matter itself, and a small classical or quantum computer can never simulate a larger system than itself with perfect fidelity and because of that and other limitations, even a quantum computer will be bound by those limitations.

 

  1. That alone makes such a concept nonsensical. So, the only base thing within the universe that can simulate the universe is the universe itself.

  2. Even the whole "rendered view" argument fails because it falls because every distance and perceptive has to be rendered at the same instant for all views and at all angles for all things and eventually falls into the same kind of nonsense as claiming that the universe is only as it is based on the moment of one's personal observation which means if someone places a bag over your head or closes the curtains the universe outside goes away (which also means everything and everyone else goes away as well and cease to exist).

  3. If that were true, then each moment the person removed the obstructed view the universe would be different and so would everything and everyone else. The simple proof is how blind people who observe nothing still collide with objects we see and if we put them in their path without their sensory awareness.

  4. If observation-based reality was true, the blind should not be able to collide with said obstructions but pass through because they are not real to them until impact. When computational shortcuts are employed, inconsistencies inevitably occur. It's clearly false. All the claims are based on solipsism which claims there is no proof anything outside of one's own mind is real.  

  5. If one is to actually believe everything is an incomprehensibly advanced simulation created by some sort of ultra intelligent simulation programmers, then such actually can be equated to the One and Three as said creators who hid knowledge of them in the simulation as some sort of easter egg.

  6. In addition, the simulation code would have to know in advance what observations the simulated inhabitants are going to make in any given instant, every decision and every action and reaction they can or will make in advance, and all the innumerable variables therein while somehow managing to avoid a complete failure due to such things as stack overflow and systemic failures and all the factors of consciousness we don't know about.

  7. The same would also have to be acknowledged as not bound to the limitations of the simulation itself as the inhabitants are and able to code in anything at will effortlessly without causing other systemic failures, including, but not limited to, all that is being described in said computer.

  8. Furthermore, we have to acknowledge that the whole simulation claim is no more sensible or logical as comparing the whole of existence as a mechanical watch or device (as was the tendency also after the industrial revolution) wherein it was also common to describe the various concepts of the Divine as the machine creators and watch makers in more simplified contexts. 

  9. Despite this, it is true the world and universe appear incredibly consistent in every detail. This is obvious and observable, and the Sacred Geometry previously presented reflect this and we also see a lot of this same geometry in various ways throughout nature. So that is a given.

  10. However, despite all the factors that stand against the "simulation" claims, to try and save it as a last-ditch effort and pretending not to appeal to a metaphysical agency which such programmers would indeed be, such will present the argument that it’s possible that the program accounts for that by 'erasing our awareness of the inconsistencies.'

  11. As far as arguments go, that is an extremely childish, infantile last resort to even propose such a thing which attempts to remove the necessity of the always demanded and required "burdens of proofs" and therefore only loses its credibility. Additionally, it has to be called what it is. A proposition of 'Intelligent Design' with excessive and unnecessary added steps. 

This argument is often perpetuated loosely based on elements of quantum physics where there is clear mathematics, geometric correspondences to everything, and the fact that quantum correlations occur instantaneously over arbitrary distances despite the speed of light barrier, and the realities of the underlining mathematical code of quantum mechanics determines the outcome of correlated outcomes light years apart instantaneously and irrelevant how far apart these correlated objects.

 

However, they do not remain on that course and instead rely on circular arguments and often demonstrably fraudulent evidence and claims of claims that are not based on the actual known facts. We, however, can present that The One and Three are not limited by the mathematics because they define it all through their activities. Perhaps it is enough that the world and universe is wonderfully strange, and our best option is to live life as fully as we can before the inevitable and whatever may or may not be beyond the objectively observable and subjectively experienced and contemplated.

ABIOGENISIS FICTION

Abiogenesis, or more appropriately, Spontaneous Abiogenesis in which living things for from nonliving substances has simply not been demonstrated in a laboratory ever, or through any successful experimentation in or around natural thermal vents, or all the other various hypothetical means as "potential" means to cause it to occur.

 

It's therefore NOT a theoretical fact but a hypothesis that hasn't been proven or demonstrated and repeated independently with the same results making it a science myth of creating life from non-life or self-replicating molecules from some unknown primordial soup. it is also not the same as evolution which is more or less based in the developmental changes of forms of life, and not the origin of it. They are related but they are different. 

 

While we know the chemical and electro-chemical factors of biology (which has also saved many lives many time) such spontaneous generation of life has never been able to be demonstrated or reproduced independently with the same results which is essential for such things to be demonstrable facts. Until such a time it is merely a hypothesis that many decades of attempted experimentation have simply failed repeatedly regardless all the various calculations, tests and chemical compounds involved. 

 

Abiogenesis is not the same as replicating a molecule from scratch which has been done and even creating molecules from light particles has also been achieved. However, these are direct actions of merely copying processes and finding different ways to achieve such creations but is not the same as spontaneous generation of molecules that self-replicate, change, adapt and evolve and become living organisms even of a single cell variety. That makes is a science myth for atheists more or less. 

