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.

1. Distinction and Respect for Pantheons

Avoiding Amalgamation:
- Unlike other systems, we do not forcefully combine diverse and distinct pantheons into a singular, incoherent amalgamation of concepts.
- Our focus is to highlight how cultures, through interaction, shared similar ideas, even while maintaining unique approaches.
No Singular Construct:
- We reject the notion that all deities are merely different forms, expressions, or manifestations of a single, nebulous entity.
- The One and the Three are acknowledged as remote and beyond direct, personalized relationships, existing outside the realm of direct human connection.

2. Recognition Without Erasure

Acknowledging Diversity:
- We neither deny nor condemn the various deities imagined or conceptualized by different cultures, including the concept of deified ancestors.
- Recognition of these entities is not suppressed or erased, as it is not the focus of our perspective.
Respecting Others’ Beliefs:
- By refusing to impose the One or the Three as mere extensions of other deities, we respect the unique identities and traditions of these figures.
- Even when this respect is not reciprocated, we maintain our stance as a gesture of goodwill.

3. Response to Condemnation

Handling Criticism:
- Condemnation of our beliefs is regarded as a reflection of critics’ own insecurities or a failure to recognize their narrow perspectives.
- Such criticism is dismissed as childish and counterproductive, affirming our commitment to mutual respect and intellectual maturity.

HISTORY OF THIS FOUNDATION CONCEPT

1. Early Beginnings (1987-1990)

Initial Exploration:
- In 1987, at the age of 14, I began delving into subjects of personal interest that were not offered in public school, such as mythology, folklore, ancient archaeological sites, etymology, linguistics, and concordances.
Library Research:
- Spending time in the local public library, I took extensive notes, made cross-references, and sketched observations.
- Patterns began to emerge from my studies, patterns that were often obscured or mentioned only briefly in texts.
Foundational Insight:
- By 1990, these patterns had formed the basic foundation of what would later become a more developed framework of concepts.

2. Initial Challenges (1990-1997)

Youth and Reception:
- As a 17-year-old, I examined many works in philosophy, theology, geometry, and linguistics, though I was not taken seriously by peers or those in my community, which was largely composed of Christians and atheists.
Abandonment of Work:
- Feeling discouraged, I set aside the research ("put it on the shelf") after turning 18.
- Much of the original notes, artwork and references I used were destroyed in the Willamette Valley Flood (Oregon) in February 1996.
- Unfortunately, that loss also included a lot of really rare books I had collected over time from old Estate sales, closing rare bookstores, and some that were given to me as gifts, including but not limited to really old bibles.

3. Resuming the Journey (1997-2009)

Rediscovery:
- In 1997, I returned to my research with renewed focus, although he chose to keep much of it private.
Deeper Exploration:
- Over the next decade, I engaged in more profound and serious study, navigating personal challenges while continuing to expand upon his earlier work.
Artistic Expression:
- By 2009, some individuals began to show interest in my subject matter often expressed indirectly through some of my artwork, which visually represented the concepts he had been developing.
- I often gave this artwork away freely because it was just how I was.

4. Online Sharing and Evolution (2010-2015)

Digital Outreach:
- From 2010 to 2013, I began sharing the majority of my findings on various online platforms, including websites and virtual worlds.
- These platforms eventually shut down, taking some of the shared concepts with them.
Naming the Religion:
- In 2014, the name Druwayu was chosen to represent the theological framework and associated concept, though with a more direct moral and ethical foundation of complete honesty, even if the truth was and is unpleasant.
Open Recognition:
- By 2015, I introduced Druwayu as the official name of the religion and has continued to uphold its theology publicly ever since.

5. Current Standing

Legacy of Research:
- What began as an interest in patterns and obscure references has grown into a cohesive theological framework.
Core Principle:
- The journey reflects the importance of perseverance, curiosity, and sharing knowledge despite challenges, skepticism, and setbacks.

WHAT WE MEAN BY GOD

Many times, this question is posed by individuals who, rather than showing genuine interest, use it as a tactic to invalidate beliefs by focusing on diversity. However, the original purpose of such a question was not to challenge or dismiss, but rather to seek clarification about how the concept of God is understood and defined by the person being asked. It is not exclusively a question asked by atheists, as it applies broadly to conversations about differing perspectives.

The simple fact is that we mean God based on the origin of the noun which is also based within the adjective, and therefore the original cultural and linguistic sources of the name therein. On the other hand, we also mean God in the more general concept of the ultimate intelligent and eternal source of everything known and unknown that is in himself beyond what most have been conditioned falsely to believe God to be. Also, as previously expressed, we acknowledge his triad of consorts that are each called a Goddess as a result of modern linguistic evolution.

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.

Evergood: from a’er from æfr “ever” + god “good.”
Gospel: from god “good.” + spel “story/news."
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.
Godwill: from god “good.” + wil “will.”
Godspeed: from god “good.” + sped “speed.”
Godwin: from god “good.” + win “win/gain.”
Godfather: from god “good.” + fodor “father.”
Godmother: from god “good.” + modor “mother.”
Godhead: from god “good.” + hed “head.”
Godhood: from god “good.” + hod “hood.”
Godlove/Gottlieb: from god “good.” + leib/lib/lief/liev/lif/liv/lef = “love/beloved.” Akin to life/leaf/live/leaves.
Godstow: from god/got + stow “stout/strong.” Figuratively stow is used for stand/enduring as well.
Godfred: from got (god) + fried (frid) “freed.’ More or less holding the sense of God sets free.

EXAMPLES OF USAGE

Godspeed - May good fortune and success be with you.
Godkin - A close relative or family member, viewed as good and beloved.
Godless - Not good, lacking goodness, unethical or immoral.
Godward - Moving or directed towards goodness.
Godric - A 'good ruler' with the favor or blessing of goodness.
Godsend - A sudden or unexpected benefit, perceived as being a gift of goodness.
Godhead - The essence or nature of goodness.
Godparent - A person who takes on the responsibility of guiding a child in goodness.
Godspell - Good news or message, synonymous with the term gospel.
Godbound - Dedicated or committed to goodness.
Godchild - A child who is guided and nurtured in goodness.
Godhouse - A place of worship or sanctuary, dedicated to goodness.
Godling - A minor figure or being endowed with goodness.
Godman - A person characterized by saintliness and moral integrity.
Godrood - A sacred or revered cross, symbolizing goodness.
Godwottery - An ornate or sentimental style in gardening, embodying an appreciation for the goodness of nature.
Godspire - A church spire or tower, reaching towards goodness.
Godmonth - A sacred or significant month, celebrated for its association with goodness.
Godstone - A sacred stone, revered for its connection to goodness.
Godstow - An old English term for a place of religious retreat or sanctuary, dedicated to the pursuit of goodness.
Godwardly - Acting in a manner directed towards goodness.
Godyear - A year marked by prosperity and good fortune.
Godcroft - An old term for a small, enclosed field used for burials, implying a 'good croft'.
Godsteading - An old term for a homestead or place of residence, which could also refer to a sacred burial site.
Godwick - An ancient term for a dwelling place or settlement with a burial ground, implying a 'good wick'.
Godmote - An old term referring to a divine council or assembly, often associated with sacred sites, including burial grounds.
Godyard - An ancient term for a graveyard, implying a 'good yard'.
Godacre - A historical term for a piece of land set aside for burials, implying a 'good acre'.
Godmound - An ancient term for a burial mound that is considered sacred or blessed, implying a 'good mound'.
Godground - Refers to a burial ground or cemetery that is considered sacred or blessed, implying a 'good ground'.
Godvale - A valley or lowland area used for burials, considered holy or blessed, implying a 'good vale'.
Godrest - The state of rest or peace granted by goodness, often referring to the final resting place of the deceased.
Godgrave - A grave that is considered sacred or blessed, implying a 'good grave'.
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

Godan = God
Götten = God
Gudan = God
Gudhan = God
Gothen = God
Goðan = God

FEMININE SINGULAR

Godin = Goddess
Göttin = Goddess
Gudinne = Goddess
Gudinna = Goddess
Gudinde = Goddess
Gyðia = Goddess

MASCULINE PLURAL

Godannen = Gods
Göttennen = Gods
Gudanner = Gods
Gudhannor= Gods
Gothener = Gods
Goðanir = Gods

FEMININE PLURAL

Godinnen = Goddesses
Göttinnen = Goddesses
Gudinner = Goddesses
Gudinnor= Goddesses
Gudinder = Goddesses
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.

God: Latin and Greek Deu and Theo, Hebrew and Aramaic El/Al
Gods: Latin and Greek Diosi and Theoi, Hebrew and Aramaic Elim/Alu
Goddess: Latin and Greek Dea and Thea, Hebrew and Aramaic Elat/Alat
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.

The God 'An/Anu' (cognizant with One), and the Three Goddesses Nammu, Kia and Uras (Middle East).
The God Al, and the Three Goddesses Astarte, Asherat, and Anath (Middle East).
The God is Kronos, and the three Goddesses Dione, Aphrodite, and Rhea (Philo of Byblos).
Theos/Deus/Zeus Moiragetes, and the three Goddesses (Moirae) Klotho, Lakhesis, and Atropos (Greek).
Jupiter Dux Parcae, and the three Goddesses (Parcae) Nona, Decuma and Morta (Roman).
The God Shai, and three Goddesses Meskhenet, Renenutet, and Shepset (Egyptian).
The God Ptah, and three Goddesses Sekhmet, Bastet and Wadjet (Egyptian).
The God Brahma, and three Goddesses Savitri, Sarasvati, and Gayatri (India).
The God Vishnu, and three Goddesses Lakshmi, Bhumi and Ganga (india).
The God Shiva, and the three Goddesses Parvati, Durga and Kali (India).
The God Rod, and the three Goddesses Rozhanitzy, Narucznica, Udelnica (Slavic).
Godan, and the three Goddesses Friya, Rinda, and Iurda (Scandinavian).
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:

Omnibenevolence (All good, as in good at everything)
Omnicompetence (All capable, as in order to do anything and everything)
Omnipotence (All power, meaning the center and source of all other powers)
Omnipresence (All Present, meaning everywhere present)
Omniscience (All knowing, meaning having all knowledge of the actual and potential)
Eternity (Time without end)
Infinite (Without Limits).

SECONDARY ATTRIBUTES:

Aseity (Self Existence, meaning source and continuation of existence is from within self)
Immutable (Unchanged, unchanging and unchangeable)
Impassible (No experience of any suffering, pleasure or pain of or like others)
Immortal (Not subject to and free from death)
Impeccable (Does not act contrary to one’s own will or nature)
Incomprehensible (Not able to be fully known or understood)
Incorporeal (Does not have a base material body, but does not mean lacking a body)
Immovable (Not able to be moved or removed).
Incomparable (Cannot be compared or likened to anything or anyone else).
Infallible (Not able to be or proven wrong or false, and the essence of impersonal truth)
Ineffable (Beyond the he capacity of symbol or language to fully describe or express).

