God Not Only Exists, He Is Inevitable

Believers in a God of Being are making the claim that God existed prior to the universe, that he has always existed and that he created the universe out of nothing. The definition of this God means that no one can ask who or what made God, how he came into being, where he came from, what substance he's made of, how he developed intelligence, why he felt the need to create the world. If he is a spiritual being, why did he create matter? If he created all things, why did he create evil? The advocates of this God want to shut down debate, but despite their efforts the awkward questions have never gone away. They can never be credibly answered because there is no such entity as the God of Being. For millennia, billions of people have worshipped a non-existent divinity, a God who cannot have the qualities claimed for him. That is humanity's supreme tragedy.

The God of Becoming is entirely different from the God of Being. He did not precede the universe. The universe precedes all things. The universe has no beginning and no end. God did have a beginning. He did not create the universe. The universe created him. His consciousness, his intelligence, his power: they are all products of evolution. He is the ultimate evolution of which the universe is capable. Any atheist who accepts Darwin's theory of evolution can accept the existence of the God of Becoming because God is nothing other than the final outcome of that process. He is underpinned by science, not faith. The tragedy of atheists is that they have been so disgusted by the absurdity of the God of Being that they have turned their backs on all notions of the divine. Although the God of Being is impossible, that does not mean there is no God.

What are the prerequisites of God? Surpassing intelligence? Awesome power? Ability to control the physical world around him? Ability to transcend death? Ability to engage in astonishing acts of cosmic creativity? The God of Becoming has all of these traits.

Some people might refer to the Illuminati's God of Becoming as merely some sort of super-being or super-intelligence rather than a true God. Yet the God of Becoming is the supreme expression of the potential of existence. Nothing can transcend him except through an act of his own will. Surely the universe's evolutionary summit in terms of consciousness, intelligence and power is the only acceptable definition of God? God is that which cannot be surpassed except by his own choice, and the only entity that could theoretically surpass him is a community of others exactly like him.

The God of Becoming is the one in whose image we are ultimately made. We creatures of evolution are on the same evolutionary trajectory as God himself, but at a much earlier point. That is why it can truly be said that we have the capacity to become divine.

Imagine the earth of billions of years ago: a storm-tossed, primordial chemical soup rent by livid lightning strikes; vast sulphurous clouds, erupting volcanoes, frothing seas; endless tumult and chaos. Look at our planet now. Billions, perhaps trillions, of living forms populate earth's flourishing biosphere. There are six and half billion intelligent human beings. If humans originated from the chemical soup then it means that implicit all along within that soup were Leonardo Da Vinci, Einstein, Nietzsche, Goethe, Hegel, Michelangelo, Shakespeare, Byron, Washington, Weishaupt, Napoleon, Caesar, all the great scientists, artists, geniuses and leaders of history. If these astonishing figures were latent within the chemical soup of earth, what was latent within the chemical soup of the entire universe, the stardust of eternity, the shimmering, perpetual light of the cosmos?

Look at how much knowledge humanity has acquired in the last 2,000 years. The rate has actually been accelerating. The last 100 years have been the most productive of all. Look at what the last few decades have delivered when personal computers and the internet became available. The amount of knowledge at humanity's disposal is simply staggering. Imagine humanity a 1,000 years from now. What about a billion years? Humanity already has god-like powers in relation to other species on this planet. In many billion of years is it not possible that humans might have evolved into actual gods? If that is possible for humans then what makes us think that it has not already happened for an entity or entities that came into existence long before we did?  

What is the maximum potential latent within the universe? What is the fullest expression of the possibilities inherent in the universe?

God.

God does not make the universe, he emerges as its inevitable culmination, its dialectical end-point. God evolves. He is a creature of evolution, not of Being. There is every reason why an atheist should reject a God of Being, but none why he should reject a God of Becoming.

Humanity is, currently, the highest expression of earth's potential. Perhaps a greater expression will be found in the future. Dinosaurs dominated earth for many millions of years. Now they are extinct. Neanderthal Man is also extinct. Humans can be classified as the "fifth ape". Will there be a sixth? Will humanity become extinct and be replaced by a higher form? Time will tell. If we don't realise who we are and what we are capable of, we will certainly be replaced. That is the law of evolution.

