Honest	Functionalist^²
Prioritized correspondence	Prioritized coherence
Rationalism	Empiricism, idealism
Nominalism ("anti-realism")	"Realism"^³
"Continental philosophy"^⁴	"Analytical philosophy"
Kantian deontology as most influential reference point.	Consequentialism,pragmatism, utilitarianism, instrumentalism, functionalism.

Chapter 2: Introduction / Contextualisation

Background

1e] "Ideas" in this work are initial ideas, which are good for all. Ideas in question are creative ideas, because such ideas enlarge pools of wealth and are therefore not destructive in nature, except for replacing older creativities. Accounting of ideas rejects Aristotle's statement in De anima (1986: 140; 406b) that something, which is good for self, cannot be good for another.

Plato, possibly a descendant of Poseidon⁶ perhaps argued against changes, during his time, because he was descended from theon, who's powers were questioned due to new realizations about realities. Socrates for example did not honour immaterial traditional theon, which was partly the reason he was sentenced to suicide. Socrates did not swear by Zeus's name but in the name of the dog.^⁷ Plato regarded souls, which move things to be immaterial theon and he agreed with Thales that everything was full of theon.^⁸ Plato used the word "θεῶν" ('gods', "theó̱n")^⁹ in the Laws at 899b where Plato might have quoted Thales. The quotation was derived by implication from Aristotle; "A dictum of Thales: Aristot. Soul 411 a 7 ff."^¹⁰

1f] Although other authors do not usually distinguish between corporeal and immaterial theon ('gods and/not goddesses'), author included distinctions according to euhemerism^¹¹. Wanted not to use "God" for ancients' understandings because they used other words like "neter"^¹², in Egypt, for example. Parmenides wrote "Περι Φυσις (On Nature)"^¹³ ("About Physis")^¹⁴. Anaximander^¹⁵, who was not a vegetarian, and probably other Miletians like Thales and Anaximenes, opined we should not eat fish because fishes were human ancestors. Is there a relation between Anaximander's fish and the Christian fish symbol? According to Wilhelm von Humboldt philology enlightens history.^¹⁶ Burms wrote involuntary rhyme should be regarded as infelicitous.^¹⁷ "Theon", "gods" and "goddesses", "neter", "physis" and "God" refer to very different understandings of times. When using 'gods and goddesses', for example, to refer to entities of ancient times, as well as for entities of current times, differences in time are not acknowledged.

Organizational structures have since ancient times in Egypt and Mesopotamia existed to structure societies around orders of creating. In Egypt it was called "Ma'at" usually translated as "truth" or "justice" and in Mesopotamia same concepts were called "me".^¹⁸ Wisdom was needed to understand this order.^¹⁹

1g] In Classic philosophy there was not a clear distinction between nature and theon with regard to order.^²⁰ Theon can be further categorized with regard to understandings about corporeality and incorporeality. Nature can be further categorized between "neter" and "physis". This discrepancy about natures of things relates to the "Anomaly of Plato?"^²¹ and the "singularity of 'god' ", which exist today.

Early Greek philosophers for example Xenophanes, the first "real theologian", and Hesiod, Homer and Democritus started to criticize immaterial theon^²² in conjunction with new scientific developments and creativities. Critiques however were dangerous. Troost opines early scholars could not directly oppose pantheism and mythology.^²³ Socrates's sentences and sentence jump to mind here. Mythological corporeal theon were subject to creating orders, according to Wolters.^²⁴ Socrates told about "Ammon" who prohibited creativities of "Theuth" who lived in a Greek harbour in Egypt.^²⁵ The ancient towns of Egypt and Greece called Thebes and their mythical kings and priests relevant. According to pantheism all is cosmic "One", therefore pantheism was already an opposition to corporeal theon and priests in mythology. Ancient philosophers for example Xenophanes were logically more in line with pantheism against immaterial theon and their priests during Classic times. If Xenophanes had a true theological opinion, Christianity would have accepted his opinion. The Roman Catholic Church, which uses crosses at the top of obelisks with pharaohs' inscriptions on the obelisks, adamantly opposes pantheism and from Plato onwards, Greek philosophy influenced Christianity significantly. Heraclitus's logos also had significant influence. Troost opines reason or "logos" as defined by Heraclitus started to oppose immaterial theon of mythology.^²⁶ Logos must have also opposed priests of immaterial theon then.

1h] Troost further opines, Stoics with their doctrine about "moral natural rights" also referred to logos and this influenced Christianity before the Reformation. Protestantism did something similar with ' "theology of creation orders" ' at the beginning of the 20^th century and end of the 19^th century. Sophists who disregarded reason (logos), emphasized differences between what nature ["physis"] requires of us and what laws ("nomos", [neter?]) require.^²⁷ Most sophists had democratic^²⁸ leanings against aristocrats, for example Plato. At least two human natures exist, leading and misleading. Democrats promoted immaterial theon with icons and statues and partly^²⁹ therefore Socrates, who did not swear in Zeus's name, was 'sacrificed'. Critias, Plato's uncle was one of the first who said in Sisyphus, a play, some attribute to Euripides, that politicians invented and use religion to control people.^³⁰ Sophists emphasized medical knowledge of the time about necessary actions, which could lead to punishment. Today everyone knows about this but some Christians do not respect that "the will of our Creator God makes itself known and confronts us in normative directives with authority."^³¹

1i] The first principle of stoics was to live according to requirements of laws of "nature" [neter?]. Laws, which opposed individualism, for social order, stood in contrast to stoics.^³² It seems thus that lawgivers at the time wrote laws to primarily benefit themselves and not society at large. Creativities of individualism benefit society at large with new resulting free time as result of new creativities. Stoics and sophists had cosmopolitanism in common.^³³ It seems sophists had belief in "physis" and stoics put their trust in "neter". It seems before democracy took over substantially, stoics, like Cronus, used "nomos" (neter?) to institute their beliefs.

Some stoics for example Seneca and Cicero, who died (not sophist nature) for their beliefs, together with Jesus, helped form the current understanding of Christianity's "God" and current reformation creating orders for physics. Troost wrote the "nature [physis and neter] of man" were used to motivate different kinds of laws. These different laws were represented by different systems for example democracy and imperialism. A few "imperatives" or universal laws were formulated, which most people could agree to, however ' "positivists" ' of the time, of whom many were sophists, opposed laws, which were not universal because "nature of man" was not a universal concept. Sophists wanted positive laws, which could be generalized as good to all people. Problem was, they did not know of criteria or did not respect criteria of universality for laws.^³⁴

1j] The "creation order", from which "creating orders" can be abstracted, currently distinguishes not sufficiently between ex nihilo creation and transcendent immanence creating. People in power naturally protect their interests, which are changed by new creativities according to Capra and Toynbee.^³⁵ Analytic philosophy of Aristotle and religions are used to monopolize new creativities through development in hands of powerful hegemons and bourgeoisies, hegemons belong to currently, as was done during history. Analytic philosophies relate to the "anomaly of Plato?" and religions to singularity of 'god'.

Histories show functional, instrumental arguments to control the effects of new creativities without considering all races of humans.

Imparting of ideas was motivated in the philosophy of Rousseau who wrote creativities are evil. He wrote: "The simplicity and solitude of man's life in this new condition, the paucity of his wants, and the implements he had invented to satisfy them, left him a great deal of leisure, which he employed to furnish himself with many conveniences unknown to his fathers: and this was the first yoke he inadvertently imposed on himself, and the first source of the evils he prepared for his descendants."^³⁶ Rousseau also wrote: ".. how do I know that a verification of titles might not leave me the legitimate king of the human race?"^³⁷ Deceiving and sophisticated language uses, referring to singularity of 'god', is instrumentalism to motivate imparting of ideas from creators.

1k] Freud's postulate about phylogenetic causal Oedipal^³⁸ effects on Christianity is partly false because sacrificial practices of Christianity relates to actual "sacrifices" of past and current creators as a means of survival due to religious hatred and appropriation of creators' ideas.