SYMBOLIC ASSOCIATIONS

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

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.
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.

Γνῶσις: Gnosis. Knowledge
Σοφός: Sophia. Wisdom
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.

דֵּעָה Deah. Knowledge
חָכְמָה Chokmah. Wisdom
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

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

FEBRUARY: FULLA (FULLNESS). Consort of Sadan.
JUNE: GRANI (GRAIN/GREENS). Consort of Grim.
OCTOBER: HELIA (HEALER). Consort of Wulder.

FOR GODDESS 3: KUTTA (THE CUTTER)

MARCH: BRYD (BRIDE). Consort of Sadan.
JULY: RUNA (RED). Consort of Grim.
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.

ACTUAL HISTORY/ORIGINS

Sacred Geometry, the exploration of geometric shapes and patterns imbued with spiritual or symbolic meaning, predates both the Pythagoreans (6th century BCE) and monotheistic traditions. Across pre-monotheistic cultures, geometry was intuitively integrated into art, architecture, and rituals as a reflection of cosmic order, nature, and the divine. Below are key sources of Sacred Geometry from oldest to youngest, prior to Pythagorean formalization:

1. Prehistoric Art and Symbolism (c. 40,000–10,000 BCE +)

Early humans during the Upper Paleolithic left behind cave art and various carvings throughout much of Europe, such as that in Lascaux, France, featuring grids, zigzags, and concentric circles. These suggest an innate fascination with order and form, though not yet formalized as Sacred Geometry (as far as is known from what remains, which does not discount a certain form of Sacred Geometry since there is no evidence to date of any kind of written record, much less surviving languages).

2. Neolithic and Megalithic Cultures (c. 10,000–2000 BCE)

Megalithic structures like those in Göbekli Tepe (9500 BCE to at least 8000 BCE) and like Stonehenge (3100–2000 BCE, Britain) and such as those found in the areas of showcase circular layouts aligned with solstices, reflecting an early use of radial symmetry to connect earthly and celestial realms.
Spiral motifs, such as those carved at Newgrange (c. 3200 BCE, Ireland), symbolize life or cosmic energy, indicating geometry’s sacred role in these animistic societies.

3. Chinese Pre-Dynastic Traditions (c. 5000–2000 BCE)

Before the Shang Dynasty, early Chinese cultures crafted jade Bi discs—circular with square centers—representing heaven and earth through geometric duality.
Prehistoric roots of the I Ching, tied to shamanic practices, used binary patterns (later yin-yang), suggesting an emergent geometric worldview.

4. Mesopotamian Civilization (c. 4500–1900 BCE)

Sumerians, Akkadians, and Babylonians built ziggurats with proportional designs aligned to celestial events, embodying cosmic harmony.
Their art, including cylinder seals with spiraling or Flower of Life-like patterns, and their base-60 system (influencing the 360-degree circle), reveal a practical and symbolic use of geometry.

5. Indus Valley Civilization (c. 3300–1300 BCE)

Cities like Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa featured grid-based urban planning and precise proportions, hinting at geometry as a tool for order and perhaps spirituality.
Seals with swastikas, mandalas, and interlocking designs point to symbolic geometry tied to concepts like time or eternity.

6. Ancient Egypt (c. 3100–30 BCE)

Egyptian pyramids, such as the Great Pyramid of Giza (c. 2630 BCE), incorporate the golden ratio, pi, and cardinal alignments, showcasing advanced geometric knowledge.
Symbols like the vesica piscis and ankh, alongside temples built with sacred proportions, link geometry to their polytheistic cosmology and deities like Thoth.

Pre-Pythagorean Significance

These pre-monotheistic societies didn’t codify geometry into theorems but expressed it through intuitive and symbolic means, seeing shapes—circles, spirals, triangles—as reflections of natural forces or the divine. The Pythagoreans later systematized these ideas with numerical precision, but the foundations of Sacred Geometry trace back to these ancient, diverse origins.

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.

How it Contributes to Modern Sciences

Frankly speaking, Sacred Geometry has had a profound influence in several areas of modern sciences by bridging ancient mathematical principles with contemporary understanding of the universe. Fire example, Sacred Geometry introduced concepts like the Golden Ratio and Fibonacci Sequence, which are fundamental in understanding patterns in nature. These principles are applied in fields such as biology, physics, and architecture to study symmetry, growth patterns, and structural integrity. The study of geometric shapes in nature, such as the spiral of a nautilus shell or the hexagonal structure of honeycombs, has inspired biomimicry in engineering and design. These patterns reveal underlying mathematical laws governing natural phenomena.

In physics, geometric principles help model the universe's structure, such as the arrangement of atoms and molecules. The Platonic solids, derived from Sacred Geometry, are used to understand molecular shapes and crystal structures. Sacred Geometry fosters a connection between science and spirituality, encouraging holistic approaches to understanding the universe. It bridges disciplines like mathematics, art, and philosophy, enriching scientific inquiry. It has influenced the design of iconic structures, from ancient temples to modern buildings. The use of geometric proportions ensures harmony and balance, as seen in the Great Pyramid of Giza and Gothic cathedrals. Its timeless principles continue to inspire innovation and exploration across diverse scientific fields.

Sacred Geometry plays a foundational role in Druwayu, as it is deeply integrated into its principles and symbolism. Druwayu emphasizes the use of Sacred Geometry to represent universal truths, balance, and interconnectedness of the non-physical and the physical and as an expression of relationships to better comprehend how the concept of the One God and Three Goddesses relate to reality itself regardless of if one considers them actual beings or merely symbolic. However, in Druwayu, they are personal beings, but beyond all and impersonal towards everything else. Here are some specific applications and examples:

The Seal of the One and Three:

Druwayu incorporates the "Seal of the One and Three," a symbol based on Sacred Geometry. This seal reflects the union of the One God and Three Goddesses. It also linked to the understanding of cosmic patterns and energy flows. The religion uses geometric symbols to explore the vibrational matrix of the universe, drawing parallels to ancient traditions that view geometry as a bridge between the physical and spiritual realm.

Sacred Geometry has Rules; Four to be Specific

Sacred Geometry serves as a profound framework for understanding the foundational rules that govern the universe's patterns and forms. Rooted in both physical and metaphysical insights, these rules—Infinity, Individuality, Male Straight Lines, and Female Curved Lines—define the symbolic and energetic relationships embedded in all creations. Each rule reflects distinct aspects of existence, from the incomprehensible vastness of infinity to the intimate expression of individuality, and the dynamic interplay between masculine and feminine forces. These principles, expressed through geometric shapes and numbers, offer a timeless lens for interpreting the balance, harmony, and interconnectedness of life itself. The following will clarify these matters further and can be considered in a sense, Druwayu's creation story.

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.

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. .

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
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%.
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.
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.
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.
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.

What is often called "Elemental Magic," though Elemental Craft would be better as a definition, is also not necessarily inapplicable to this when considering the One and Three are considered as manifesting through the various forces, aspects and attributes of Nature and the Universe, known and unknown. In other words, God and the three Goddesses will all have elemental expressions and symbolic forms. Below are examples of Elemental Magic and Elemental Beings, drawing from common frameworks in mythology, fantasy, and esoteric traditions. These concepts often tie into human psychology by representing primal forces or archetypes that resonate with our understanding of nature and the self. Elemental magic refers to the manipulation or harnessing of natural elements, typically categorized as earth, air, fire, and water, though some systems include additional elements like spirit, metal, or void. Here are examples:

Earth Magic:
- Geokinesis: Shaping stone or soil, like creating walls of rock or causing tremors.
- Plant Manipulation: Growing vines to entangle foes or blooming flowers instantly.
- Crystal Conjuring: Using gems to focus energy, such as amplifying spells with quartz.
Air Magic:
- Aerokinesis: Controlling wind, from gentle breezes to violent tornadoes.
- Flight/Levitation: Riding air currents or lifting objects with gusts.
- Sound Manipulation: Amplifying or silencing noises by vibrating air molecules.
Fire Magic:
- Pyrokinesis: Generating flames, like fireballs or walls of fire.
- Heat Control: Raising temperatures to melt objects or create mirages.
- Ash/Smoke Weaving: Shaping smoke into illusions or choking clouds.
Water Magic:
- Hydrokinesis: Bending water, such as forming waves or water whips.
- Ice Manipulation: Freezing liquids into spikes or sculptures.
- Mist Creation: Summoning fog for concealment or disorientation.
Additional Elements (if applicable):
- Spirit/Aether Magic: Channeling life force or astral energy, like soul projection.
- Void Magic: Absorbing light or energy, creating darkness or nullifying spells.

Elemental Beings

Elemental beings are entities or spirits embodying the essence of these elements, often depicted as sentient or semi-sentient forces in folklore and fiction. Examples include:

Earth Beings:
- Golems: Animated stone or clay, stone or metal figures, often protectors or laborers.
- Dryads: Tree spirits tied to forests, embodying growth and stability.
- Gnomes: Small, subterranean creatures associated with mining and soil.
Air Beings:
- Sylphs: Ethereal wind spirits, often invisible or shimmering like heat waves.
- Harpies: Winged creatures that command storms or carry messages on the breeze.
- Djinn: (Sometimes air-aligned) Beings of smokeless fire or wind, granting wishes.
Fire Beings:
- Salamanders: Lizard-like spirits thriving in flames, tied to alchemical lore.
- Ifrits: Fiery djinn from Middle Eastern tales, embodying destruction or passion.
- Phoenix: A bird reborn in fire, symbolizing renewal and eternal flame.
Water Beings:
- Undines: Water nymphs or spirits, often tied to rivers and emotional flow.
- Kelpies: Shape-shifting horse-like entities luring victims into lakes.
- Sirens: Sea creatures using song to enchant, tied to the depths’ allure.
Additional Elemental Beings:
- Aether/Spirit Beings: Angels or wraiths, transcending physical elements.
- Void Beings: Shadowfolk or abyss-dwellers, feeding on absence or silence.

These examples reflect how elemental magic, and beings often serve as metaphors for natural forces or inner states—earth for stability, air for intellect, fire for passion, water for emotion. They’re staples in storytelling and psychological symbolism, showing how humans project meaning onto the world. Let me know if you’d like more specific cultural examples or a deeper dive!

Mathematical Beauty

What makes these solids special? They’re the only five shapes that meet these criteria:

All faces are congruent (identical in shape and size).
All faces are regular polygons (equal sides and angles).
The same number of faces meet at each vertex. This exclusivity arises from geometric constraints: at a vertex, the sum of the interior angles of the meeting polygons must be less than 360 degrees to form a convex shape. For example:
- Triangles (60° each): 3 (180°), 4 (240°), or 5 (300°) work; 6 (360°) flattens out.
- Squares (90° each): 3 (270°) works; 4 (360°) doesn’t.
- Pentagons (108° each): 3 (324°) works; 4 (432°) exceeds 360°.