The universe can carry out similar exercises to what has happened on earth, but on a much vaster scale. The universe has astonishing potential, all the potential in existence. Given an eternity, it wasn't just possible that the universe would find its maximum expression but certain. The God of Becoming is that optimal expression. He is as astounding as the God of Being, yet, unlike that false God, he truly exists.

There is no reason why anyone who believes in Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection should not extend exactly the same rationale to the universe as a whole. Existence maximises itself, and God is its maximum expression. God is the final product of evolution, of the dialectic, of natural selection, of logical necessity.

Aristotle used the word "entelechy" to describe something having its end within itself, something striving to fully actualise its inner potential. The universe demonstrates entelechy. God is the supreme actualisation of existence, the ultimate entelechy.

Hans Driesch used "entelechy" to describe a life force that, in organic systems, governs the attainment of their inherent goals. He conceived of this force as psychoid ("mind-like"): non-spatial and qualitative rather than spatial and quantitative. Henri Bergson in his book "Creative Evolution" proposed a vital force that animates life and fundamentally connects mind and body. Julian Huxley said, "Evolution is nothing but matter become conscious of itself."

These ideas might be classed as versions of vitalism, the doctrine that the functions of a living organism are ultimately due to a principle distinct from biochemical reactions. Such thinking points to a level beyond Darwinian natural selection. If a force were operating below the level of genes it would be masked and hence not amenable to study (like the "hidden variables" that some claim exist in the quantum realm).

C. Lloyd Morgan spoke of "emergent evolution". This is the hypothesis that phenomena such as life and consciousness can emerge suddenly from unpredictable rearrangements of entities whose properties would not seem to suggest that they could give rise to such radical transformations (e.g. how can life and mind emerge from particular arrangements of atoms - genes - but not from other arrangements of those same atoms?).

Evolution often seems to proceed by way of abrupt, discontinuous jumps (the punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution) rather than a smooth, gradual process of natural selection. Many fossil records of transitional forms (e.g. between reptiles and mammals) that would be predicted by Darwin's theory have never been found or simply do not exist, while others exist that would not seem to be consistent with Darwin's theory e.g. there are fossils that demonstrate the coexistence of species where it would have been anticipated that one species ought to have preceded the other rather than occurring at the same time. These anomalies might point to the influence of hidden variables as yet unexplored by biological science.

The universe is teleological: it has a purpose. That purpose is to reach its summit, the perfect manifestation of what was buried as gold within its limitlessly fertile soil. Alchemy was never anything other than the search for how gold - the divine - appeared from the dirt (matter), and how we ourselves can find the divine buried within us.

Many evolutionists deny teleology. They say existence has no purpose. But in terms of an infinite and eternal system (the universe), with infinite levels of natural selection being performed within it, the inevitable result must be the highest perfection of which the universe is capable. If it is not forbidden, it is compulsory.

Imagine a process of blind, purposeless evolution taking place, of the type advocated by someone like Richard Dawkins. According to Dawkins, humanity itself is merely a chance product of that random striving. But humanity is conscious, intelligent and purposeful, so even those who agree with Dawkins are faced with the blunt fact that from a blind, purposeless process, a sighted, purposeful species has arisen. This species can not only disturb the biosphere (via global warming, nuclear holocaust, weather manipulation etc), it can actually change its own biological destiny via genetic engineering.

Would you prefer the meaning of life to lie in Dawkins' "selfish genes" or in a divinity that has evolved far beyond the level of genes?

If every secret of genetics yields to science then, in principle, humans could perpetually cure themselves of all diseases and live forever. They could convert themselves into super-beings with enormously enhanced abilities. They could become bionic: part human, part machine. They could start to wield the power of gods, shaping nature, including their own human nature. In other words, even Dawkins' blind version of evolution gives rises in the end to the existence of purpose. Once sufficient purpose and intelligence have evolved, the age of blind, purposeless striving is at an end.

Evolution will, via natural selection, keep generating new life forms, and if those new life forms have no intelligence and no purpose then natural selection will simply keep creating more and different life forms and keep going until highly intelligent life forms evolve. Once these life forms exist they will then assume control of evolution, just as we have.