The Bill of Rights, Section 16 (1)(b) of The South African Constitution states: "Freedom of expression. 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes. … (b) freedom to receive or impart information or ideas; .." ^³⁹

The South African Labour Relations Act states in section 5: "Protection of employees and persons seeking employment … (2) … no person may do, or threaten to do, any of the following- … (c) prejudice an employee or a person seeking employment because of past, present or anticipated- … (v) disclosure of information that the employee is lawfully entitled or required to give to another person;" ^⁴⁰

Imparting of ideas was motivated in the philosophy of Rousseau and Thomas Aquinas who argued against creativities by humans. Rousseau wrote: "implements he had invented ... the first source of the evils"^⁴¹ With his background in monotheism and Greek philosophy, Rousseau postulated creativities evil, and therefore creativities should be imparted, without compensation, to be developed for benefits of groups, whilst excluding creators in their childish states of nature. Thomas Aquinas's "God Himself Who cannot lie"^⁴² influenced Europe by the Enlightenment and, at few, enhanced corresponding communication. Descartes's philosophy was primarily arguments to counter scepticism and deceit.^⁴³ "God, then is the first entity outside his own mind that Descartes recognizes; and God plays an essential role in the subsequent rebuilding of the edifice of science. Because God has no defects, Descartes argues, he cannot be deceitful, because fraud or deceit always depends on some defect in the deceiver. The principle that God is no deceiver is the thread that will enable Descartes to lead us out of the mazes of scepticism."^⁴⁴

1l] Nietzsche's book, Beyond good and evil, shows many postmodernists do not rationalize^⁴⁵ the necessity of "dogmatic" truths, which only children, according to them, have to comply with. Nietzsche's accusation against society who killed God in his parable, explains the circumstances partly. The state of nihilism, which the Eucharist as theodicy indoctrinated society into is a result of this illogical state of societies. Why kill God? Creative God, that solves problems are good for societies in total. Reasonings are of consequential utilitarian nature for example Caiaphas's reasoning and Aristotle's reasoning in De anima^⁴⁶, that the only way to gain is to disadvantage another. The reasoning can be primarily identified with methodological misleading and psychological religious oppositions to creativities. In some academic institutions priceless credibility does not exist due to deceiving methodologies of Aristotle, which has been accepted as signs of knowledge. In The metaphysics Aristotle argued against^⁴⁷ corresponding language. Whilst defining the word 'false' Aristotle wrote in parenthesis, when quoting a deceptive argument in the Hippias as follows: 'that the man who is able to speak false is false (and this, of course, is the man of knowledge and good sense)'^⁴⁸. Aristotle opposed creativities by opposing Plato's forms, which inspire to create. Aristotle wrote: "So we can do away with the business of Forms Being Established As Templates."^⁴⁹ Kenny wrote Aristotle "had spoken, obscurely," of an intellect, which was responsible for forming of concepts. Alexander of Aphrodisias understood this intellect as "God" and the Arab world was influenced by this belief. Christians of the time however believed that humans form concepts self.^⁵⁰ All philosophers can be divided between those who inspire good creativities and those who argue like Caiaphas and Aristotle against creativities. Aristotle's philosophy was descriptive and he explained well what the results of fallacies are. Aristotle wrote statements are false when statements cannot be used in processes of assembly.^⁵¹

1m] "It is now commonplace to say that money is information. With the exception of Krugerrands, crumpled cab fare, and the contents of those suitcases that drug lords are refuted to carry, most of the money in the informatized world is in ones and zeros. The global money supply sloshes around the Net, as fluid as weather...However, as we increasingly buy information with money, we begin to see that buying information with other information is simple economic exchange without the necessity of converting the product into and out of currency. This is somewhat challenging for those who like clean accounting, since, information theory aside, informational exchange rates are too squishy to quantify to the decimal point."^⁵²

It seems Nietzsche was also against innovation because he wrote innovation was one of the four errors of human kind.^⁵³ This places part of Nietzsche in the same category as Rousseau and other anti-creativities philosophers.

Taylor wrote: "The first source of worry is individualism. … And these rights are generally defended by our legal systems. In principle, people are no longer sacrificed to the demands of supposedly sacred orders that transcend them. Very few people want to go back to this achievement."^⁵⁴ Taylor argued in his book The malaise of modernity against creativities probably because he did not realize that the negative effects of developments he argued against, are partly results of imparting of ideas, which are protected as a human right in the South African constitution, for example. Currently ideas are common property in South Africa, which has been institutionalized by the utilitarian Constitution and Labour law. John Perry Barlow, who acknowledged trading with ideas, is an author who wrote lyrics for a USA rock band called Grateful Dead. He graduated in comparative religion from Wesleyan University,^⁵⁵ which is a private liberal arts college^⁵⁶.

1n] “All over the world, university campuses are offering their research facilities, and priceless academic credibility, for brands to use as they please. And in North America today, corporate research partnerships at universities are used for everything: designing new Nike skates, developing more efficient oil extraction techniques for Shell, assessing the Asian market’s stability for Disney” (Klein. 1999: 99).

Phenomena are conscious, and subconscious, for example, some humans, like "bats", think they are Ones, according to Griffiths who claims he established the phenomena in others' minds with "reasonable" certainty.^⁵⁷ Honest people are accused of thinking they are God, like "bats". Partly, creators, or in Griffiths mind, "the creator"^⁵⁸, agents and "God"^⁵⁹ complete Christian accounts. Griffiths wrote a Christian account includes a divine agent who is other than those offering the account. The account is a response to "the creator" who became incarnate.^⁶⁰ Could this be a reference to accounting of ideas, in its current occurrence i.e. the explanations of Barlow^⁶¹, Griffiths^⁶² and Klein^⁶³?

1o] "Radical transcendence as alterity"^⁶⁴ is a countercultural movement relating to authenticities due to notions attached to ulterior motives, identified in authenticities according to Charles Taylor in his book The Malaise of modernity. Westphal emphasized, with reference to Niebuhr^⁶⁵, that the "return of Christ" and by implication creators' activities should be seen as threats, which require restrictions.^⁶⁶ Intelligence agencies during recent times have broken the balances between securities and privacies by using modern technology irresponsibly.^⁶⁷ CCTV News reported that the National Security Agency of the USA accessed computers of civilians with radio wave technology even whilst the computers were not connected to the Internet.^⁶⁸ Aljazeera News reported that text messages were intercepted because the messages were regarded a "goldmine to exploit".^⁶⁹ "Sin, the opposite of trusting obedience, is the desire for autonomy, not merely as being responsible for my own actions, but also as being the one who defines my identity and sets my own agenda. The same is true when the ‘I’ is expanded to the ‘We’, the self to society." ^⁷⁰ From these quotations it can be questioned whether Westphal's views about creativities are dangerous to societies' independence as creative units. Sometimes theodicies are regarded as bureaucratic necessity.^⁷¹ Westphal's theism acknowledges "God as creator"; God can exist without the world but the world cannot exist without God. He wrote Pantheism and atheism, which are basically the same, postulate interdependence; God cannot exist without the world and vice versa. Atheism and pantheism do not recognize "God, as personal, purposive creator".^⁷²

1p] Trakakis quoted Caputo who explained how institutionalization of deceit [consequential utilitarian reasoning] took place. " 'Debates about reason are debates conducted by university professors in journals and books, at symposia and public lectures, by men and women who aspire to tenure, promotion, and support for more research.' " According to Caputo reasoning in academia is a function of power structures, cliques and selfish interests of the people involved. Again said that universities are unduly influenced by the corporate world. 70% - 80% of academics feel this way, which makes sense in the light of power structures. Emphasis is not on quality but on quantity of research outputs.^⁷³ Universities get the same subsidy for a paper worth little and for a paper worth a lot. Deceiving methodologies ("leuenstellings") are taught to medical doctors and church ministers from where it spreads into society. A church minister recently said we have to lie to show we believe in the mercy of God. Consequential utilitarian reasoning allows misleading, to force required outcomes in the short term, without considering long-term negative effects, which "dogmatic" duties, for example honesties, aim to prohibit. The best example most of us are aware of is the consequential reasoning of Caiaphas when Jesus of Nazareth was crucified. Such decisions are based on utilitarian methodology. Was the methodology good for Israel? Author doubts it, because Israel did not exist until after the 2nd world war and the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth had an effect on Israel's non-statehood during the crusades for example. Israel was colonized frequently during its history. Without conclusively proving utilitarianism the cause, can the question be raised rhetorically, because prove cannot be gathered empirically? Machiavelly^⁷⁴ and Hobbes motivated consequential utilitarian reasoning in Europe, whilst motivating despotism and deceit. The future will show whether the result will be the same in Europe with loss of its autonomy. Practical issues are relevant with regard to the evils of the world.^⁷⁵ If we want to live honestly, Jesus of Nazareth is a good example of the practical issues which are relevant to honest lives.^⁷⁶

1q] In the quotations and paraphrases above four areas were identified where ideas are being imparted without compensating creators for ideas. The four areas are: (1) Christian communities through "Christian accounts"; (2) educational institutions where students' and qualified academics' ideas enter the economic system without value being ascribed to research; (3) via intelligence agencies due to restrictions on alterities; and (4) in the workplace via disloyal employees who impart employer's ideas and disloyal employers who impart employee's ideas without compensation.