This finite set—five and only five—lends them an aura of completeness and perfection.

Historical and Philosophical Significance

Plato and the Elements: In Timaeus (c. 360 BCE), Plato assigned four solids to the classical elements: tetrahedron (fire), cube (earth), octahedron (air), icosahedron (water). The dodecahedron, he suggested, represented the cosmos or the “quintessence” (fifth essence), a divine substance shaping the heavens. This wasn’t just poetic—it tied geometry to a creation narrative, implying a rational deity structured the world.
Euclid’s Proof: In Elements (Book XIII), Euclid systematically described and proved the existence of only five regular polyhedra, grounding them in rigorous math. This blend of beauty and logic reinforced their mystique.
Kepler’s Cosmic Model: In 1596, Johannes Kepler proposed in Mysterium Cosmographicum that the orbits of the six known planets were spaced according to the Platonic solids nested within each other (e.g., octahedron inside icosahedron). Though disproven by elliptical orbits, it shows how these shapes inspired divine-order theories.

Connection to “Proofs of God and the three Goddesses”

The Platonic solids often appear in arguments for a designed universe:

Symmetry and Rarity: Their perfect regularity and limited number suggest a deliberate constraint, not random chaos. Why only five? Thinkers like Kepler saw this as a signature of a purposeful intelligence.
Universal Presence: Their forms echo in nature—tetrahedral carbon bonds in chemistry, icosahedral virus structures, cubic salt crystals—hinting at a geometric code woven into reality.
Aesthetic Appeal: Their harmony resonates with human perception of beauty, which mystics like Augustine tied to divine reflection (“God is beauty itself”).

Modern and Cultural Echoes

Science: Crystallography reveals Platonic shapes in atomic lattices (e.g., cubic structures in sodium chloride), bridging ancient intuition with modern discovery.
Art and Fiction: They inspire everything from Escher’s impossible geometries to D&D dice sets (tetrahedron as d4, icosahedron as d20), keeping their allure alive.
Esotericism: Occult traditions link them to meditation or energy work, seeing them as keys to cosmic understanding.

How this ties in with Pentagram/Pentacle and Cross Symbols

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.

One 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. To learn some more facts behind the geometry related to the Pentacle and more, go HERE.

Symbolism of Unity in Multiplicity

The concept of the One God and Three Goddesses holds deep cultural and spiritual significance. The union of the One God with the Three Goddesses symbolizes the harmony between the masculine and feminine forces within the cosmos. This balance represents the interconnectedness of duality and triad, essential for understanding universal principles. The One God often embodies singularity, action, and will, while the Three Goddesses represent nurturing, receptivity, and multiplicity—together creating a complete whole. Their dynamics often symbolize the creation of life, the sustaining of prosperity, and the destruction of obstacles (specifically obstacles in gaining a deeper awareness of these connections)—mirroring cycles found in nature. Overall, this structure resonates as a universal motif, highlighting themes of unity, harmony, and the dynamic interplay of forces, making it a vital cultural and spiritual concept and foundation that should not be taken for granted.

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.

In this structure, we still have the base 22 note points. However, we also have the extension where each of the three Goddesses, aside from their individual sets of four expressions, have an additional 3 for a total of 9. This is the 9 orders of offspring of God and three Goddesses, each accounting for 3 segments divided by 8 each, or 24 x 3 = 72 Sons of God. In this context, which is extremely ancient, these secondary deities form the concept of the divine council of the Almighty: 24 linked with light, 24 linked with twilight, and 24 linked with dark.

Unlike God who has 3 Wives, these 72 sons are often represented as having 5 wives each which would in turn represent 360 and align with the concepts of the number of degrees in a circle. This then equates to 120 daughters of each of the 3 Goddess as 3 x 120 = 360. These also equate as 120 light, twilight and dark secondary goddesses. All these associations are linked directly to the concepts of the measurement of time and the seasons, as well as the various elements of nature.

This is, however, a different approach that instead of 72 sons and 120 daughters born to the three Goddesses, that the system may instead be changed to "Children" and set up as pairs of 36 sons and 36 daughters. Others will at times arrange it so that there are 24 sons and 48 daughters, so each son has 2 wives rather than three and placed so that each consort is on either side of the son and this accounts for the concept of 3 sets of 10 (decans), so that this measures out as 30 x 12 and the result can then be the 360° circle as a symbol of completion. One of the common occult driven frauds about this is to further try and hide all this and impose at times a twisted attempt at pantheism, these "72" offspring are instead reduced to being claimed as 72 Names of God, no mention of the three Goddesses, and God is as such stripped of gender completely or alternatively is reinvented to be androgynous. You can learn more about examples of such corruption HERE.

In other examples these same 72 children are broken down into 9 orders composed of 8 individuals aligned to the claimed 9 orders of angelic beings rather than as deities, yet they will try and erase the concept of the 3 Goddesses as consorts of the One God, despite that 3 x 3 = 9, or the fact that each of the three Goddesses are aligned in that system with 4 months, 4 x 3 = 12, 12 x 6 = 72 and can all be broken down back again into the same conceptual alignments such as 3 x 8 = 24, x 3 = 72.
In the center remains the 1 manifested through those 6 points. In addition, we also have another foundation of many key measurements called Decons which are sets of 3 x 12 = 36 and as 30 x 12 = 360, or alternatively 6 for God's manifested Spirit through the Three Goddesses in their primary forms as 1 season plus 4 months = 5 so that 6 x 5 = 30. This of course brings us back to the 1 and 3 = 4 and 4/72 = 18. 18 x 4 also = 72.
We can also use the math form of 7 for God in this form and the three Goddesses collectively added as 15 as 7 +15 = 22. The reason for this is because some sources mention 88 children of the 1 and 3 and 22 x 4 = 88, which is interesting in and of itself, though the standard tends to be primarily 72. Additionally, most to the names of these various secondary deities are lost to time, along with their specific associations, and of course, many were also fused and confused with one another even by modern researchers.

The 72 Children of God are distributed in this zodiacal wheel, each celestial being occupies 5 degrees in the 360-degree wheel, to which each choir of so-called angelic beings belong. A choir is a group of 8 angels and there are 9 choirs usually defined as the first set of 3 are Seraphim, Thrones and Cherubim, the second set of 3 are Virtues, Dominions and Powers, and the last set of 3 are Angels, Principalities and Archangels. Whar most don't realize is they are all "daemons" (later split off as demon with the same meaning) which is Greek Dae 'shine' + monos 'one' with the literal meaning shining one in association with stars, including the Sun, Moon and Planets.

Angel also does not mean messenger. It's Greek for An- 'without' + gelos 'cheer/laughter.' The context is stern pr severe seriousness along the lines of an entity serving as an emotionless warrior that executes a command without hesitation, mercy or compassion (which is more in line with the concept of such entities being considered terrifying in power and presence and because of what their functions tend to be). That will also be clarified HERE.

The symbol here shows how this geometry applies to calendar structures often represented in ancient artifacts but seldom recognized properly. We have the three main segmented lines in triangular position aligned with Winter (North), Spring (SE), and Summer (SW) as Holy Days. In the center is the triple horns symbol to represent the association with the 1 God. You can learn more about this HERE. Some of the following will be repeated and expanded upon.

For the most part, the opened spaces or three segmented lines natural are associated with the 3 Goddesses, each sometimes called metaphorically a Horn Bearer that has its own diverse symbolism. Each of these are then aligned with four segments of the seasons, and we have the four-fold divisions also marked by 1-12 representing the 12 months of the year. Each of these four segmented sets have a total of 9 sub-divisions, which also being marked at 4 points equal 1-36. This ties together the basic concepts of the solar/lunar calendars.

This allows us to now realize the real associations with such as the number 666 which has nothing to do with 'Evil' and has long been a misrepresentation of mistranslations for many centuries. On the other hand, it has also been smeared as 'Evil' on purpose to suppress this information and impose a widespread counterfeit concept that smears this central and fundamental polytheism more or less. In any case, this is all based on taking 1-36 and creating sequence to arrive at 666 based on this calendar-based structure and measurement of time over the period of the year. It is done as follows to make it simple to see and one can count this all up for themselves as it produces the same results.

1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+12+13+14+15+16+17+18+19+20+21+22

+23+24+25+26+27+28+29+30+31+312+33+34+35+36 = 666.

it is often cited that this is also considered a prime number in computing which also is often used to perpetuate other nonsense, but more so, with all this information provided, it makes many uncomfortable with the fact that the Deity they claim to so devoutly praise, worship and believe in is this same 1 God who has 3 wives that are Goddesses, that have been erased from their cultural records and memories, despite that this was known well into the 7th century CE, and sought to be stamped out by all three of the main major "so called" Monotheistic religions. All the same, as will be clarified, even when you use the system of the Magic Square of the Sun, if you only count one side or column you get 666. However, there are also 6 rows and two diagonal paths that have to be counted with more or less 777 x 2 also has the end result of 1,554 as the true number of the Solar Magic Square, which you will learn about HERE.

HOW THIS SHAPED SOME THEOLOGY AND FOLKLORE

There has been a lot of effort to keep this information unknown, distorted and irretrievable by many with their own motivations over the centuries, and more so now with so much other ideological nonsense. In fact, despite many claims, for example, of a Devil being more or less an asexual or hermaphroditic being, and others present such an entity as more or less lacking no concept of gender as sexless or neuter "it," contrary to all that, those same sources will claim the Devil is a He, and that he has 3 wives as She-Devils which was more or less intended to further distance people from any cultural connections recognizing God was not some Divine Eunuch or perpetual bachelor humanoid ale on a throne in the sky. In turn, it was this basis where a primary Warlock and three primary Witches were often presented in earlier folklore as being both representatives and vessels of this reconstructed distortion, and as such, claims of their supernatural powers as a result of deals or being possessed by them. (Playing off this I made this combined symbol of the associated Farmer Warlock pitchfork and Farmer's wives brooms logo).

This theme of triadic figures or groups is echoed in numerous works of literature and popular culture, showcasing its enduring appeal and symbolic depth. For instance, it appears prominently in Bram Stoker's Dracula, and its influence extends into later adaptations such as Van Helsing, The Witches of Eastwick, Hocus Pocus, and beyond. These narratives often draw upon the motif of three supernatural entities, evoking ancient associations with mysticism, power, and the balance of forces.