There are hundreds of millions of people alive today who would be dead if it were not for modern medicine, science and technology. There are humans alive now who began their existence as eggs fertilised in test tubes. In a few decades, clones will be commonplace. Arguably, there is no natural selection going on anymore. There is only unnatural selection. Humans shape evolution: evolution no longer shapes humans.

And if that's true of us, why shouldn't it be true of other intelligent creatures? Eons ago, intelligence and purpose appeared in the universe - in the shape of the God of Becoming - and from that moment the universe became explicitly teleological. Insofar as it was inevitable that natural selection would one day give rise to intelligent, conscious entities and that those entities would then replace blind, purposeless natural selection with direction, control and purpose then it might be concluded that teleology was always latent within Darwinian evolution by natural selection.

Teleology is at the core of the universe. In truth, the universe has always had a purpose, and that purpose was to create the maximum degree of intelligence, self-awareness and freedom. The God of Becoming possesses those qualities. From the outset, the God of Becoming was implicit in the universe, its highest potential waiting to be released, the cosmic entelechy.

The dialectic, entelechy, teleology and evolution by natural selection are all finally the same. They reach their fruition in the God of Becoming. As soon as an atheist perceives this one, single truth, he can acknowledge the God of Becoming without signing up to any of the impossible nonsense preached by the false prophets of the non-existent God of Being. Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Mohammed - what did they ever preach but incredible lies and fantasies?

The God of Being is dead. We have entered the age of the God of Becoming.

Entelechy - something having its end within itself and striving to actualise that end (Aristotle.)

The Dialectic - the movement via the constant iteration of the fundamental triad of thesis, antithesis and synthesis towards the Absolute, the end of history (Hegel.)

Natural selection - the process of competitively generating entities that are increasingly better adapted to their environment (Darwin.) No scientist ever mentions it, but the implied end of natural selection is an entity that is perfectly adapted to its environment, fully controls it and has mastered all of its competition.

Teleology - the idea that purpose is present in nature. Nature has a specific end that it is endeavouring to achieve. It is not blind, purposeless and meaningless.

Illumination brings entelechy, the dialectic, natural selection and teleology together. The God of Becoming is their mutual end-point.

Descartes pointed out that humans are imperfect yet can contemplate supreme perfection - God. How, he asked, could they have an idea of perfection if perfection does not exist? Using a principle of "a cause must contain at least as much reality as its effect", he arrived at what he considered a proof of God's existence i.e. if the effect is the human possession of an idea of perfection then the cause must be actual, tangible perfection: God. It could be argued that all humans have an idea of perfection because that is precisely what we are all evolving towards, if only we could live long enough and reach gnosis. Perfection is the end that lies buried within every aspect of existence.

Vladimir Vernadsky and Teilhard de Chardin are famous for their concept of the noosphere (from the Greek "nous" meaning mind) - the "sphere of human thought". They said that the world started out as a geosphere of inanimate matter. Then the biosphere of biological life evolved and had a transformative effect on the geosphere. Now the birth of human intelligence has created a third and profoundly different stage in earth's evolution - the noosphere - and this, in turn, will have a radical impact on the biosphere as humanity consciously alters its environment.

According to Vernadsky, the principles of life, consciousness and cognition are key to the earth's evolution, and were implicit in the planet all along. This is exactly what the Illuminati have always taught. The process of Becoming, of evolution, uncovers the hidden gold; reveals the secret code that was always there; actualises the potential that existed from the outset.

Carl Jung famously introduced the concept of humanity possessing a collective unconscious. Teilhard, on the other hand, thought of the noosphere as a collective consciousness of human beings. Individual human minds interact and become nodes in a higher consciousness, like a real version of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's mystical "general will": the benign, rational will of the people operating in the best interests of all.

To differentiate humans from animals, Teilhard argued that in humanity consciousness had "folded back in upon itself" and become self-consciousness. It had achieved the ability to reflect on its own existence. This self-consciousness lies at the heart of the noosphere. According to Teilhard, the noosphere will continue to evolve and grow in complexity. Humanity's collective consciousness will take over from our many selfish, petty, individual consciousnesses. What might humanity accomplish if it harnessed a single consciousness? What power would six and a half billion human minds acting in concert wield? Imagine that power growing every year, over a period of a billion years and more. Is that not something that is beginning to seem godlike?