Imparting is motivated by God thoughts about honesties, about being "God himself" and utilitarian consequentialism.

Basically it is today more profitable with modern technology to appropriate ideas than to create ideas. Possibly it has been the case most of the time during history because part of Greek philosophy and religion supported imparting of ideas.

Authentic individuals who Taylor degrades could cause good effects by realizing better ways of doing things. The problem of developments is not necessarily with creators but maybe with developers who impart and copy ideas, which leads to over development.

1r] During the Enlightenment, philosophers motivated that labours cause capital and property rights. Those philosophers did not sufficiently acknowledge capital, which are added with good ideas and which precede labours. Utilitarian philosophy opines that ideas should be free to develop to ensure wide use of utilitities in national or international communities without formal compensation for idea generations. Not referring to creators of ideas as deserving of remunerations during the Enlightenment is understandable because philosophers then motivated enforceable salaries and wages, which were more immediate needs. According to Child (1997:60), John Locke however recognised exponential increases in values of certain land, up to five hundred times the original value, due to "reason". The values of such changes currently falls into the pockets of owners and designers according to contracts. Logically such increases in values are, not only caused by contractual designers and owners, but also caused by creative ideas of others, for example employees, or clients on the land. An ideal is thus to keep record of the originations of such valuable changes in order that people be remunerated intequibly. Entrepreneurship is taught as functionalist belief in South Africa, although entrepreneurial businesses are very rare. (Antonites & Wordsworth, 2009). Because the rarity is not common knowledge, and because the legal system cannot control extortion of ideas, Accounting of ideas is also required to keep balance with regard to entrepreneurship.

Three hypotheses might prove links between generations of ideas and formal remunerations. Honesties; influences, which precede generations of ideas are postulated as a cause and result of efforts because it is difficult to stay honest. The argument follows thus: From wealths of nations ideas are deduced; from ideas honesties are deduced; from honesties efforts are deduced and remunerations can me motivated after efforts according to Enlightenment philosophy.

1s] The following arguments support causal connections between honesties and generations of ideas:

Table 2: Causal connection between honesties and creativities

Argument	Type of proof
1. Inverse relation between memory and logic.^⁷⁷	Statistical induction.
2. If persons deceive a lot logically their memory power will increase and logical powers will decrease, deduced from no. 1.	Deductive reasoning and inductive prediction.
3. Something can only be created from actualities. If pre-knowledge (Woodman, Sawyer & Griffin, 1993:294,301,314)^⁷⁸ is relevant for an invention only the persons with the pre-knowledge can make the invention. This proves that creativities do not come exclusively from a metaphysical realm. The prerequisite, knowledge, has to be present in a person's brain before something new, which uses the knowledge, can be created. Faiths enhances honesties because faiths give courages to be honest when devils influence against honesties. There is thus logically a correlation between faiths and knowledges.	Deductive reasoning
4. Bentley study. Statistical study in which he divided mental activity between logic (divergent thinking and evaluative thinking) and cognition (observation and memory). His conclusion was that no correlation between cognition and creativities exists.^⁷⁹	Statistical induction
5. Bentley study. Deduced from no. 4, if creativities are not correlated to cognition (observations and memories) creativities are partly correlated to logic because logic is another mental activity according to the study. Faiths, which precede knowledge, causes honesties (integrities), which cause logical integrated thoughts.	Deductive reasoning and exclusion.
6. When groups create together, the transfer of true pre-knowledge is necessary for progress of creative processes. Deceits hamper creative processes and honesties enhances creative processes.	Predicted inductive causality
7. Equations between "the Creator" (creators) and truths in religious and philosophical literature.	Actuality
8. Plato deduced from actualities backwards to the unknown. For example, a question is asked why are there many trees at several locations? Partly because there are rivers at the observed places. Why do many trees grow close to rivers? Because trees need water to grow. Why do they need water etc?^⁸⁰ The deductive process can only work with truths, which reduce noumena by replacing noumena with phenomena as sciences improve.	Deduction

Statement of the problem

1t] Utilitarian constitutions and other laws do not motivate original creativities because imparting of ideas allows appropriation of original ideas without compensating creators. Only developments of ideas are motivated with utilitarian consequentialist reasoning and not originating of creative ideas. Developments follow originations of ideas.

"The myth of ingenuity" questions which is more profitable, innovation or imitation, favouring imitation. Societies as wholes benefit from innovations but imitators benefit to the disadvantage of innovators. If everyone start imitating because innovation is not profitable, stagnation will take place.^⁸¹ Societies are sometimes ignorant of scapegoating, which is mythologized through "political and economic structures", partly due to Caiaphas syndromes, which motivate sacrifices of creators.^⁸²

Hypotheses / Central theoretical statements

Hypothesis 3

1u] Most useful ideas cannot be generated without corresponding and coherent communications after true pre-knowledge.

Premises of third hypothesis (Linking ideas with honesties)

Deductive reasoning is used retrospectively, starting with wealths of nations:

1. Wealths of nations exist. (Fact)
2. Ideas, which were developed had significant influences on wealths of nations. (Fact)
3. Theology and philosophy of this era motivated that ideas originate at a singular incorporeal Creator. (Fact)
4. Theology and philosophy of this era over-emphasised an incorporeal perfect Creator.
5. Consequentially human beings do not earn timely enforceable formalised remuneration for their ideas. (Fact)
6. Human beings' ideas, which are significant and labours, which are significant do not always originate in the same being (verb). (Fact)
7. Recordings of originations of ideas can be done separately from labours. (Unproved premise)
8. Truths and honesties cause ideas.⁸³
9. Honesties can be confirmed with honery (©2011) tests. (Unproved premise)

Hypothesis 2

1v] Corresponding and coherent communications imply efforts and endurances.

Premises of second hypothesis (Linking honesties with desert)

Deductive reasoning is used retrospectively, starting with opposing forces of religion:

1. Opposing forces of incorporeal singularity of 'god' and anthropomorphic plural corporeality of God (plural form) exist. (Fact)
2. Existentialist philosophies of the post-modern era motivate the existence of anthropomorphic creators. (Fact)
3. Post-modern philosophy has not overcome the indoctrinations of incorporeal singularity of 'god', which were up-scaled from early Christian anthropomorphism during modern philosophy and later Christianity. References to 'God' are usually in singular form. (Opinion)
4. Modern philosophy motivated a perfect 'Creator', which implies incorporeality because no corporeal human is perfect. Incorporeality of 'God' allowed humans to be more honest during the Enlightenment because accusations that they were thinking they are The messiah, were less prominent than during post-modern times. (Opinion)
5. Early and medieval Christian theology motivated a perfect singular incorporeal 'Creator' with up-scaled anthropomorphic attributes of Jesus Christ. (Deterministic fact)
6. Words of an incorporeal virtuous singular 'God' quickened a downscaled true man (creator) who was named Jesus Christ of Nazareth or Immanuel who will return. (Deterministic fact)
7. Dominant antique (classic) Greek philosophy abstracted vices and virtues of theon's beings and included only theon's virtues in an incorporeal representation; 'God', which was up-scaled from anthropomorphisms. (Fact)
8. Pre-Greek antique philosophy and theogony recorded anthropomorphic corporeal theon who broke universal laws. (Opinion)

Hypothesis 1

1w] If honesties are remunerated communications will more coherently correspond with facts. Integrations of thoughts and facts will cause improvements of human conditions.