Even in Shakespeare's time, the concept of three witches—famously represented as the Weird Sisters in Macbeth—was deeply rooted in folklore and mythology. These sisters, often linked to the Norns or Wyrdan Sostara (also the Wyrdan Suoesteran) figures associated with the Norns in Norse mythology, embodied the mysterious and intertwined forces of fate, the name is later translated as Weird Sisters. Note that Sostara was falsely defined in a singular as Ostara by a monk named Beda/Bede in the 8th century CE.
Shakespeare's Weird Sisters serve not only as agents of prophecy but also as symbols of the uncanny and the unknown, reinforcing the significance of the number three in Western mythological and dramatic traditions. In addition, Puck, also known as Robin Goodfellow, plays a pivotal role in English folklore and is prominently featured in Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream. Depicted as a mischievous elf, a helpful household spirit, or even a malevolent figure akin to a warlock or the Devil, Puck reflects the fluidity of supernatural archetypes during this period. His characterization illustrates how figures from folklore were adapted and reimagined across literary works, often blending older traditions with emerging cultural influences.
Overall, the persistent presence of triadic and supernatural elements in these stories underscores humanity's fascination with the interplay of the magical and the mundane. It bridges ancient mythological themes with modern storytelling, ensuring their relevance across generations.
In addition, the associated Sacred Geometry was likewise considered by many to be a profane secret and unholy science while others put a different spin on the same concept and came up with the idea of a Sacred Holy Science only to be in the hands of "approved clergy" and their appointed builders and creators of cathedrals, paintings and religious icons, but the things that conflicted with the "official local or regional theocracy" was the "bad kind" and under the works of said Warlocks and Witches, often called "dark arts."

It's also notable that at times that the Warlock is made out to be a sort of Incubus and the Witches as Succubae. But no one ever digs enough and try more or less drop it in the lap of Pan and three Nymphs or some other Greek and Roman source. While it's not entirely wrong, it is not the whole picture. The first you have to understand the theological mindset behind this all.

Since Bishop/Pope is considered the stand in for God on Earth as his ultimate representative, the Anti-Pope would then be proclaimed as a Warlock and the stand in for the Devil on Earth. The association with three Witches were often presented in the perversion aspect of things as sort of Anti-Nuns more or less.
The Image of the Devil called Satan was also given to have three consorts originally from another set of Hebrew names as Naamah, Igrath, and Mahalath drawn from a weird mix of Jewish Mysticism. Samael and Lilith were their own pair associated with Pazuzu and Lamashtu originally from Babylonian sources and were mixed up in all this which is where much of later confusion comes into play.
It was claimed this pairing of the 'Devil' with three wives was a perversion and mockery of the Catholic Trinity which doesn't really make much sense but seldom Popes had to since they have always been their own little emperors giving out Papal bulls at whim. In any case this became a theme in the Medieval period onward so that any representation involving a deity with three wives was proclaimed "Satanic" even if it was known to have nothing to do with such concepts.
As such, Monotheism more or less invented the whole concept of Satanism that many play off of on purpose to play off the fear and paranoia and call it atheistic or non-theistic "philosophical Satanism" where the name alone is applied as symbolic but they still praise such as though they are worshipping such an entity, while some take it to be true and actually engage in it as "theological Satanism" as the eventual usurper of the monotheistic deity. (They're all loony to be blunt about it).

Some known examples matching the prior (not Satanic) concepts of the One God and Three Goddesses include a terracotta relief of the Matres (the Vertault relief), from the Gallo-Roman settlement of Vertillum (Vertault) in Gaul, matching many other variations throughout many regions. Although many depictions of groups of three women (e.g. the Germanic and Celtic Matrones) have been found in Gallo-Roman culture, the names of the Beten did not appear in pre-medieval contexts, nor in Celtic literature of the British Isles.

The Matres (Latin for "mothers") and Matronae (Latin for "matrons") were female deities venerated from the 1st to 5th centuries CE in Northwestern Europe, of whom relics are found dating from the first to the fifth century AD.
They are depicted on votive offerings and altars that bear images of goddesses, depicted almost entirely in groups of three, that feature inscriptions (about half of which feature Continental Celtic names and half of which feature Germanic names) and were venerated in regions of Germania, Eastern Gaul, and Northern Italy.
The cult of the Beten is considered a continuation of this and have pre-Christian roots, such as worship at wells, in forest groves, and near unusual stones as was common in Celtic, Scandinavian and Germanic religions and given each the names of Ainbeth, Borbeth, and Wilbeth to name but a few variations.

The name "Beten" is derived from the modern German word for "to pray", which may indicate that the act of worshiping the Bethen was so important that it influenced the word for praying to them. The most common list of names for them include:

Einbet(h), Ambet(h), Embet(h), Ainbeth, Ainpeta, Einbede, Aubet...
Worbet(h), Borbet, Wolbeth, Warbede, Gwerbeth...
Wilbet(h), Willebede, Vilbeth, Fürbeth, Firpet, Cubet...

While the three Goddesses are almost always depicted together as distinct figures, each holding unique symbols, representations of the One God with three faces are more common. These diverse depictions are often accompanied by the triple-faced male deity Lugos (Gaulish) or Lugus (Latin), whose name originates from the older Greek Logos, meaning "thought" or "concept." Logos was later used figuratively to mean "word" in the sense of expression. Lugus, a god of the Celtic pantheon, is also associated with the roots log and lag, which connect to the origins of law. A notable example of such a tricephalic god, identified as Lug, was discovered in Reims.

Julius Caesar, in De Bello Gallico, identified six gods worshipped in Gaul, referring to them by their Roman equivalents rather than their Gaulish names. Among these, Mercury was described as the most revered, serving as the patron of trade, commerce, travelers, and the inventor of all the arts. However, it is important to approach such accounts critically, as Roman (and Greek) perspectives often imposed their own definitions on foreign deities. These biases were perpetuated through Roman Catholic institutions and are still reflected in some modern academic interpretations.
There are many examples of confusion surrounding the triple-faced male deity, as some sources struggled to determine whether he should be represented as the Devil or as a Christ-like Trinity figure. Old Catholic texts, for instance, describe such depictions as either a holy Trinity or as a monstrous "three-faced" aberration. The connection between Lug and Logos is evident in these portrayals, and alternative versions of the "Devil" featuring three devouring faces further illustrate this gradual reduction of the One God into an evil, devilish figure. Nevertheless, these triple-faced representations are rooted in far older imagery and concepts, reused throughout history, regardless of whether they were portrayed as divine or diabolical.
A 15th-century carving from Cornwall serves as a striking example of a prominent Celtic image, one that traces its origins back to the pre-Christian Celtic traditions of Europe. This depiction reflects a recurring motif of tri-cephalic, or triple-headed, figures, which held profound symbolic significance in Celtic art and spirituality. While several such tri-cephalic images have survived in Cornwall and the surrounding regions, they remain relatively rare across Britain, underscoring the distinct cultural heritage of this area.
The triple-headed representation is deeply rooted in the Celtic worldview, where the number three was imbued with mystical and magico-religious importance. This symbolism often expressed concepts of unity and multiplicity, encompassing ideas such as life, death, and rebirth, or the interconnected forces of nature. As the Celts came into contact and mingled with Roman culture, this triple-headed motif was reinterpreted and syncretized with Roman deities. Notably, the triple head became associated with Mercury, the Roman god of commerce, communication, and prosperity. This association underscores the adaptability of Celtic symbolism, as it integrated elements of Roman mythology while retaining its distinct identity.
Such carvings, like the one in Cornwall, provide a tangible link to the rich spiritual tapestry of the ancient Celtic world. They exemplify how cultures evolve through interaction, blending indigenous beliefs with influences from neighboring civilizations. This convergence preserved the essence of the Celtic reverence for the triadic form while introducing new dimensions to its interpretation. As a strange oddity to all this, such examples as this Three Faced Trinity concept by an anonymous artist occurs centuries later in 17th century onward. In Latin it is also called vultustriformis or vultustrifons though it goes back further as stated. Basically, it's a visual expression of a theological concept and among some of the stranger concepts that have occurred throughout human history. However, as can be gathered by now it is not so unusual or even all that unique as far as the various artistic expressions of such concepts go.
Examples where the Devil is remade using these triadic faces include a drawing/painting called Lucifer by an Anonymous artist in14th century. It occurs again in other such forms such as illustrations for the Divine Comedy, Codex Altonensis, Hamburg. The three-faced and the three-headed Trinity were frowned upon by theologians and other watchers of the Christian canon by this time, though many have, even to this day, continued creating such imagery alongside of the parallel devilish monstrosity of nature. This led to the rejection by Jean Gerson (chancellor of the University of Paris), St. Anthony (archbishop of Florence) or Joannes Molanus (professor at the University of Leuven), among others. In these medieval times, this artistic typology also clashed with the polycephalous image of the devil, which was obviously totally antithetical, and which, in the 16th century, was a source of ridicule among Protestants.

Triglav, whose name translates to "Three-Headed One," is a deity from Slavic mythology, particularly venerated in Pomeranian and Polabian regions. He is depicted with three heads, each symbolizing a distinct realm: the heavens, the earth, and the underworld. Triglav is considered a guardian of cosmic balance, ensuring harmony among these realms. His imagery often includes a cloaked figure with three faces, a three-headed eagle, or a mountain with three peaks, all emphasizing his connection to the triadic structure of existence.

When comparing Triglav to the Celtic triple-faced representations of the divine, such as Lugus or Lug, several parallels emerge. Both Triglav and Lugus embody the concept of unity within multiplicity, using the number three to symbolize interconnected forces or realms. While Triglav's three heads represent the heavens, earth, and underworld, Lugus is associated with thought, expression, and law, reflecting a more abstract triadic symbolism. Additionally, both deities are linked to balance and order—Triglav as the overseer of cosmic harmony and Lugus as a figure tied to law and wisdom. However, there are notable differences in their cultural contexts and interpretations.
Triglav's role is more explicitly tied to the division of the cosmos and the maintenance of equilibrium, while Lugus's triadic nature is often linked to creativity, prosperity, and intellectual pursuits. Furthermore, Triglav's imagery is rooted in Slavic traditions, whereas Lugus's representations are distinctly Celtic, influenced by Roman syncretism. Both figures highlight the enduring significance of triadic symbolism in ancient religions, serving as powerful representations of balance, unity, and the interconnectedness of existence.

More Widespread than Appreciated

The theme of a single god associated with three wives or goddesses is deeply ingrained in the fabric of human belief systems, yet it has often been suppressed or overlooked. While some cultures have preserved this concept to varying degrees, the most prominent example remains in India, where it continues to play a vital role in the overall cultural and religious framework.