The Law of Complexity/Consciousness describes, in Teilhard's view, the nature of evolution. For him, complexity and consciousness go together in evolutionary terms. He believed that the noosphere is becoming increasingly integrated and purposeful. It is a single entity and is evolving towards a final state, the goal of the history of our planet. Our planet's purpose, from the beginning, was to reach this zenith of consciousness and intelligence.

Teilhard believed that the Law of Complexity/Consciousness worked in a new, previously unseen way in the noosphere compared with the geosphere and biosphere. Since the first appearance of humans - the start of the era of the noosphere - the Law of Complexity/Conscious started to run on a different and higher plane. Teilhard referred to the "totalization" of humanity. As globalisation gathers pace and planet earth becomes one world, one culture, one society - and finally a single consciousness - humanity has, in effect, become one entity; a total of all of its individual components. This single consciousness might eliminate war, division, conflict, greed, selfishness, vanity, evil, cruelty.

Is the internet a product of the noosphere? Look at how fast the social networking phenomenon has taken off. In a few years, tens of millions have signed up to Facebook, MySpace and Bebo. In fifty years, everyone on earth might be signed up. In hours, viral videos on YouTube can be watched by tens of millions of people across the globe. Are our minds becoming collectivised? Are they moving towards a union in cyberspace?

Teilhard's is a utopian vision that deserves attention, despite its flaws. As Teilhard's noosphere evolves, the Old World Order might vanish. (Alternatively, the Old World Order might learn how to manipulate the noosphere and use it to brainwash and control the people even more effectively than at present. Imagine the noosphere being exploited by advertisers to send out subliminal messages to humanity, or by governments wanting to deceive us, or religious leaders trying to make us bow to their will.)

Teilhard's theory of the noosphere is quite similar to the teaching of Illumination. Unfortunately, Teilhard was a Christian - a Jesuit priest - and introduced ridiculous distortions into his theory in a desperate attempt to reconcile it with his Catholic beliefs. (He was unsuccessful and many of his writings appeared only after his death.) Had he followed a God of Becoming rather than one of Being, Teilhard might independently have found his way to some of the central truths of Illumination.

The Illuminati do not emphasise a collective human consciousness but rather a community of humans with maximised individual consciousnesses. The individual mind is the key in Illumination, not the Mass Mind.

Whereas Illumination teaches that the universe invariably moves in the direction of increasing complexity and higher levels of consciousness in order to release the maximum potential latent within itself, Teilhard looked for an alternative explanation that would satisfy Vatican orthodoxy. He postulated that something lay ahead of the evolving universe, pulling it along and upwards. This something was supreme consciousness, which Teilhard called the Omega Point, and which was simply the Catholic God by another name. Sometimes Teilhard explicitly used the term "God-Omega".

The Omega point, for Teilhard, is both the goal of the evolutionary process and the dynamic principle governing it. Teilhard described it as "the Prime Mover ahead". Evolution in this view is not so much a process for creating better-adapted life forms, but rather a mechanism for allowing a convergence towards a pre-existing ultimate point.

Whereas Illumination is about evolution giving rise inevitably to an ultimate consciousness, Teilhard's theory is about an ultimate consciousness using evolution to draw its creation towards itself. Teilhard's is an ingenious scheme for trying to reconcile evolutionary theory with traditional Christian notions of a God of Being, but it fails precisely because it posits an entity - the God-Omega point - that exists outwith evolution. Illumination teaches the one, true answer - nothing exists outside evolution. Evolution is the process of becoming. Becoming is the very heart of the message of Illumination. What are we becoming? - God.

The God of Becoming offers humanity the most astonishing possibilities. Whereas the gulf between the God of Being and the human race is infinite and unbridgeable, the human race can genuinely aspire to emulate the God of Becoming. We are on the same path that he himself traversed so long ago. We can join him. We will not be mere puppets in "paradise" where our only purpose is to worship a remote and inhuman entity infinitely above our level. In that paradise, there is one master and infinite slaves. Instead, we can be part of an entirely different type of paradise: a community of gods.

Which paradise would you prefer? The fate of your soul depends on your decision.