Premises of first hypothesis

1. Remunerations enhanced labours after efforts and endurances due to Enlightenment philosophy. (Fact)
2. Remunerations for honesties will enhance corresponding and coherent communications after efforts and endurances. (Unproved premise)

If the above premises can be shown to be corresponding and coherent, then, staying honest warrants legal remuneration rights, because of the efforts, which cause good ideas and wealths of nations.

This book focuses on hypotheses 3 and 2 in order to motivate Accounting of ideas. If Accounting of ideas will be sufficiently motivated with this book and Pienaar (2012), further research could be done about hypothesis 1 and other related matters.

Of course, these are also, partly, matters of individual personal talents. But I suggest that they are mainly dependent upon the temporal length of the enslavement. The acceptance of lies as the universal intellectual currency drives out truth -- just as bad money drives out good money." Popper wrote about Gorbachev who visited the West several times personally and was aware of the societal mental illness in Russia: "the rule of lies". (Shearmur, Turner 2012:405). Popper and author agree about the effects of deceits but Popper's thoughts about "the free market in ideas", however needs critical investigation.

Chapter 4: Creators and change

"Anomaly of Plato?", change and Greece

2l] Plato emphasized truths as a value but according to Karl Popper^¹⁴⁷, Plato also argued against change. There are different opinions about Plato’s reasoning. According to Tarnas, ambiguities^¹⁴⁸ exist in the understanding of Plato's work, because Plato identified creativities as good but on the other hand he identified creativities as cause of changes and not important, due to his emphases on constancy of Forms. There could have been anomaly in Plato's reasoning because he did not clearly reconcile divine constancy with changing immanence. He wanted to "arrest all change"^¹⁴⁹ according to Popper. Author do not agree fully with Popper because of uncertainties about the possible anomaly to be investigated further. Tarnas opines Platonic spirit dismisses physical reality in favour of metaphysical realizations and Hegel accepted knowledge of physical realities as results of metaphysical faith.^¹⁵⁰ Hegel's faith, influenced by Platonic spirit, countered, uncertainties of modern worlds. Tarnas stated further he is not very sure how Plato's prioritization of metaphysical forms affected natures of corporealities as divine or not.^¹⁵¹

Popper classified Plato with Heraclitus, Comte, Mill, Lamarck and Darwin as philosophers acknowledging changes and Plato tried to stop changes.^¹⁵² Popper's opinion is logical when considering the oppositions the aristocracy, who Plato was part of, experienced, due to new creativities. It seems however that Plato did not realize that immanent changes are inevitable effects of metaphysical constant truths. Author doubts Popper's statement because author thinks it was Plato's family who wanted to stop changes. Maybe Plato just warned people like Socrates. Maybe Plato wrote a "christian account" about Socrates. The uncertainty Tarnas refers to, counts in favor of Plato, unless Plato motivated misleading. Taylor and Lee mentioned a thesis about inability to prove existence of misleading, because lies do not exist. The thesis appeared in three of Plato's works.^¹⁵³ Logic implies, the non-existence of what lies portray, proves lies.

The more correspondent, knowledge and communications are to realities, the more useful and effective, creativities are for all. Instead of fighting change, like Popper opine Plato did, whilst ambiguously supporting transcendent truths, which cause changes, powerful people would do better, by taking part in transcendent truths and resulting changes, without worrying too much about their financial security, or about taking it all. Like a "gereformeerde dominee" said the other day: "Alles gaan na Hom."

Singularity of the "creator", change and Israel

2m] ".. but it is clear that what really lies at the basis of Leibniz's response to Malebranche, is his Neoplatonic conviction, drawing support from Genesis, that the human mind is an image or mirror of God, Leibniz cannot endorse any reply to .. that compromises this fundamental doctrine."^¹⁵⁴

Conceptions of a singular "Creator" in ambivalent realism monopolized remuneration for developments in hands of groups and the wealthy, without remunerating individual creators for valuable ideas. Current human rights are sometimes seen as "basic ethical rule of our time", which were derived from pre-Christian philosophy.^¹⁵⁵ Frankenberry identified with others the singular male immutable form of 'God' as a problem in popular religion.^¹⁵⁶ Imparting of ideas can be equated with 'sacrificing' of gods and goddesses, because creatures do not get paid for work they did when 'their' ideas are being systematically imparted and developed. Human rights as opposed to creators' (creatures') rights have to be therefore rights in development, which are expanded or limited, according to the philosophy of timely reconstruction.Atonement after 'sacrificing' others and reparations for 'sacrificing' are relevant. Constitutions of countries can be looked at in analogical religious manner, by accepting importances of constancies without unwanted rigidity, which can exclude necessary change, due to new realized^¹⁵⁷ realities according to Hart.^¹⁵⁸ In recent times "humanism" rose, which can be recognized by marginalization of rights to oppose order, which are given by new 'gods'. Alvin Plantinga called this ' "creative antirealism" '.^¹⁵⁹

Hart states that in ancient times, problems of change due to creating were known. Reformed creating orders and Thomistic eternal law were influenced by Platonic realism. Deconstructed parts of Aquinas's and Calvin's writings, legitimize change, in creation order, like Kuitert did explicitly. Dooyeweerd opined that obstructing change in creation order is pagan.^¹⁶⁰ Singularity of the "Creator" is presupposed in ambivalent realism and it seems because of that, current creating orders or in another word 'mandates', do not accept realities about creators in plural form, whilst emphasizing development. Hart identifies further reformation in the direction of laws not being final order. Love requires change to new circumstances. Constancy should not be divinized according to Hart.^¹⁶¹ Changing for good requires constant or improved truths. Without knowing constant historical realities no change would be possible. Hart^¹⁶² mentioned many relevant matters under the heading "Change". We are not in agreement about realities due to the singularity and immateriality of Hart's 'God'. He stated the absolute or immutability of God was not taken from the Bible and has its origins in Greek thinking. Hart identified immutability of God as problematic but not the singularity of 'god' as problematic. Singularity of 'god' became the dominant way of referring to his 'God' after the falling into sin in the Bible; therefore ideas are common property currently, which cannot be protected with copyrights. Trade secrets can protect intellectual creativities but not sufficiently, due to imparting of ideas, which has been institutionalized.