Expanding information of previous cross culture examples

In Hinduism, the concept of a triad of gods, or the Trimurti, plays a central role in understanding the creation, preservation, and destruction of the universe. Each of the Trimurti—Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva—is accompanied by three goddesses, known as Devis, who embody complementary divine powers. These goddesses further emphasize the interconnectedness of male and female energies in Hindu cosmology. The associations are as follows (be aware these also very from source to source as previous stated about such matters):

The God Brahma and His Three Goddesses:
- Savitri: Representing the power of creation and life, often associated with the act of generating existence.
- Sarasvati: The goddess of knowledge, music, and wisdom, representing the intellectual and artistic dimensions of creation.
- Gayatri: Embodying spiritual enlightenment and the transformative power of prayer, central to the connection between humans and the divine.
The God Vishnu and His Three Goddesses:
- Lakshmi: The goddess of wealth, prosperity, and fortune, symbolizing abundance and well-being.
- Bhumi: A personification of the earth, representing nurturing, stability, and sustenance.
- Ganga: The river goddess, symbolizing purity, cleansing, and the flow of life itself.
The God Shiva and His Three Goddesses:
- Parvati: The goddess of love, fertility, and devotion, representing the nurturing and compassionate aspect of existence.
- Durga: A warrior goddess, embodying strength, protection, and the destruction of evil.
- Kali: The goddess of time, transformation, and ultimate destruction, often seen as the fierce and protective aspect of Shiva’s energy.

Middle Eastern Mythology

The God An/Anu (associated with the concept of "One") and the Three Goddesses:
- Nammu: The primordial goddess of creation.
- Kia: A representation of the earth or earthly forces.
- Uras: Associated with fertility and abundance.
The God Al and the Three Goddesses:
- Astarte: A goddess of love, war, and fertility.
- Asherat: A mother goddess of family, kinship and figure of nurturing.
- Anath: A goddess of love, war and strength.

Greek and Roman Mythology

The God Kronos and the Three Goddesses (as per Philo of Byblos):
- Dione: Associated with femininity and water.
- Aphrodite: Goddess of love, beauty, and desire.
- Rhea: The mother goddess linked to fertility and motherhood.
Theos/Deus/Zeus Moiragetes and the Three Goddesses (Moirae):
- Klotho: The spinner of life's thread.
- Lakhesis: The measurer of destiny.
- Atropos: The inevitable cutter of the thread.
Jupiter Dux Parcae and the Three Goddesses (Parcae):
- Nona: Associated with spinning destiny's thread.
- Decuma: The measurer of life's span.
- Morta: The one who cuts the thread, signifying death.
Zeus (Roman Jupiter) is accompanied by goddesses such as
- Hera (marriage),
- Athena (wisdom), and
- Aphrodite (love), echoing the interplay of complementary forces.

Egyptian Mythology

The God Shai and the Three Goddesses:
- Meskhenet: Linked to childbirth and fate.
- Renenutet: A goddess of nourishment and harvest.
- Shepset: A fierce protector.
The God Ptah (after whom the name Egypt is derived) and the Three Goddesses:
- Sekhmet: The warrior goddess and bringer of plagues.
- Bastet: Goddess of home, fertility, and protection.
- Wadjet: Protector goddess often depicted as a cobra.

Slavic Mythology

The God Rod and the Three Goddesses:

Rozhanitzy: Protectors of childbirth and destiny.
Narucznica: Associated with nurturing forces.
Udelnica: Symbolizing individual fate.

Scandinavian and Icelandic Mythology

Godan and the Three Goddesses:
- Friya: Goddess of love and beauty.
- Rinda: Representing determination and strength.
- Iurda: Associated with earth and dfertility.
Alternatively, Odin, the Allfather, and the three Goddesses
- Frigg: Goddess of motherhood and family
- Freyja: Goddess of love and beauty
- Runa: Associated with fate and destiny.
The Mimir and the Three Norns:
- Urd: Representing the past.
- Verdandi: Representing the present.
- Skuld: Representing the future.

Note: There are several other characters lines up with three consorts within the Icelandic source stories, though as one who actually has read through, researched and compared the content of such things like the various Eddas, there is no actual uniformity as is often falsely portrayed, and has a lot of clear barrowings by 13th and14th century authors from Greek and Roman Latin source materials instead.

Many will note that these parallels highlight humanity’s enduring fascination with triadic forms as archetypes of balance, unity, and cosmic order, shared across diverse cultures and belief systems. While this is true, what is often layered by assumptions and interpretations, there is seldom any references to these being based directly in the observations of nature, and when it is, it's often presented with vague foot notes and very little clear connections to the true Sacred Geometry basis behind these things. If some do mention it, it's often confused or aligned with other completely unrelated things that demonstrated such authors have a far more difficult time dealing with or accepting the clear associations as has been presented so far.

Back to associations with Sacred Geometry

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.

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.

The basis of all this comes from the conceptual key arguments and examples where geometry has been used to suggest the existence of a divine order, without claiming these as definitive proofs—since that’s a matter of belief—but as historical and conceptual perspectives. Be aware that when God is stated in this, it also includes the three Goddesses within Druwayu.

1. The Order and Harmony of Geometric Forms

Argument: The precision and universality of geometric shapes—like circles, triangles, and polyhedra—suggest a rational, intentional structure to the universe, pointing to a purposeful design by a conscious mind (God).
Example: The circle, with its perfect symmetry and constant radius, has been revered across cultures as a symbol of eternity and divinity. Ancient thinkers like Pythagoras saw its infinite yet bounded nature as a reflection of a perfect, unchanging creator. The ratio of its circumference to diameter (π, pi) is an irrational constant appearing everywhere in nature, from planetary orbits to wave patterns, hinting at a deeper, unchanging lawgiver.
Historical Context: Plato, in his Timaeus, linked geometric solids (the Platonic solids—tetrahedron, cube, octahedron, dodecahedron, icosahedron) to the elements and the cosmos, arguing their elegance and symmetry reflected a divine craftsman’s work.

2. The Golden Ratio and Divine Proportion

Argument: The golden ratio (approximately 1.618), a geometric proportion found in nature, art, and architecture, is so pervasive and aesthetically pleasing that it suggests a deliberate design by a higher intelligence.
Example: The spiral of a nautilus shell, the arrangement of seeds in a sunflower, and the proportions of the human body often approximate the golden ratio. Medieval scholars like Fibonacci (who didn’t discover it but popularized its sequence) and later thinkers like Luca Pacioli (in De Divina Proportione, 1509) argued this ratio’s recurrence in creation points to a divine architect embedding beauty and order into reality.
Theological Spin: The golden ratio’s presence in sacred structures—like the Parthenon or Gothic cathedrals—was seen as humans mirroring a cosmic blueprint set by God.

3. The Platonic Solids and Cosmic Design

Argument: The five Platonic solids, being the only regular polyhedra possible in three-dimensional space, represent a finite perfection that mirrors a divine mind’s limitation and intention in structuring the universe.
Example: Johannes Kepler, in his Mysterium Cosmographicum (1596), proposed that the orbits of the planets were nested within these solids (e.g., octahedron inside icosahedron), suggesting God used geometry to order the solar system. Though his model was later disproven, the idea tied geometric perfection to divine intent.
Philosophical Link: The uniqueness of these shapes—each face identical, each vertex uniform—implies a simplicity and completeness that theologians like Augustine associated with God’s unity and omnipotence.

4. The Infinite and the Finite in Geometry

Argument: Geometry’s ability to describe both the infinite (e.g., lines extending forever) and the finite (e.g., a bounded square) parallels theological notions of God as both transcendent (beyond comprehension) and immanent (present in creation).
Example: Euclid’s geometry, with axioms like “parallel lines never meet,” holds universally yet emerges from simple postulates, suggesting an eternal truth undergirding reality. Medieval scholars like Thomas Aquinas saw such eternal truths as reflections of God’s mind, arguing in his Summa Theologica that order and intelligibility of the world (including geometry) point to a purposeful cause.
Mystical Angle: The infinite divisibility of a line segment (Zeno’s paradoxes) or the boundless nature of a fractal echoes divine infinity, a concept mystics like Nicholas of Cusa tied to God’s incomprehensible nature.

5. Sacred Geometry in Nature and Architecture

Argument: Patterns in nature and their replication in human-made sacred spaces suggest a universal language of geometry that originates from a divine source.
Example: The hexagonal cells of a beehive, the radial symmetry of a snowflake, or the spiral of a galaxy exhibit geometric precision. These patterns inspired sacred architecture—like the circular domes of mosques or the triangular stability of pyramids—seen as humans aligning with a divine template.
Cultural Evidence: In the Gothic cathedrals use of arches and vaults was designed to lift the soul toward heaven, using geometry as a bridge to the divine. In other cases, intricate geometric tiling (e.g., tessellations) avoids anthropomorphic but reflects God’s infinite nature.

They hinge on the idea that geometry’s elegance, universality, and utility—whether in the spiral of DNA or the orbit of planets—imply a purposeful intelligence rather than random chance. Critics (e.g., materialists) might counter that these patterns emerge from natural laws without needing a deity, but proponents (like Kepler or Newton, who saw God in mathematics) argue the laws themselves suggest a lawgiver, as do many physicists. In addition, a purely materialistic view of existence has long since been demonstrated to be incompatible. Below are examples where modern physics contradict the purely materialistic worldview and where they show where the paradigm stumbles.

1. Quantum Indeterminacy and the Observer Effect

Phenomenon: In quantum mechanics, particles exist in a superposition of states (e.g., both a wave and a particle) until measured. The act of observation collapses this superposition into a definite state (e.g., Schrödinger’s wavefunction collapse).
Example: The double-slit experiment: When electrons pass through slits unobserved, they create an interference pattern (wave-like behavior). When observed, they act as particles, forming two bands. This shift depends on measurement, not just physical interaction.
Challenge to Materialism: A strict materialist view assumes reality is fully objective and independent of observation. Yet, here, the observer’s role—whether human consciousness or a detector—seems to influence physical outcomes. This doesn’t align with a universe of purely deterministic matter; it suggests reality might be participatory or relational, hinting at something beyond mere physicality. Physicists like John Wheeler proposed the “participatory universe,” where observation co-creates reality, clashing with materialism’s passive, external stance.

2. Nonlocality and Entanglement

Phenomenon: Quantum entanglement shows that two particles, once linked, can instantaneously affect each other’s states, regardless of distance—faster than light, defying classical causality (Bell’s Theorem, experimentally confirmed by Aspect’s 1982 tests).
Example: If two entangled electrons are separated by light-years and one’s spin is measured (say, “up”), the other’s spin instantly becomes “down,” with no apparent signal traveling between them.
Challenge to Materialism: Materialism relies on locality—interactions mediated by physical forces over space and time. Entanglement suggests a deeper, non-physical connection, often described as “spooky” (Einstein’s term). This doesn’t fit a universe of isolated material objects; it implies a holistic or interconnected reality, which some interpret as pointing to a unifying principle beyond matter (e.g., David Bohm’s “implicate order”).

3. The Fine-Tuning of the Universe

Phenomenon: Cosmology reveals that physical constants (e.g., gravitational constant, electromagnetic force) are precisely calibrated to allow life. Tiny deviations would make stars, planets, or chemistry impossible.
Example: The cosmological constant (governing universe expansion) is fine-tuned to 1 part in 10^120. If slightly larger, the universe would’ve expanded too fast for galaxies; if smaller, it’d collapse.
Challenge to Materialism: Materialism often assumes the universe’s properties are random or inevitable outcomes of physical laws. Fine-tuning suggests either extraordinary coincidence (hard to swallow statistically) or intentional design, which materialism rejects. Alternatives like the multiverse (infinite universes with varying constants) remain untestable, leaving the question open—why this universe? Physicists like Paul Davies note this strains materialist explanations, hinting at purpose or a non-material origin.