 

Abiogenesis has not been observed. It remains purely hypothetical and must be subject, if claimed to be achieved has to be subject to independent tests with like results or its again pure fiction. On that same note, unlike Albigensian never being observed, it's a category error fallacy to apply that lack of observation to Super Novas. We don't need to "create such in labs" because we do and have observed them frequently and additionally their remnants are all over the place in space.

 

Thus, observation vs not observed are not synonymous. It is also to be noted this is often used to demonstrate Darwin was incorrect. However, while that may be true to a point Darwin was speaking about origins of differentiated species from common ancestors not the origin of life itself.

PANSPERMIA IS JUST ANOTHER HYPOTHETICAL

Until life is demonstrated irrefutably as coming from somewhere else, and even then, only pushes the question of how life actually originated in the first place and converted from inorganic and organic compounds and then into the most basic self-replicating molecules as life from non-life, and likewise is actually observed, Panspermia does not "explain" or prove" anything as to where, when or how life began. It remains one of many different hypotheses often pushed as though it has been proven irrefutably, even though it hasn't, and most just try and push the problem back when they run into a wall.

 

This becomes another form of the science of the gaps when pawned off as fact, and as such becomes in its own strain a 'faith-based argument' placed on even more unstable ground. It's been proposed, but never demonstrated to be reliable to "true" wherein it also becomes science fiction rather than science fact. It's not a proven. There is no actual reliable evidence. It's merely an idea and it also does not, even if ever demonstrated, contradict these foundations of belief in the One and Three.  

OTHER FAILED ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE ONE AND THREE

Conway's Game of Life as an argument against a creator:

It should be noted that John Conway himself came to hate the "Game of Life" program mainly because it was always brought up in various mathematical discussions when for the most part it wasn't, in his mind, all that interesting. The most basic point of the project was simply to see how the self-driven, autonomous program bits could possibly develop from some very basic rules into more complex structures or patterns and as possible demonstration how complex life can arise from vary simple life forms when the basic rules or conditions are in place. 

  1. Some atheists also will try and use Conway's Game of Life as a justification, failing to see it's a bad argument against the concept of a deity of any kind, because someone had to create its rules (programing), build its containment (world), and give it power to start running (power source/life spark).

  2. The only thing it really shows is how more complicated structures can arise from simple base ones. That's it. It's basically a visual calculator; however, it is not supportive either of the various spinoff arguments desperately clinging to the Abiogenesis bit.

  3. Conway's Game of Life also does not reflect or explain the origin of life or the conversion of nonliving substances into living organisms. It certainly does not prove useful for "explaining away" of any kind of Divine concepts and ultimate sources either. It only demonstrates a concept of how simplicity can give way to complexity. One can sort that simply by counting from 1-9. 

​​

The Multiverse as an argument against a creator:

  1. Aside from the fact there have not been observed and likely never will be observed any other "universe" outside of this one, though mathematically it's not remotely impossible, the failing here is one of the main arguments against the existence of such as God is "no outside" to the universe and if there is no outside and God being associated with being outside of its confines he can't exist unless he arose with the universe into being. 

  2. By recognizing an outside to the universe in any sense is an acknowledgement that not only can such as God exist as an entity outside and distinct from the universe, and also shows time is not unique to or emergent from that of the universe itself, but by increasing the numbers of diverse kinds of universes and even including a concept all universes are retained in an ultimate mega-verse only further increases the logical probability of the existence of God and the Three Goddesses, and many other diverse things based on the simple logic of increased chance for and increased possibility of such things to either spontaneously exist uniquely or contingently.

  3. Additionally, it is a long-established concept that God is considered the ultimate source of anything and everything therein. As a result, the existence of physically independent multiverses is irrelevant in that it doesn't prove or disprove God either though it increases the probability for God rather than against God's existence. It also simply expands upon the creativity of God rather than diminishes it.

Religious texts as alleged reliable proofs:

This comes down to the very simple statement you cannot prove a book by the book itself. This is the simplified version of the statement that you cannot prove the truth of a holy book by quoting from the same holy book, and as such it becomes a circular reasoning fallacy. We agree with this and there are additional factors we can demonstrate at any given time to disprove such a text's reliability. 

  1. Examples of an original text in an original language that does not properly translate into another language, or the later text shows deletions, additions, changes of words to change context, and discounting claims of "divine authorship" when known to have been written by a human being in the language spoken by them in the time in which they existed. 

  2. Claims that the particular text is a revelation directly from a particular deity, claimed to be the only deity and claims made about said deity by followers and believers do not line up with what such texts actually demonstrate, not to mention said authors claims of being the sole mouth pieces of the same by claims that cannot be substantiated.   

  3. Claims such texts represent a pure, true and original belief and that all others are fiction when the same claims can also be applied in reverse upon those making such claims, and in addition to such, when it is known various identities of different concepts and characters were demonstrably hijacked or appropriated inconsistent with the claimed history and later claimed beliefs or views.

  4. Those that would make such a claim that their concept of Divine things is the only valid one and choosing to selectively ignore other much older texts still present and preserved in their books and traditions which represent very different conclusions though they have the same origin. 