2n] Immutability of God, according to Hart, arose due to rejections of the temporal, as not divine. Hart's conception of singular 'god', contradicts his statement about temporal divinity, because temporal singular divinity, implies plural "gods" of times. According to Hart, constancy of the divine: implies a faith, which is "not rooted in trust in God"^¹⁶³. He stated, "What is true, of course, is that in any and all relationships, only Yahweh is truly God"^¹⁶⁴ and that Malachi in the Bible is often quoted to support Greek ideas of God, but the Bible as a whole shows, that change is sometimes from God. According to Hart's opinion, Greek philosophy ascribes creativities and changes to evil earthly things, and Hart wrote it is not true, because his incorporeal 'God' initiates changes and creativities according to the Bible. Ascribing creativities to "God the Creator" does not solve problems of current creation orders totally. Singularity of Hart's 'God' also monopolizes development, as part of Classic Greek philosophy did when ascribing changes to evil influences. Classic Greek philosophy and Abrahamic religions have the same effect, albeit in different ways. "In fact, one can even find God changing about firm promises" Hart wrote. This truth, which Hart identifies, supports Tarnas's opinion^¹⁶⁵ that Jesus and his followers were influenced by Greek philosophy, like Malachi was, according to Hart, because, did Jesus not say we should never swear oaths? "If virtually all of the dimensions of God's good creation play a role in our knowing God, why should God's good creature [own bold to emphasize negative influences of singularity in Hart's discourse] known as change not play such a role?"^¹⁶⁶ Hart contradicts himself here because he implies that creators ("good creature known as change") who cause changes are 'sacrificed' in Abrahamic religion and that it is not only in Classic Greek philosophy that creators are 'sacrificed', like he claims. "But what is god about God cannot be clearly and definitely said in terms of what creatures are or are not. Definitions of God or authoritative and definitive lists of God's perfections or attributes do not occur in the Bible." Author disagrees with Hart here because due to creative effects of truths, honesties make people gods and goddesses and physical parts of God. God should be defined cata- and apophatically, without letting Caiaphas syndromes take hold of societies. Exclusive, which is false, apophatic definitions, apply only after death of divinities but cataphatic definitions make God partly anthropomorphic until gods and goddesses cross boundaries of apophatic definitions. No human can however comply with perfections of some apophatic definitions and therefor such definitions have negative impacts on societies because the definitions remove Good from the world. The seven deadly sins were devised to overcome evil and to stop transgressions of apophatic definitions. All newborn children are gods and goddesses. The Bible inspires not "(theo-)logical" identities of God with the Bible's imagery of God according to Hart. Author postulates the New Testament does, with the human form of Jesus, and the Old Testament does. When Joshua told the sun^¹⁶⁷ to stop moving he was being enough to be called part of God. The same applies to lesser deeds of many who were and are changing things in the West and East for good. "In creation change is fundamental. Not only life, but even material things cannot exist except on a physical foundation that includes change. Creation's temporality, thorough as it is, makes change pervasive. And, indeed Christians have never thought of the world and anything in it as eternal and unchanging." If ' "God is immutable" ', exclusively, then it could be argued that change is evil. When they at times say ' "God does not change" ', they mean it "creatiomorph"^¹⁶⁸. Although Hart writes that change can only be recognized in relation to something stable he writes that stabilities in relation to which change is identified, are changing. That makes sense if we consider that the stabilities, he means, are truths, and, correspondences between phenomena in minds and realities in the world are becoming more accurate in time. There is nothing of reality that is absolute except as metaphor for 'God' according to Hart. Author agrees not because metaphysical truths, concepts of honesties, are divine unchanging transcendents and the result, divine immanent change. Metaphysical truths show, via honesties, where improvements in "creation order" are required. This unchanging concept causes changes and requires gods and goddesses who transcend and surpass pragmatist necessities of deceit. Lying is required by Caiaphas syndromes in order to convince others, ones are not thinking ones are "God himself" or "God Himself" or the "Mother of God" or Father of God or "Son of God". Prof. Meynell, a Roman Catholic thinker, believes ' "honest seeker" ' is not necessarily ' "apostate" ' like most Calvinists believe.^¹⁶⁹

2o] Hart argues against Greek postulates of numbers and stars being constant and therefore against part of Greek religious constancy. Numbers and stars are therefore not part of "religious trust" according to Hart. He confuses changing stars with immutable concepts of numbers. The things, which number units represent, are not constant, therefore, what mathematics represent, is not immutable. Certain characteristics of mathematics are immutable. Stars are changing but that does not mean unchanging characteristics of stars cannot be identified to be part of the transcendent.

It seems thus that although truths were important in Greek philosophy, for example in Plato's philosophy, truths were not divine in Greek thought as it is in the Bible. The problem in the Bible is that truth is there a singular concept or even a singular name. Whether reference is made to Greek plural immutable forms or Christian singular truth is however not that important, effects are the same. Effects are to monopolize the control over benefits of development. Immutability can only be predicated negatively and nothing immutable can be positively identified according to Hart. Author disagrees because concepts of honesties can be positively identified with correspondences between phenomena in minds and realities in the world. Metaphors like ' "immutability" ' and ' "absoluteness" ' can be used in a limited religious sense with regard to relative trust according to Hart. Outside of that it replaces 'god' we project to outside of the cosmos, which is our responsibility according to Hart. Bold emphasis was used to emphasize negative influences, which were identified in a lower case g, of singularity. This "responsibility" Hart postulates is not Christian courage, which contributed to good in the world. Hart had not gods and goddesses of Pre-thesis in mind; he had theon in mind, which he called 'god', mixed up with Jesus of Nazareth. He wrote such projections return via downscaling to the cosmos in "institutions, persons or acts"^¹⁷⁰ that lay down their own rules but hide their reasons behind claims of divine representation. If only one 'god' is relevant, how can we expect that institutions will be well managed? Here Hart's Caiaphas syndrome manifested. References to 'god' by Hart implies justifying 'sacrifice' of creators in Christianity, therefore a reasonable conclusion can be drawn that Hart justifies human 'sacrifice' until his Authentic One 'shall' be found, similar to notions of Charles Taylor. God have always been sacrificed and probably will be, unless ambivalent realism is acknowledged for what it is. Meddled false ideas are ideas of 'Messiah', which cause human 'sacrificing', like ideas of stability in Classic Greek philosophy seems to have done.

Finally there is something that does not make sense. It is well known that ancient Jewish methods did not emphasize creativities, except perhaps for warfare. Jewish culture was built on trading, warfare and religious blessings. Current circumstances of high debt in Greece, can be understood in the light of beliefs, which limit change and creativities. There has to be thus another philosophical doctrine in Europe and the East on which countries like Germany and Japan built their creative economies. That other doctrine, which is not treated here probably relates to true realism.

Conclusion

2p] What is most important, order or truths? Order relates primarily not to creativities, order relates to damaging sins, for example murder and theft, partly as result of devils' perception of 'creation order'. It is not mentioned in discourse about creating orders that constant honesties cause good creativities and prohibit being colonized. Acceptance of this reality may end the "anomaly of Plato?", and singularity of 'God' and consequential ambivalent realism. Transcendent immutability and immanent changing can then be reconciled into an acceptable framework without contradictions. It is not generally realized that elthaughts^¹⁷¹ about "The authentic one", cause Caiaphas syndromes, due to blinding effects of using human pronouns and nouns, which refer partly to humans, when referring to singular 'God' of ambivalent realism. References to singular divine "creator" in the form of human pronouns and immanent forms are commonplace in 'creation order' discourse. It seems these singular references are so deep in societies' subconscious that it takes years of being honest and experiencing hardship, with relative dignity, before the fallacy is realized, and indoctrinated beliefs, about the return of Christ, are discarded, when ones grew up in a middle class. Misleading, which ambivalent realism requires, seems to enforce ambivalence of realism because of the dissimilarities between phenomena in minds and realities in the world, which are caused by deceiving. Singularity of 'God' cannot be reconciled with sufficient creativities to sustain current large world populations and peace, because creativities are not motivated enough by singularity of the "creator". Creators make the world a better place and creators should not be 'sacrificed' through subconscious Caiaphas syndromes, which demotivate creativities. Although Hart motivates more creativity and change he in effect motivates sacrificing of creators, due to monopolization of benefits of development at his 'God', after creatures, who brings forth ideas, have been 'sacrificed', with, for example, imparting of ideas.

Hart's opinion motivated fallacies of Classic Greek philosophy that changes are evil. Author motivated fallacies about Abrahamic incorporeal singularity as perfect and only good. These two ancient fallacies are the same fallacy of ambivalent realism currently. The two fallacies have the same effect of removing benefits of creativities and remuneration from creators in favour of powerful groups. Why not share the benefits with creators? Is it because of superstitious beliefs about taking everything?

2q] Ambivalent realism promotes the false belief that 'God himself' as human can view the totality of the cosmos as datum. 'God himself' cannot exist as one human and totality cannot be viewed with human perceptions. True realism let philosophers view the world coherently, with realizations that, to view totality as a datum is impossible. Correspondences (honesties), due to faiths in Pre-thesis God, are prioritized above coherencies because coherencies of phenomena in minds are subjectively true and correspondences of phenomena in minds are universally true. Further, coherencies are subject to correspondences, which expand coherencies. Similarly "correspondences", which are not true, block coherencies. That is why many benefit from their Caiaphas syndromes against the public they should be serving. True realism is a synthesis between rationalism and empiricism. True realism is an improvement of ambivalent realism, which is a synthesis between ancient Greek and ancient Abrahamic beliefs.

