The Diamond that Shouldn't Exist

Imagine a horizontal line. Above it is 'positive,' and below it is 'negative.'

For this, positive shall represent 'that which is empirical,' and negative shall represent 'that which is natural,' and the line shall be 'life.'

If we were to simulate almost every 'measurement of life,' logically the 'flow of life' would look like a wave.

From that line and waval flow, remove one complete wave (zero - intersect zero - zero).

If we were to draw lines from '0' to points at 'empirical 1' and 'natural 1' such that the lines intersect at ninety degree angles with similar lines intersecting '1' on the life line, the 'entire wave' would be inside 'what may appear to be a diamond,' but is really a 'square on end.'

Now, imagine that Aristotle is at the top of this square at the highest point on the 'empirical side of the line,' and Charles Darwin at the bottom of this square at the deepest point of the 'natural side of the line.'

---------------------------------------

Since we have 'one complete wave,' we'll start at '0' to represent atheists who contend that to be the number representing God, and end at '1' to represent monotheists who contend that to be the number of God.

Let's now consider what these two believed they knew about God:

Darwin, himself, didn't 'believe or understand' that there was no God; he claimed that 'he didn't know' (agnosticism). He claimed '0' 'knowledge (science) of the empirical.' If we consider what one thinks of himself as worthy of one-half the gravity as public perception, Darwin ascends, but, remains in the natural at -.5, or 'about where the bottom of the wave should be at its lowest point in the flow.'

Aristotle regaled at being lauded as 'the man who knew it all.' He believed he had the answers, so he regarded himself as '1.' Since Aristotle gave himself negative gravity (levity) at 1, his personal factor would raise him to empirical 3.

We now have a 'diamond,' and:

Those at '0' contend 'Aristotle is incorrect because Aristotle is correct;' those at '1' argue back 'Aristotle is correct because Aristotle is incorrect.'

To the natural side, those at '0' contend 'Darwin is correct because Darwin didn't know.' Those at '1' argue back 'Darwin didn't know because Darwin is correct.'

Why don't people see that?

--------------------------------------

Aristotle is the father of biological science, which those at '0' contend proves there is no God; he is also the source for some of the scientific inaccuracies in the Old Testament, which those at '1' contend is proof of God. Each side uses his 'flawed conclusions' to prove 'both' 'that God exists and doesn't exist.'

Darwin's theory of natural selection is given more gravity to 'proving there is no God' by those at '0,' while those at '1' also give more gravity to it as they 'believe Darwin's theory includes that there is no God.'

----------------------------------------

Now, let's consider how many times these two guys' conclusions have been proven flawed:

Aristotle: (1) the universe is far larger than a 'mere millions of miles,' (2) there is an abundance of atomic, particle, and sub-particle movement outside the human body, (3) we do not all see the same thing just because we look at the same thing, (4) women have the same number of teeth as men, (5) protecting the female gender within a species is not because males are empirically dominant, but, more likely naturally, because females are that much more important to continuation of a species than the random need for the male gender, (6) Earth is in a solar system.

Darwin:

-----------------------------------------

Now, let's consider a possible manifestation (including commentary from these two men).

Atheist: Darwin proved there is no God. (Darwin: no I didn't.)
Monotheist: Darwin's work was inspired by the devil. (Darwin: Actually, I went well out of my way to disprove wholly natural theories once my own prejudices about monotheism were challenged.)
Both: Darwin was an atheist! (Darwin: I was not!) Prove there is/is not a God.
Monotheist: The Bible says that God exists, and explains it. (Aristotle: yeah, that's my work.)
Atheist: All one has to do is understand biology. (Aristotle: yeah, that's my work.)
Monotheist: Heaven is in the sky. (Aristotle: yeah, that's my work.)
Atheist: There is no life outside our physical bodies. (Aristotle: yeah, that's my work.)

Hopefully, you get the point.

------------------------------------

In the end:

Darwin: died suffering personal guilt and utter despair for 'realizing' the exponential odds negative familial traits common between he and his wife/cousin, who he adored, were inherited by their children, as 'the truth unfolded for him.'

Aristotle: encountered death trying to run from it.

-------------------------------------

Conclusion: if one will step back from the line so 'depth' can be seen, it is possible to see that Darwin is both given more gravity by those at '0' and '1' than 'he gave himself;' whereas, the source of contradictory empirical arguments eminate from Aristotle are given 'the same levity' by those at '0' and '1' 'as the source gave himself.'

Darwin was correct, or, at least, more correct: 'the truth of life lies at the zero intersect' and 'that his work does not prove the existence, or non-existence, of a godlike concept,' 'except to the degree' that 'Aristotle was incorrect' on 'both contradictory accounts.'

Though diamonds may have great value, this diamond should not exist.

=============================================

Afterthoughts:

7/9/07 - Though diamond shape, it is upside-down from the way one would normally display or mount a diamond. The 'brilliance' of this diamond' would eminate from that portion which is in the natural. However, I am starting to see a strong correlation between the 'flow of life' and the 'flow of light.'

Consider light as a fifth dimension; explain the ripple effect in application to the theory of the universe - it gives us the answer to what lies beyond the edge of the universe, and beyond that.