4. The Nature of Time in Relativity and Quantum Gravity

Phenomenon: Einstein’s relativity shows time isn’t absolute but relative to observers, while quantum gravity efforts (e.g., loop quantum gravity) suggest time might emerge from deeper, non-temporal structures.
Example: In special relativity, simultaneity breaks down—event A might precede B for one observer but follow it for another. In quantum cosmology, models like the Wheeler-DeWitt equation describe a “timeless” state where time isn’t fundamental.
Challenge to Materialism: Materialism assumes a linear, objective flow of time in a physical universe. If time is emergent or illusory at a fundamental level, reality’s bedrock isn’t the clockwork progression of matter but something more abstract—possibly a timeless framework or consciousness-dependent process. This aligns poorly with materialism’s concrete, time-bound view.

5. The Hard Problem of Consciousness and Quantum Mind Hypotheses

Phenomenon: Physics intersects with neuroscience in theories like Penrose and Hameroff’s Orch-OR (Orchestrated Objective Reduction), suggesting consciousness arises from quantum processes in microtubules within brain cells.
Example: Classical physics can’t explain subjective experience (Chalmers’ “hard problem”). Orch-OR posits that quantum collapses in the brain, influenced by non-computable processes, generate consciousness, not just neural firing.
Challenge to Materialism: Materialism holds that consciousness is fully reducible to physical brain states. If quantum effects (non-deterministic, possibly tied to a cosmic order) underpin it, consciousness might not be a mere byproduct of matter but a fundamental aspect of reality. This opens the door to non-materialist views, like panpsychism or a mind-matter interplay, which materialism dismisses.

6. The Origin of the Universe and Information

Phenomenon: The Big Bang implies a beginning to matter, energy, space, and time, while information theory (e.g., black hole entropy) suggests information might be more fundamental than matter.
Example: The universe’s initial low-entropy state (highly ordered) is improbable under random material processes. Meanwhile, the holographic principle posits reality as a projection of information encoded on a boundary, not a bulk of matter.
Challenge to Materialism: Materialism struggles with what precedes or causes the Big Bang—pure matter can’t explain its own origin. If information or laws predate physicality, reality’s foundation shifts from tangible stuff to an abstract structure, suggesting a non-material essence (e.g., a “logos” or organizing principle).

Below is a list of notable physicists who have expressed belief in a God or a higher power, along with their stated reasons where available. This draws from historical records, writings, and interviews, reflecting a range of perspectives from theistic to pantheistic beliefs. I’ve focused on physicists whose views are well-documented and tied to their scientific work or philosophical outlook, avoiding speculation where evidence is thin.

1. Isaac Newton (1642–1727)

Belief: Devout but unorthodox Christian (Unitarian, rejecting the Trinity).
Reasons: Newton saw the order and regularity of the universe—exemplified by his laws of motion and gravitation—as evidence of God’s handiwork. He wrote in Principia Mathematica that the “most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” He believed studying nature revealed God’s thoughts, famously saying, “This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all.”
Context: His science and faith were inseparable; he saw physical laws as divine design.

2. Johannes Kepler (1571–1630)

Belief: Devout Lutheran Christian.
Reasons: Kepler viewed his discovery of planetary motion laws as uncovering God’s geometric plan. In Harmonices Mundi, he wrote, “Geometry… is coeternal with the divine mind,” suggesting God created the universe with mathematical harmony. He saw his work as a priestly act, “thinking God’s thoughts after Him,” and believed the cosmos reflected divine order and beauty.
Context: His faith drove his persistence, seeing astronomy as worship.

3. Michael Faraday (1791–1867)

Belief: Devout member of the Sandemanian Christian sect.
Reasons: Faraday believed God’s design was evident in nature’s laws, particularly in his work on electromagnetism. He reportedly said, “The book of nature which we have to read is written by the finger of God,” linking his discoveries (e.g., electromagnetic induction) to divine creation. His faith emphasized humility before a purposeful universe.
Context: His religious community reinforced his view of science as a way to glorify God.

4. James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879)

Belief: Devout Presbyterian Christian.
Reasons: Maxwell, who formulated classical electromagnetism, saw the universe’s laws as evidence of a rational divine mind. He wrote, “I believe… that the scientific men of the present day have as strong a faith in a lawful Creator as those of the past,” suggesting the consistency of physical laws (e.g., Maxwell’s equations) pointed to God’s governance. He viewed science as a means to understand divine order.
Context: His faith shaped his rejection of materialism, seeing purpose in nature.

5. Max Planck (1858–1947)

Belief: Lutheran Christian, with a nuanced view of God.
Reasons: The founder of quantum theory argued that the order of the universe suggested a purposeful intelligence. In a 1937 lecture, Religion and Naturwissenschaft, he said, “Both religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations.” He saw the statistical regularity of quantum phenomena as hinting at a deeper reality beyond materialism.
Context: He viewed God as a unifying concept for science and faith, not necessarily personal but essential.

6. Werner Heisenberg (1901–1976)

Belief: Lutheran Christian.
Reasons: A pioneer of quantum mechanics (Uncertainty Principle), Heisenberg saw physics as a “divine service.” He wrote, “Physics is reflection on the divine Ideas of Creation,” suggesting humans, made in God’s spiritual image, could grasp these ideas. In a 1973 interview, he said, “The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you,” implying deep study revealed purpose.
Context: His faith reconciled quantum uncertainty with a belief in underlying order.

7. Arthur Eddington (1882–1944)

Belief: Quaker Christian.
Reasons: Known for verifying Einstein’s relativity, Eddington believed the universe’s harmony pointed to a divine mind. In The Nature of the Physical World (1928), he wrote, “The idea of a universal Mind or Logos would be… a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory.” He saw the fine-tuning of physical constants as suggestive of purpose.
Context: His Quaker mysticism tied the cosmos’ elegance to God’s presence.

8. Abdus Salam (1926–1996)

Belief: Ahmadi Muslim.
Reasons: The Nobel laureate for electroweak unification saw his faith as integral to his science. He wrote, “The Holy Quran enjoins us to reflect on the verities of Allah’s created laws of nature,” and viewed his glimpse into God’s design as a “bounty and grace.” He believed the universe’s mathematical structure reflected divine creation.
Context: His work unified forces, reinforcing his view of a purposeful cosmos.

9. John Polkinghorne (1930–2021)

Belief: Anglican Christian (ordained priest).
Reasons: A theoretical physicist turned theologian, Polkinghorne argued the universe’s intelligibility and fine-tuning suggested a purposeful design. In Questions of Truth (2009), he said, “The question of the existence of God is the single most important question we face about the nature of reality.” He saw quantum theory’s openness as allowing divine action.
Context: His shift from physics to priesthood reflected a synthesis of science and faith.

10. Freeman Dyson (1923–2020)

Belief: Practicing Christian, though agnostic about specifics.
Reasons: Known for quantum electrodynamics, Dyson said, “I am a practicing Christian but not a believing Christian,” emphasizing worship over doctrine. In a 2000 Templeton Prize speech, he suggested, “Mind and intelligence are woven into the fabric of our universe,” hinting at a purposeful intelligence behind physical laws.
Context: His faith was experiential, seeing science as revealing a mindful cosmos.

11. Arno Penzias (1933–2024)

Belief: Jewish theist.
Reasons: Co-discoverer of cosmic microwave background radiation (evidence for the Big Bang), Penzias said in a 1995 interview, “The Bible talks of purposeful creation… What we actually find is order,” suggesting the universe’s low-entropy origin aligned with divine intent. He saw astrophysics as revealing “a plan of divine creation.”
Context: His Nobel-winning work reinforced his belief in a purposeful beginning.

Observations

Common Themes: Many cite the universe’s order, mathematical beauty, or fine-tuning as evidence of a purposeful intelligence. Some (e.g., Newton, Kepler) saw science as worship, while others (e.g., Planck, Heisenberg) found God at the limits of material explanation.
Variety of Belief: Views range from personal gods (Newton, Salam) to pantheistic or abstract notions (Eddington, Dyson).
Historical Shift: Earlier physicists (Newton, Kepler) faced less secular pressure than modern ones (Polkinghorne, Penzias), yet all tied their faith to their science.

CONFRONTING OBJECTIONS TO EXISTENCE OR POSSIBLE EXISTENCE

INFINITE REGRESS FALLACY

The infinite regress fallacy occurs when an argument relies on an endless chain of reasoning without reaching a definitive conclusion. This cycle presents the notion that "a belief is justified by another belief, which is itself justified by yet another belief," creating a loop that ultimately fails to resolve the initial premise. In essence, this approach offers no meaningful answers and circles back on itself, ignoring the need for an original starting point. Beliefs, while they may be influenced by facts, are distinct from facts themselves and cannot serve as the sole basis for establishing validity.

Beliefs vs. Facts

Nature of Beliefs: Beliefs are shaped by opinions and assumptions, often interpreting facts through the lens of biases or preconceived notions.
Nature of Facts: Facts exist independently of beliefs and biases, providing objective truths that remain demonstrable and unaffected by interpretation.
Fallacy Structure: Infinite regress operates on flawed reasoning, such as "A equals B because of A, which equals B because of A," repeating endlessly without resolution.

The Origins of the Universe

Theistic Explanation: When asked, "What created the universe?" one response might be "God." However, this raises the question, "Who or what created God?" leading to an infinite chain of deities or causes that fails to provide a substantive answer.
Non-Theistic Explanation: Similarly, a non-theistic response might suggest "another universe" created the universe, which prompts further queries about the origin of the subsequent universes, perpetuating the same fallacy.
Resolution: Both arguments avoid addressing the necessity of an initial uncaused cause, which is essential for breaking the chain of regress.

A Priori Assumptions

Definition: A priori assumptions involve accepting a premise as true without evidence or logical examination.
Mutual Fallacy: Both atheists and theists often fall into this trap, presuming conclusions based on unverified premises rather than substantiating their claims.
Example: Assuming the existence or non-existence of an uncaused cause without logical exploration results in circular reasoning.

Logical Coherence and Causation Types

Space-Time Constraints: Infinite regress is inherently incoherent within our space-time continuum, as reasoning beyond temporal and spatial limits often proves irrelevant.
Causation Types: Arguments often overlook the diversity of causation, including dependent causation (relies on external factors) and accidental causation (occurs unexpectedly).
Reproducibility: Without observable reproduction or demonstration of prior causes, claims remain speculative and unsupported.