Chapter 5: Existence of God

Introduction

Background

2r] Philosophy of religion is divided into reasonings about the existence of God, with emphasis on traditional and contemporary arguments. Philosophy of religion also focuses on the roles of transcendence, immanence and culture with regard to religion.

Problem

Phenomena in minds, "God create(s)", exist. Created things exist therefore deductive reasoning proves God's existence, which precedes created things. Historical events and institutions further prove God exist(s), even if existence of deterministic effects, caused by existing functionalist phenomena in minds, only, explain God.

An important problem is whether God is/are partly human form and if so, is the human form singular or plural?

Methodology

Using analytic ideas of realism, considering a wide coherent modular view of reality, whilst prioritizing correspondence, views from parts of God are given. Constancy of nature is the most coherent whole, parts know of; therefore, if different parts subscribe to prioritizing corresponding truths, different works by different parts can be combined in the most coherent whole. Beliefs that idealist minds can actually determine realities of nature, by thinking, were excluded, because such circumstances, if existing, are under control of a higher unknown power. The methodology is therefore Kantian correspondence by considering matters under human control during every day life.

Statement to solve problem

God have always been inclusive of most honest men (gods) and most honest dames (goddesses), who therefor can assemble corresponding knowledge with integrated thoughts for good use.

Discussion

2s] Cosmological arguments are unacceptable because it presupposes perceiving wholes of the universe.^¹⁷² Teleological arguments are useful because it acknowledges responsibilities of human parts of God, to create "utopias" for Others-than-only-selves on Earth. Human reasonings are thus postulated as important via teleological arguments, to improve our conditions. Values of truths in design arguments are important because like Aristotle stated, fallaciousness is recognized by the inability of being used in processes of assembly.^¹⁷³

Ontological arguments can be important if its postulate human parts of God, as parts of true realism, because then its will have similar effects as teleological arguments. It is however currently subjective^¹⁷⁴ importance, because people do not agree about their definitions of God. Ontological arguments start with definitions^¹⁷⁵ of God. Although Hudson postulates that current common empiricisms^¹⁷⁶, view 'god' as incorporeal, author agrees not with him because many authors refer to God with lower case singular 'g' without 'a' in front of 'god', which implies anthropomorphism. Clouser, used capital letters and small letters in his singular references when he used the words "transcendent Creator", "transcendent creator" and "himself" and "His".^¹⁷⁷ Swinburne gave a good example of ambivalent realisms, with regard to beliefs in 'God'. "Theism claims that God is a personal being—that is, in some sense a person. By a person I mean an individual with basic powers (to act intentionally), purposes, and beliefs."^¹⁷⁸ Swinburne stated that God is not human because having eternity is an essential property of God.^¹⁷⁹ Author posits that psychological phenomena in Swinburne's mind, which relates to singularity of 'god', pushes God away as far as he possibly can, and in effect, his philosophy, like some other realists', are against conceptions of God, which include humans as parts of God.

Van Niekerk (2005:55-61) posited that the Sociological, Freudian and Genetic theories for existence of God are not acceptable. These theories relate to studies of existing phenomena in minds and deterministic factors on humans as part of religious studies. Religious experiences, as explained by Davis (2003), which cause awe in human minds can relate to pantheism and does not always bring us closer to God.

2t] Practical issues are relevant with regard to evils of the world.^¹⁸⁰ If we want to live honestly, Jesus of Nazareth is a good example of practical issues, which are relevant to honest lives.^¹⁸¹ This opinion by Van Niekerk confirms that the Christian definition of God is not correct because of weakness of singularity. Copan's (2007) argumentation about sacking Melians during the Peloponnesian war proves groups, and not only individuals, should fear God, when we become immoral and lazy due to misuse of creativities.

Golding's (2007) explanation of Pascal's proof of God has value because the proof presupposes eternity and afterlives, which we cannot be sure about. The proof motivates us to be good, similar to parallel universes.

That brings us to immanent things to consider with regard to God. Caiaphas syndrome took hold of people who accuse others of thinking they are The-authentic. They sometimes accuse people of suffering from 'God syndrome', which is self referentially incoherent because God is good and syndromes evil. Grote & McGeeney referred to "The God Complex"^¹⁸² in a more positive sense, with us being part of creativities but the negative connotation of "complex" is still contradicting "God" in the same term. The term "God Complex" is self-referentially incoherent.

References to "transcendence is first and foremost ethical."^¹⁸³ Merold Westphal and Charles Taylor could be classified together with Caiaphas, and other people who belief God is totally 'Other'. "Sin, the opposite of trusting obedience, is the desire for autonomy, not merely as being responsible for my own actions, but also as being the one who defines my identity and sets my own agenda. The same is true when the ‘I’ is expanded to the ‘We’, the self to society."^¹⁸⁴ Westphal's definition of sin is false. Sins primarily transgress common and criminal law. Barth views the presence of Jesus Christ of Nazareth as an historical event, which shows the utter weakness of humanity. God transcends from beyond and when people are touched by transcendence it leads to disaster. Humans have no influence on 'God' and we live totally at 'God's' mercy. 'God' is thus totally 'Other', which brings alterity into picture. Barth conceived alterity in senses of what is beyond, totally apart from us, and can therefore not be fathomed at all.^¹⁸⁵ Cooperative thought between Nishitani of the Kyoto School's Buddhist background and post-Kantian European philosophy, especially Heidegger's thought, exists, as acknowledged by Altizer. Purposes are religious convergence between Buddhist philosophy and Christian philosophy, with emphasis on kenosis. Where Western philosophy sometimes emphasizes "Being", the Kyoto School focuses on "Nothingness".^¹⁸⁶ Transcendence "as alterity" is a condition of individuals and therefore existentialism is relevant. Alterity relates to trauma^¹⁸⁷ of individuals and notions about the "gift of death"^¹⁸⁸. Alterity escapes nihilism.^¹⁸⁹ Theodicies as bureaucratic^¹⁹⁰ practices exclude creators from societies. Jesus opined love is to follow laws we can follow, honestly, which included the law about honesties.

2u] The word "alterity" in English is not an old word. It has no synonyms in the New Oxford American Thesaurus and was defined as "alterity |ôlˈteritē| - noun formal - the state of being other or different; otherness. ORIGIN mid 17th cent.: from late Latin alteritas, from alter ‘other.’ "^¹⁹¹ Other relevant words are "alter" with an e, which means to change and "altar" with an a, which relates to religious sacrifice and informally to marriage. Alter with "e" and altar with "a" are pronounced same, according to dictionaries^¹⁹² (" |ˈôltər| "^¹⁹³). The Oxford dictionary of philosophy^¹⁹⁴ lists "otherness", "alienation" and "authenticity" as relevant. "Alterity" can be compared with "otherness" because the two words are adjectival nouns. Adjectival nouns do not normally identify important differences between singularity and plurality, which is a significant part of discourses with regard to alterity. When The-other is postulated as wholly incorporeal 'Other', in combination with singular corporeal "Messias", without identifying realities of plural corporeal Others-than-only-selves, problems with regard to alterities are emphasized through religious superstition.

Some theon of mythology are represented with radical alterabilities of animal and anthropomorphic character. Eventually images of theon changed into incorporeal metaphysical entities currently. In current discourse however anthropomorphic characters of "God" of realism has not disappeared completely because of metaphors like Mother, Father and Son of God, which are equated with humans, being honest according to the Bible and Thomas Aquinas.

Transcendence "as alterity" affects honest individuals because of the subject-object dichotomy^¹⁹⁵. Stoker explains this as rejection of "opposition between transcendence and immanence."^¹⁹⁶ When subjects are honest and their object of study or belief is postulated with authentic characteristics for example honest God, then naturally, authentic subjects will have difficulty to distinguish between themselves as subjects and their object of thought, being God. Sources of transcendence "as alterity" thus relate to identifying objects of thought, we have attributes of, separate from us, whilst objects are thought of. Phenomena in minds are accepted and written about as objects in our minds. Kant identified realities of objects, being noumena outside of our minds, in forms of objects themselves, in opposition to phenomena.^¹⁹⁷ Parts of societies do not rationalize necessities of "dogmatic" truths^¹⁹⁸ with regard to correspondences to forms of noumena in the world and correspondences to phenomena in minds. Unreasonable empiricist beliefs his opinions about others' phenomena in minds are true. According to Stoker, studying God is theology.^¹⁹⁹ Studying human being (present participle verb) is part of anthropology. Different dichotomies exist between subject and object when studying God and when studying human being. Studying God is not studying other humans' beings.