This is often a factor of consideration when approaching such debates within the confines of Evidentialism. This is a thesis in epistemology (a philosophic approach, that is also sometimes called a theory of knowledge, that examines the nature, origin, and limits of knowledge) which states that one is justified to believe something if and only if that person has evidence which supports said belief. This evidence does not have to necessary be remarkable or extraordinary as much as simply clear and consistent and demonstrable in the reasoning and logic behind said belief. Evidentialism is, therefore, a thesis about which beliefs are justified, and which are not. For example, circular arguments and reasoning are not considered justifiable. Another bad argument is "belief" because "everyone else does" or "belief based on tradition" without explanation of the reasoning for said tradition. 

The military Historian C. Sanders also proposed three main ways to determine the 'authenticity' of various texts and the trustworthiness of any historical document. While they are useful in that respect it does not mean what is claimed within the same is necessarily reliable to begin with. It's simply a record of such content that can be demonstrated as of reasonable historical value but not necessarily actual reality.  

  1. The bibliographical test: The bibliographical test maintains that as there are more handwritten manuscript copies of an ancient historical document, the more reliable it is. It also states that the closer in time the oldest surviving manuscript is to the original first copy (autograph) of the author, the more reliable that document is. There is less time for distortions to creep into the text by scribes down through the generations copying by hand. However, all this proves is consistency of the information being copied properly and not the content or context or claims of said works. In other words, it only attests by the Number of copies the popularity not veracity.  

  2. The internal evidence test: The internal evidence test involves analyzing the document itself for contradictions and self-evident absurdities. How close in time and place the writer of the document was to the events and people he describes is examined: The bigger the gap, the less likely it is reliable. However, this is not reliable either because even ancient texts intentionally have retained various absurdities as intentional expressions of either mockery or humor or the apparent absurdities themselves are not understood properly by the reader of later generations that will simply not understand unrecorded or lost references. 

  3. The external evidence test: The external evidence test checks the document's reliability by comparing it to other documents on the same subjects, seeing whether its claims are different from theirs. Archeological evidence also figures into this test, since archeological discoveries, if found to be described and match with what the texts state or claim can then build on the authenticity of said author having had some firsthand knowledge about said thing. It does not, however, prove the claims or opinions said author expresses in regard to such subjects.   

This goes back to the previous statement you cannot prove a book by the book by quoting from the book about the book itself or its content. Furthermore, the age of the claims made in any text does not in and of themselves from these three "tests" that what is written is itself true or false and its age, be it thousands of years old or written moments ago does not alone validate the truth or fallacy of the content. Finally, the first proof is not reliable for scrutiny because of the failure of recognition of what is defined as rare and hard to find. There are plenty modern things that were once numerous and well known and now rare to impossible to find if someone is actively seeking it and another may have possession of such a thing and not realize its significance as a historical, though relatively modern, artifact. 

In any case, if such text present views  as the following, one cannot conclude that because they are 'Old' that they can be claimed to be right, or if there are specific practices that are not suitable to the overall culture that they have to be brought back and observed because a book and it's author demands it and claims their concept of a deity demands it "or else." It's simply not justifiable and as such things go, are more worthy of being forgotten all together. 

  1. Confusing their own demands of "you are not listening to me" with "you need to agree with me."

  2. Arguing a point saying, "because this book says so it must be so."

  3. Assuming belief by stating "if you don't believe this you believe in that and that makes you "good" or "bad."

  4. Stating "do as I say, not as a do" because... (add whatever hypocritical excuse thereafter).

  5. Do as I say, not as I do is a statement and demand that stinks of unrestrained hypocrisy. 

  6. The argument of ignorance as a justification such as: "Some things are not meant for us to understand."

This last one is particularly annoying to me because it holds a few back handed avoidances of addressing the initial questions. Unfortunately, far too many theists and atheists' resort to similar ploys, though more often than not you do encounter it most by various clergy. This also requires a simple explanation why it annoys me particularly. 

  1. If it wasn't meant to be understood it wouldn't have been written down, even if it is encoded, as it was intended to be decoded by someone. 

  2. If such a clergy member doesn't understand the subject being questioned which such a statement is essentially such an admission to than any claimed value for such being taught is lost and they shouldn't be preaching what they cannot teach with clarity.  

  3. If one claims it is not meant to be understood though they do understand it very well and then do not answer the question about that subject when asked, then they are lying about not knowing the meaning and have shown clearly, they are not trustworthy as you won't be able to be certain about what else they lie about.

 

Finally, as far as such things, what cannot be counted as valid or as a reasonable justification of the truth of any text is to claim that such and such text, though being composed and passing to and from human hands, recently or over any period of time is infallible and ineffable because the same book states it is infallible and ineffable because it comes from and is protected by a Divine source that prevents it from being subject to error or mistranslation. It's just as nonsensical and claiming one's own language is somehow more special than all others or as some indeed to claim, said language is the "true language" of said deity or divine source which is blatant nonsense. 

FOR MORE INFORMATION, BE SURE TO 

SELECT THE LINKS BELOW TO LEARN MORE.

bottom of page