Paradoxes and Universe Totality

Paradoxes: Situations that initially seem illogical or impossible can sometimes reveal truths upon closer examination, further complicating arguments of regress.
Universe Definitions: Misunderstandings arise from unclear definitions of the universe—whether referring to the totality of all existence or the observable and knowable portion. Clarity of reference is essential for meaningful discussion.

The infinite regress fallacy evades resolution by perpetually deferring answers. It fails to account for the need for an uncaused cause or foundational principle. By emphasizing coherent, logical, and demonstrable evidence, arguments can avoid falling into the trap of infinite regress and instead offer meaningful, rational conclusions

THE UNIVERSE IS NOT ITS OWN CAUSE

1. Creation Implies a Creator The concept of causation is evident in our observations:

A creation implies a creator.
A design implies a designer.
Fine-tuning implies a fine-tuner.
Laws imply a lawgiver.

The central question often posed is: If the universe required a creator, who or what created the creator (God)? If God is timeless, spaceless, and immaterial as the ultimate uncaused cause, then why can’t the universe or nature itself possess the same attributes? Why can’t the universe be its own uncaused cause?

2. Why the Universe Cannot Be Its Own Cause The universe being its own uncaused cause fails due to two primary reasons:

Chance or Design: Either the universe self-organized by blind chance and luck, or it was created by an intelligent, conscious, and precise being (or beings).

Evidence Against Self-Causation: Scientific and physical laws provide observable evidence that the universe could not have arisen spontaneously:
- Second Law of Thermodynamics:
  - This law states that heat flows naturally from hot to cold, meaning the universe is gradually cooling down. An eternal universe would have depleted all usable energy already, which is not the case.
- Cosmic Expansion:
  - The universe’s space-time is expanding faster than the speed of light, especially where there is less matter as opposed to where masses of matter take on more concentrated density, originating from a singular point of "infinite density" (a void singularity). This demonstrates a beginning rather than eternal self-existence, but also that the "age of the universe" is an erroneous relative point of observance.
- Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation:
  - The distribution and "afterglow" of heat from the universe's initial expansion support the theory of an explosive origin event, aligning with the Big Bang.
  - Gravitational Waves and Galactic Seeds: The early universe displayed fine variations that enabled the formation of galaxies and life-sustaining elements, which point to an intentional origin rather than random chaos.

3. Co-Relativity of Space, Time, and Matter Scientific discoveries confirm that space, time, and matter are interconnected and had a simultaneous beginning. These findings prove that the universe, as we know it, is finite and had an origin.

4. Logical and Rational Conclusion Given the above evidence; the universe cannot be its own uncaused cause. Using logic, reason, and eliminating flawed assumptions:

There must exist something beyond the universe.
This "something" must, by definition, be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and self-existent—an uncaused cause.

5. Nature of a Timeless Creator If such a being is timeless, it logically follows that this entity has no beginning, as timelessness (eternity) is the very absence of temporal limitations. This aligns with the concept of God as possessing Aseity—the quality of being self-derived and independent. God, therefore, is:

The first uncaused cause.
The ultimate source of all other causes.
The creator of all things.

6. Misconceptions and Counterarguments

Claim: The uncaused cause does not necessarily have to be God.
- Response: This claim often loops back into the infinite regress fallacy or relies on speculative ideas (e.g., "mindless dimensions" or "multiverses"). Such arguments lack observational evidence and remain untestable theories.
Claim: Multiverses or other dimensions explain the universe’s existence without a creator.
- Response: The existence of multiverses, if proven, would not negate God’s existence. Instead, it would increase the probability of God being the ultimate source, as a non-dimensional, immaterial state becomes more plausible.

7. Intelligence and Order in the Universe The universe’s structure provides compelling evidence of intelligence behind its origin:

Comprehensibility: The universe is understandable, suggesting purposeful organization rather than random chance.
Cosmological Constants: The precise values of physical constants necessary for life far exceed probabilities of random occurrence.
Laws of Nature: Universal laws remain unchanged over time, indicating they either predate the universe or were established at its inception by an intelligent source.
Implied Mind and Awareness: The observable complexity and order suggest a mindful, intelligent creator distinct from but present in all things.

8. Emotional Rebuttals and Distractive Questions Disbelief often stems from emotional arguments or faith-based positions lacking substantive evidence. For example:

Asking why theology exists or why people worship the One and the Three is a distraction. Such questions pertain to opinions and justifications, not the existence of the universe or its creator.

Conclusion The evidence overwhelmingly supports the idea that the universe is not its own cause. By recognizing the necessity of an uncaused cause—something timeless, spaceless, and immaterial—we arrive at the logical concept of the One and Three ultimate origins of all things.

THE UNIVERSE IS NOT A SIMULATION

1. Introduction to the Simulation Argument

The idea that the universe is a simulation created by an advanced civilization has gained traction among certain circles, particularly tech utopianists. However, this notion:

Relies on numerous implausible assumptions and contradictions.
Is often used as an attempt to avoid acknowledging the existence of the Divine. Ironically, the concept aligns with Divine Creation by attributing creationist principles to "simulation programmers."

2. Computational Limitations The simulation hypothesis fails due to the inherent limitations of computing systems:

Processing Boundaries: Computers, whether classical or quantum, cannot exceed the information-processing limits of matter itself.
Impossibility of Perfect Simulation: A smaller system cannot perfectly simulate a larger one, rendering the idea of simulating the universe nonsensical.
Universe Simulating Itself: The only entity capable of simulating the universe with complete fidelity would have to be the universe itself, which leads to circular reasoning.

3. The "Rendered View" Argument Debunked Proponents of the simulation theory often suggest that the universe exists in a "rendered" state, where observation creates reality. This argument collapses under scrutiny:

Simultaneous Rendering Problem: To be viable, all perspectives, distances, and angles must render instantly and perfectly at every moment—a task computationally impossible.

Observation-Based Reality Fallacy:
- If reality exists only when observed, then covering one’s eyes or obstructing one’s view would cause the universe to cease existing.
- Blind individuals, who cannot observe visual reality, would not interact with physical objects, yet they consistently navigate and collide with objects, disproving this idea.
- Computational shortcuts would inevitably create inconsistencies, invalidating the concept.

4. The Logical Incoherence of Simulation Believing in an advanced simulation requires acceptance of several untenable propositions:

Simulation programmers must possess omniscient foresight to predict every observation, action, and reaction in advance without errors.
The simulation must avoid systemic failures such as stack overflow while managing infinite variables, including the mysteries of consciousness.
Programmers themselves would have to exist outside the simulation’s constraints, granting them godlike attributes, which circles back to the concept of Divine creators.

5. Historical Comparisons to Mechanistic Models

The simulation argument parallels earlier mechanistic explanations of the universe, such as comparing existence to a watch crafted by a watchmaker. While these analogies sought to simplify Divine Creation, they fail to account for the vast complexities and nuances of the universe.

6. The Consistency of the Universe Despite the flaws in the simulation argument, it is undeniable that the universe demonstrates:

Incredible Consistency: Observable laws of nature exhibit unchanging precision across time.
Sacred Geometry: Patterns and geometries are evident throughout nature, reflecting intentional order and structure.

7. The Last-Ditch "Erased Inconsistencies"

Argument To salvage the simulation theory, some claim that the program erases awareness of inconsistencies. However:

This argument abandons the burden of proof required for credibility.
It essentially proposes "Intelligent Design" with unnecessary complexity, undermining itself.

8. Misuse of Quantum Physics

Proponents of the simulation argument often distort elements of quantum physics to support their claims:

Quantum Correlations: Instantaneous interactions across vast distances are observable and mathematically coherent but do not imply simulation.
Mathematical Frameworks: The universe’s underlying mathematical order reflects Divine design rather than artificial programming.
Fraudulent Evidence: Many simulation claims rely on circular reasoning and unsubstantiated data, further discrediting the hypothesis.

9. Conclusion: Rejecting the Simulation Hypothesis

The simulation hypothesis fails on every level—logically, scientifically, and philosophically. While the universe is undeniably wondrous and strange, the idea of it being a simulated construct adds unnecessary steps to an already elegant reality. Instead:

The universe’s complexity and order point to a mindful creator.
The One and Three are not constrained by mathematics but define and shape it.

Ultimately, our best course is to embrace the wonder of existence, live life fully, and remain open to the possibilities beyond the observable and experiential.

ABIOGENISIS FICTION

1. Introduction to Abiogenesis

Definition:
- Abiogenesis, or Spontaneous Abiogenesis, refers to the hypothetical concept that living organisms originated from nonliving substances without any external guidance.
Unproven Hypothesis:
- Despite decades of experimentation in laboratories, near thermal vents, and other controlled environments, abiogenesis has never been successfully demonstrated or reproduced. This makes it a hypothesis, not a theoretical fact.
Distinct from Evolution:
- Abiogenesis addresses the origin of life itself.
- Evolution, in contrast, focuses on the development and changes in life forms after life has already emerged. The two are related but fundamentally different concepts.

2. Challenges to Abiogenesis

Lack of Demonstration: Scientific attempts to demonstrate abiogenesis have failed repeatedly, regardless of variations in calculations, chemical compounds, and experimental methods.
Reproducibility Requirement: To be scientifically validated, abiogenesis must be independently reproduced with consistent results. This has not occurred.
Laboratory vs. Natural Phenomena: While scientists have replicated molecules or created molecules from light particles, these processes involve human intervention. They are not equivalent to spontaneous generation or abiogenesis, which requires molecules to self-replicate, adapt, evolve, and eventually form life without external influence.

3. Misinterpretations and Myths

Science Myth:
- Without observational or experimental evidence, abiogenesis is more accurately described as a science myth.
Distinction from Supernova Observations:
- A common fallacy arises when the lack of evidence for abiogenesis is compared to phenomena like supernovae.
- Supernovae, unlike abiogenesis, are observable events. Their existence is directly supported by evidence, including remnants in space.
- The distinction is clear: observable phenomena vs. hypothetical, unobserved processes.

4. Abiogenesis and Atheism

Philosophical Misuse:
- Abiogenesis often serves as a theoretical foundation for atheistic perspectives. However, its speculative nature weakens its credibility in scientific and philosophical discussions.
Contrasting Replication:
- Scientists have successfully created and manipulated molecules through artificial means.
- This controlled process differs significantly from the spontaneous generation of self-replicating, adaptive life.

5. Misuse in Darwinian Criticism

Darwin’s Focus:
- Charles Darwin's work primarily addressed the differentiation of species from common ancestors, not the origin of life itself.
Unrelated Critiques:
- Misinterpreting Darwin’s theories to criticize abiogenesis conflates separate scientific areas, creating a category error fallacy.

6. Observation vs. Non-Observation

Importance of Observation:
- Abiogenesis has never been observed, either in natural settings or controlled experiments.
- Observation is essential to validate any scientific hypothesis.
Differentiation:
- Lack of observation for abiogenesis cannot be equated to events like supernovae, which have direct observational evidence.