2v] Transcendence "as alterity" has its origins in difficulties due to marginalization. A metaphor about old God (devilish elders) and Lucifers (the marginalized) are relevant. Socrates who criticized music and musical Socrates are examples.^²⁰⁰ ' "Hence since the musical Socrates is another determination from the wise Socrates, Socrates was separated from himself." '^²⁰¹ There are other types of alterabilities, which could cause transcendence to a higher power because of difficulties experienced, in traditions of creators^²⁰². When "tracing transcendence"^²⁰³ and "messianism"^²⁰⁴ "God’s transcending towards us resembles the structure of transcendence as alterity in the thought of philosophers such as Levinas and even Irigaray."^²⁰⁵ The word ' "trace" ' with regard to ' "a son of God" ' and a second coming were quoted often by Miciks (2009: 108-109) when he quoted Derrida.^²⁰⁶ "Radical transcendence as alterity"^²⁰⁷ is a countercultural movement relating to authenticities due to notions attached to "ulterior" motives, identified in authenticities and The-authentic, according to Charles Taylor. Epicurus's objective was to remove fears of death caused by theon, which were caused by superstitious religions. Superstitions should be avoided by scientific studies according to Epicurus. Epicureanism was based on Democritus's atomism.^²⁰⁸ "Gratitude springs from enjoying and finding beneficial the creatures and creations around you" according to Wolterstorff.^²⁰⁹ Weakness of singularity is often disregarded because of superstitions about supernatural alterabilities when creators are sacrificed and "enjoyed" with utilitarian^²¹⁰ motivations via Caiaphas syndromes. Some people transcend immanent effects of theodicies with crime, others with creativities, others by becoming despotic rulers and despotic entrepreneurs, whilst devils feed off consequences of theodicies.

Concepts of alterities act in conjunction with false, functionalist, instrumentalist notions of 'Messias', which are similar to ideas about a 2nd coming of 'Christ'. In Altizer, Spirit is antithesis of Jesus of Nazareth due to a dialectical development of Spirit from being peaceful to having wills to immanent power. The "death of God" implies death of God of beyond to become ones again, immanent in this world.^²¹¹ It is illogical to call an idea, which is an antithesis of another idea, a 2^nd coming. Ideas about "Christ" and 'Messiah' should not be synthesised because the ideas are very different. If the whole world ("all for One") lie functionally and say one man can be 'God', it will not make it true because of lack correspondence to reality, which is weakness of singularity. Similarly, if the whole world lie and say Kilimanjaro is an island in the Ionian Sea, it will not be true, because of non correspondence. Imagine the situation sketched in religion whereby a large number of people say one man is God and that man says he is not God. Who is correct and what is true? The individual's view, who says one man cannot be God, is true. The same applies to thoughts with regard to a "Mother of God". Miracles are isolated incidents, which were ascribed to different humans of different times at different territories, therefore miracles also do not support the idea of 'Messiah' nor the idea of "Christ". Being a majority makes not a majority functional claim true, because truths are primarily correspondences between words and realities. God with a capital "G" is a plural concept because evil cannot be overcome by singularity.

Conclusion

2w] Ideas of 'Messiah' and "Christ" can be annulled because of anti-creational effects it has, in conjunction with Caiaphas syndromes. If singularity of 'god' and superstitious beliefs, about supernatural assistance to good humans are annulled, the world will be a better place. Good humans will then be able to group their efforts together more readily to improve conditions. Overcoming fears of devils, which Epicurus philosophized about, should be logical conclusions for individual creators, due to effective laws, which protect good individuals, one at a time, against group sacrifices. Humans will then, before falling into sin and after being reborn, be parts of plural God. Jesus put his trust partly in laws, but societies' wishes were more important than laws during the time of his crucifixion.

1 Van der Walt, BJ. 2013. A Scripturally-orientated perspective, 13-15.

2 An example of a functionalist statement or belief is that "God himself" gives a realist view because a man perceives the cosmos as whole before theorizing. The statement enhances theorizing by placing abstractions made, into a more coherent whole but the statement is not true because it is not possible for humans to perceive the cosmos as whole.

3 'Realism' is between quotation marks because realism is a misleading name. In philosophical discourse realism refers to prioritized coherence. Honesties and correspondence can therefore be second priority according to realist opinions.

4 'Continental philosophy' is between quotation marks because of analytic philosophies, which are present on the European continent. Territorial classifications of philosophies are not realistic because territories represent different views. Author thinks it reasonable to say that honest idealists and empiricists exist.

4.1 'Honesties' do not exclude lies under severe stress, during conditions of 'danger', because thinking takes time. Levels of danger and strain, during which non-corresponding communications take place, determine whether actions are honest and rational. Legal precedents exist, which are applicable, for example, precedents about non-pathological criminal incapacity, automatism, self-defense etc. These legal principles do not relate to corresponding communications per se, but the ideas of these legal principles can be applied to determine whether deceits are warranted or not, realizing that deceits are irrational and against social coherence. Non-corresponding functionalist communications under conditions of no stress are against social coherence.

5 Grote, J. & McGeeney, J. 1997. Clever as serpents, 57.

6 "Diogenes Laertius, in his Lives of the Philosophers, begins his account of Plato in the following way: 'Plato, an Athenian, son of Ariston and Perictione – or Potone – who traced her descent from Solon [the famous lawgiver]. . . As for Solon, he traced his descent from Neleus and Poseidon. And they say too that Ariston claimed descent from Codrus, son of Melanthus [mythical early kings of Athens], who are in their turn reported as descended from Poseidon, . . .' " (Plato. 1986. Phaedrus, 1)

7 [Socrates]: " 'In the dog's name!' " (Plato. 2007. The republic, 306; 567d. 95; 399a).

"Glaucon swears 'By Zeus', the chief Olympian god; Socrates, who always avoided such oaths, swears the oath traditionally ascribed to him, 'By the dog'." (Plato. 2007. The republic, 390; Part III, note 69.)

"The condition of cynocephaly, having the head of a dog — or of a jackal— is a widely attested mythical phenomenon existing in many different forms and contexts. … Cynocephaly was familiar to the Ancient Greeks from representations of the Egyptian gods Hapi (the son of Horus) and Anubis (the Egyptian god of the dead). The Greek word (Greek: κῠνοκέφᾰλοι) "dog-head" also identified a sacred Egyptian baboon with the face of a dog. Reports of dog-headed races can also be traced back to Greek antiquity. In the fifth century BC, the Greek physician Ctesias wrote a detailed report on the existence of cynocephali in India. Similarly, the Greek traveller Megasthenes claimed to know about dog-headed people in India who lived in the mountains, communicated through barking, wore the skins of wild animals and lived by hunting." (From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynocephaly on 28 June 2013)

Some cynic philosophers, who were probably excommunicated, lived like "dogs", for example Diogenes of Sinope, who lived in a wine jar. A close correlation between Diogenes' visit to the market with a lantern and Nietzsche's parable of dead 'God' exists.

The word "cynocephaly" appears not in the Collins English Dictionary nor the New Oxford American Dictionary.

8 Kenny, A. 2010. A new history, 233.

11 Mautner, T. 2005. The Penguin dictionary, 203. "euhemerism" - Euhemerus (340-270BC) developed the idea in a novel called Sacred scripture, that theon were living "kings, warriors, inventors, etc.".

12 The words "neter" ('God'), "neteru" ('gods') and "netert" ('goddess'/goddesses?) developed into the word "nature" (Budge. 1895: lxxxix, lxxxii-lxxxiii).

14Translated by Google Translate on 18 October 2013.