7. Logical Conclusions

Abiogenesis remains a hypothetical concept, unsubstantiated by empirical evidence or reproducible experiments.
Its speculative nature emphasizes the gap between hypothesis and observable, testable phenomena.
Scientific inquiry into the origin of life continues, but until abiogenesis is demonstrated, it remains in the realm of fiction rather than proven science.

PANSPERMIA IS JUST ANOTHER HYPOTHETICAL

1. Definition and Context

Panspermia Explained: Panspermia hypothesizes that life originated elsewhere in the universe and was transported to Earth, potentially via comets, meteoroids, or other celestial bodies.
Unresolved Origins: Even if panspermia were demonstrated, it does not address the fundamental question of how life originally emerged from non-living substances.
It merely shifts the problem to another location without explaining the actual origins of life even if it somehow originated in space before being combined just 'right' to find a world like Earth in order to result in the "Cambrian explosion."

2. Lack of Evidence

No Demonstration: Panspermia has never been observed or demonstrated irrefutably in any scientific context.
Unproven Hypothesis: It remains speculative, lacking concrete evidence or reproducible experimentation.
Science Myth: Much like other unverified concepts, panspermia has been pushed by some as though it is factual, despite no empirical support.

3. Science of the Gaps

Faith-Based Argument: Without evidence, panspermia becomes a form of "science of the gaps," filling unanswered questions with speculative explanations rather than demonstrable facts.
Unstable Ground: Like all hypotheses lacking empirical proof, it relies on assumptions and leaps of faith rather than robust scientific validation.

4. Comparison to Proven Science

Observations Missing: Unlike observable phenomena, such as supernovae, panspermia has never been directly detected or reliably evidenced.
Science Fiction vs. Science Fact: While intriguing, panspermia currently exists more as a concept for speculative fiction than as a substantiated scientific fact.

5. Theological Perspective

Does Not Contradict Belief: Even if panspermia were demonstrated, it would not disprove the foundational belief in the One and Three as the ultimate source of creation.
Shifting the Problem: By merely relocating the question of life's origins, panspermia still leaves the ultimate origin unexplained, reaffirming the necessity of a greater cause or source.

6. Logical Conclusion

Insufficient Explanation: Until panspermia is empirically observed and independently tested, it remains a speculative hypothesis, not a proven scientific theory.
Fundamental Question Remains: The hypothesis fails to explain the true origin of life, further emphasizing the speculative nature of its claims.

OTHER FAILED ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE ONE AND THREE

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

1. Background and Purpose of the Game of Life

Origins of the Game: John Conway designed the "Game of Life" to explore how autonomous program components, governed by basic rules, could evolve into complex structures or patterns over time.
Conway's Perspective: Conway himself grew to dislike the program as it was frequently brought up in mathematical discussions, despite him finding it unremarkable in its significance.
Demonstrative Value: The project illustrates how complexity can emerge from simplicity under defined rules and conditions—no more, no less.

2. Misuse as an Argument Against a Creator

Flawed Premise:
- Some atheists use the Game of Life to argue against the need for a creator, failing to recognize the inherent contradiction in their stance.
Necessary Components:
- Rules: The Game of Life requires pre-defined programming rules, which did not create themselves.
- Containment: It necessitates a framework or "world" to run within, designed for its operation.
- Power Source: The program needs energy to function, akin to the "life spark."
Underlying Flaw:
- By its very nature, the Game of Life depends on deliberate creation and organization, mirroring the principles of intelligent design rather than refuting them.

3. Limitations of the Game of Life

Demonstrates Emergence, Not Origins:
- The Game of Life only visualizes how complexity can arise from simplicity. It does not address the origins of life or the transition from non-living to living substances.
No Connection to Abiogenesis:
- While intriguing, the program does not support abiogenesis theories or provide evidence for the spontaneous generation of life. It remains entirely distinct from these discussions.
Functionality:
- At its core, the Game of Life is essentially a visual calculator, modeling patterns but offering no insight into the processes of life’s actual origin.

4. Misrepresentation of Divine Concepts

Ineffectiveness as Refutation:
- The Game of Life does not "explain away" Divine concepts or the possibility of an ultimate creator.
Creator Analogies:
- Just as the Game of Life requires a designer for its rules, containment, and operation, so too does the universe.
- The program can be seen as a simplified metaphor for creation, not a refutation of it.

5. Conclusion

Simple Complexity:
- While the Game of Life illustrates how simplicity can lead to complexity, this principle is already evident in counting or basic mathematical systems.
No Relevance to Origins:
- The program offers no explanations for life’s origin, the transition from non-life to life, or Divine creation.
Bad Argument Against a Creator:
- Using the Game of Life as an argument against a deity fails due to its dependency on deliberate design, thereby undermining the very premise of the argument.

The Multiverse as an argument against a creator:

1. The Multiverse Hypothesis

Definition:
- The multiverse hypothesis suggests the existence of multiple universes beyond our own, potentially diverse in physical laws and properties.
Observational Gap:
- Despite its mathematical plausibility, no other universe has been observed, nor is it likely that any will be observed.
Argument Against God:
- A common argument posits that if the universe is all-encompassing and there is "no outside," then God, associated with being external to the universe, cannot exist unless God emerged simultaneously with the universe.

2. Recognizing an Outside

Acknowledgement of Externality:
- By recognizing the concept of an "outside" to the universe, proponents inadvertently affirm the possibility of God as an entity distinct from and external to the universe.
Time Beyond the Universe:
- The idea of an outside also supports the notion that time is not unique to or emergent from the universe itself, allowing for the existence of timeless entities like God.

3. Increased Probability of God’s Existence

Expanding the Framework:
- The concept of diverse universes, or even an ultimate mega-verse containing all universes, amplifies the logical probability of God’s existence and other entities.
Simple Logic of Possibility:
- Increased possibilities, such as unique or contingent existence, align with the expanded framework, making God’s existence more plausible.

4. Irrelevance of Physically Independent Multiverses

No Disproof of God:
- Even the existence of physically independent multiverses fails to prove or disprove God, as it simply expands upon creation rather than contradicting its source.
Ultimate Source:
- God is traditionally considered the ultimate source of all things, including the creativity and complexity represented by multiverses.

5. Expanding the Creativity of God

Demonstration of Creative Power:
- Far from diminishing God, the concept of multiverses highlights God’s creative power and the ability to transcend singular universes.
Perspective Shift:
- Rather than challenging the existence of God, the multiverse adds layers to the depth and breadth of creation.

6. Logical Conclusion

Acknowledging Externality:
- By accepting the concept of an "outside" to the universe, the possibility of God existing independently is validated.
Multiverse Implications:
- The multiverse hypothesis does not diminish the probability of God’s existence—it enhances it by expanding the framework of possibility and creativity.
Unchanging Role of God:
- Regardless of whether multiverses exist or not, God remains the ultimate source and foundation of all existence.

Religious texts as alleged reliable proofs:

1. Circular Reasoning Fallacy

Statement:
- A religious text cannot prove itself by quoting from within the same text. This is an example of circular reasoning, where the reliability of a source is assumed by referring back to itself.
Core Issue:
- Using this approach does not provide external validation and fails to justify the truth of claims made within the text.

2. Issues with Translation and Authorship

Translation Problems:
- Many original texts in ancient languages do not properly translate into other languages, resulting in deletions, additions, or alterations that can change the intended meaning.
Human Authorship:
- Texts often claim divine authorship, but are demonstrably written by human beings in their respective languages and cultural contexts.
Questionable Claims:
- Assertions that authors are sole mouthpieces of a deity are often unsubstantiated, further challenging the reliability of the text.

3. Contradictions and Appropriations

Conflict with Other Beliefs:
- Religious texts frequently claim exclusivity, asserting their beliefs are pure, true, and original while dismissing all others as false. Yet, these claims can be reversed onto those making such assertions.
Historical Appropriations:
- Characters, identities, or concepts from older traditions are sometimes hijacked or repurposed, creating inconsistencies between claimed origins and later beliefs.

4. Evidentialism: A Philosophical Approach

Definition:
- Evidentialism states that beliefs are justified only if supported by clear, consistent, and demonstrable evidence. Circular reasoning, tradition-based arguments, or popular acceptance do not qualify as justification.
Importance of Evidence:
- A belief should be based on reasoning and logic, not on the argument that "everyone else believes it" or "it's what we've always done."

5. Tests for Text Reliability

Military historian C. Sanders proposed three tests for historical document authenticity:

a. Bibliographical Test:

Principle:
- The more manuscript copies exist and the closer they are in time to the original, the more reliable the document.
Limitation:
- This test only verifies the consistency of copying, not the truth of the content or claims within the text.

b. Internal Evidence Test:

Principle:
- Examines the text for contradictions, absurdities, and proximity to described events.
Limitation:
- Apparent absurdities may reflect humor or cultural expressions, and later readers may misunderstand lost references.

c. External Evidence Test:

Principle:
- Compares the text to other documents and archaeological evidence for corroboration.
Limitation:
- While this can verify the author’s firsthand knowledge, it does not prove the accuracy of opinions or claims within the text.

6. Age and Rarity Fallacy

Misconception:
- The age or rarity of a text does not inherently validate its claims. Ancient texts are not automatically correct, nor does modern obscurity confirm accuracy or truth.
Historical Artifacts:
- Rare items may possess significance but do not guarantee factual reliability.

7. Common Fallacies in Religious Arguments

Selective Demands:
- Insistence that specific practices or beliefs must be observed because "a book demands it" is unjustifiable.
Problematic Statements:
- “You’re not listening to me” confused with “You need to agree with me.”
- “This book says so, therefore it must be true.”
- Assuming moral judgment by belief: “If you don’t believe this, you’re good or bad.”
- “Do as I say, not as I do,” revealing hypocrisy.
- “Some things are not meant to be understood,” avoiding critical questions.

8. Criticism of Clergy Responses

Failure to Teach:
- Clergy who claim subjects are “not meant to be understood” often admit their own lack of understanding, undermining their authority to teach.
Avoidance Tactics:
- Pretending ignorance when understanding exists erodes trust and casts doubt on the credibility of other teachings.
Encoded Knowledge:
- If something is written, even in code, it was intended to be understood by someone, contradicting claims of incomprehensibility.

9. Misuse of Divine Protection Claims

Circular Logic:
- Texts that claim infallibility and ineffability because they are protected by a divine source fall into circular reasoning.
Language Misconceptions:
- Assertions that a specific language is the “true language” of a deity are nonsensical and often rooted in cultural or historical biases.

10. Conclusion

Religious texts cannot be validated solely by their own claims or through circular reasoning. The reliability of such works must be scrutinized using clear evidence, logical consistency, and philosophical rigor. Age, tradition, or popularity do not establish truth, and problematic arguments or hypocritical demands diminish the credibility of those asserting them.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, BE SURE TO

SELECT THE LINKS BELOW TO LEARN MORE.

DECEPTIONS

SELECT VIDEOS