15 Kenny, A. 2010. A new history, 12.

16 Mautner, T. 2005. The Penguin dictionary, 284.

17 Burms, A. 2012. Transcendence and chaos, 174.

18 Wolters, AM. 1995. Creation order, 34.

19 Wolters, AM. 1995. Creation order, 35.

20 Troost, A. 1994. The idea, 3.

21 Africahead. The. Copyright is claimed by a juristic person called Africahead. Author originated the description "anomaly of Plato?" as important concept of accounting of ideas.

22 Zeus punished Prometheus because he made fire available to anthropos. Did Zeus excommunicate (ostracize) Prometheus before Prometheus rebelled?

"the ostracized person was banned as a matter of precaution only; he was neither tried nor regarded as guilty" (Shearmur, Turner 2012:361).

Author thinks the practice to ostracize people are still used today by some hegemonies.

23 Troost, A. 1994. The idea, 5.

24 Wolters, AM. 1995. Creation order, 35.

25 Plato. 1986. Phaedrus, 121; 274c.

26 Troost, A. 1994. The idea, 6.

27 Troost, A. 1994. The idea, 5.

28 Mautner, T. 2005. The Penguin dictionary. 582-583. "sophist".

29 Bevan, E. ≈1938. The Greek philosophers, 1456-1457. The reason was also "corrupting the morals of young men (399B.C.)"

30 Mautner, T. 2005. The Penguin dictionary, 129. "Critias".

31 Troost, A. 1994. The idea, 6.

32 Troost, A. 1994. The idea, 6.

33 Mautner, T. 2005. The Penguin dictionary, 127. "cosmopolitanism".

34 Troost, A. 1994. The idea, 7.

35 Venter. 2012. Leesbundel, 86-87.

36 Constitution Society. Discourse on the origin and foundations of inequality among men by Rousseau. (From: http://www.constitution.org/jjr/ineq_04.htm on 1 July 2013.)

37 Constitution Society. The social contract: chapter II by Rousseau. (From: http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon_01.htm#002 on 1 July 2013.)

38 Grünbaum. 2003. Psychoanalysis and Theism, 116-117.

39 South Africa, The bill of rights.

40 South Africa, Labour relations act.

41 Constitution Society. Discourse on the origin.

42 Aquinas. 1273 CE. Summa theologica.

43 Kenny, A. 2010. A new history, 588-593.

44 Kenny, A. 2010. A new history, 593.

45 Nietzsche, F. 2003. Beyond good and evil, 9,13,15,71.

46 Aristotle. 1986. De anima, 140; 406b.

47 Aristotle. 2004. The metaphysics, 149; 1024b-1025a.

48 Aristotle. 2004. The metaphysics, 149; 1025a-1025b.

49 Aristotle. 2004. The metaphysics, 195; 1034a.

50 Kenny, A. 2010. A new history, 92.

51 Aristotle. 2004. The metaphysics, 148; 1024b-1025a.

52 Barlow. 1997. The economy of ideas: everything you know about intellectual property is wrong, 364.

53 Melchert. 2011. The great conversation. vol II. Descartes through Derrida and Quine, 542.

57 Griffiths, PJ. 2003. Religion, 32.

58 Griffiths, PJ. 2003. Religion, 40.

59 Griffiths, PJ. 2003. Religion, 41.

60 Griffiths, PJ. 2003. Religion, 32, 40-42.

61 "It is now commonplace to say that money is information. With the exception of Krugerrands, crumpled cab fare, and the contents of those suitcases that drug lords are refuted to carry, most of the money in the informatized world is in ones and zeros. The global money supply sloshes around the Net, as fluid as weather...However, as we increasingly buy information with money, we begin to see that buying information with other information is simple economic exchange without the necessity of converting the product into and out of currency. This is somewhat challenging for those who like clean accounting, since, information theory aside, informational exchange rates are too squishy to quantify to the decimal point." (Barlow, 1997:364)

62 A Christian account includes a divine agent who is other than those offering the account. The account is a response to the 'creator' who became incarnate. Griffiths spells 'God' with a capital letter. We should direct our actions away from ourselves towards 'God' and fellow humans. Jesus of Nazareth is our example we should follow. Actions of a Christian account include worshipping, praying and using the Bible. (Griffiths, 2003:40-42.)

63 “All over the world, university campuses are offering their research facilities, and priceless academic credibility, for brands to use as they please. And in North America today, corporate research partnerships at universities are used for everything: designing new Nike skates, developing more efficient oil extraction techniques for Shell, assessing the Asian market’s stability for Disney,..” (Klein, 1999:99)

64 Westphal, M. 2012. Dimensions of divine, 135.

65 "Niebuhr, H.R., 1951. Christ and culture. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers." (Westphal, 2012: 136)

66 Westphal, M. 2012. Dimensions of divine, 135.

67 Interview on France 24 news channel, 17 November 2013, 10h10 (South Africa time) with Elmar Brok, German member of the European parliament and current chairman of the European parliament committee on foreign affairs. The interview was about spying by intelligence agencies, which caused the necessity of new agreements between the USA and Europe due to infringements on the European populace's privacies.

68 Channel 403, CCTV News on Top TV. 16 January 2014, 18h15, South Africa time.

69 Channel 401, Aljazeera News on Top TV. 17 January 2014, 18h00, South Africa time.

70 Westphal. M. 2012. Dimensions of divine, 128.

71 Trakakis, N. 2008. The end of philosophy of religion, 25.

72 Westphal. M. 2012. Dimensions of divine, 126-127.

73 Trakakis, N. 2008. The end of philosophy, 118.

74 Machiavelli. 1992. The prince, 45.

75 Van Niekerk. 2005. Geloof sonder sekerhede, 115.

76 Van Niekerk. 2005. Geloof sonder sekerhede, 116.

77 Pienaar, M.D. 2012. Management accounting, 105-106. Author recalls he read about an inverse relation in Time magazine around 2001-2005, but could not find the reference.

78 They referred to Damanpour (1991), Kanter (1988), Paolillo & Brown (1978) and Payne (1990).

79 Bentley, J.C. 1966. Creativity, 269-270.

80 Venter, JJ. 2012. Leesbundel, 188.

81 Grote, J. & McGeeney, J. 1997. Clever as serpents, 96-97.

82 Grote, J. & McGeeney, J. 1997. Clever as serpents, 57, 123. "Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it would be good if one man died for the people." (John 18:14 of the Bible). It seems Caiaphas's appointment was made by Romans with Israelites.

83 This premise was partly rationalized by referring to various authors who argued in the same direction. (Pienaar, 2012)

84 Tarnas, R. 1993. The passion, 225. Tarnas wrote here how someone was sacrificed in the church, with church approval, during the Middle Age.

85 Tarnas, R. 1993. The passion, 297. The metaphorical character was viewed as significant for new discoveries.

86 Tarnas, R. 1993. The passion, 252.

87 Habermas, J. 1991. Lecture 1, 8.

88 ' "Beyond Intelligent Design: The Philosophies" a panel of lectures Moderated by Ronald Cole-Turner' (From: http://vimeo.com/9858250 on 28 June 2013. The panel consisted of Prof. Roy Clouser (Christian philosophy), Prof. Norbert M. Samuelson (Jewish philosophy) and Fr. Rafael Pascual (Christian philosophy). Norbert Samuelson said, at 45 minutes into the video, that the Trinity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, had its Biblical origin in the speech Moses gave to the Israelites before Moses died. Deut. 5:6 of the Bible, Dr. Samuelson recalled, gives the translation for the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.)

89 The discussion starts at 1h14 into the video mentioned at note 88.

90 Tarnas. R. 1993. The passion, 214-215.

91 "For no individual being could be believed to be a god—that is, a being with more divine power than humans [own italics to emphasize The-plural form] possess—unless it was already believed that there is a per se divine source of all other things which confers varying degrees of power upon them." (Clouser, 2005:17-18)

92 Aristotle explained his views about choosing the mean in his The Nicomachean Ethics. Choosing means as a way of decision-making has been generalized as right, for example an attorney said that in the legal world the grey position is right. Choosing means cannot be generalized as good. The well-known example of courage as the mean between two vices, cowardice and irrational bravery, makes sense, in certain respects. In some cases, means do not exist however. "We might say from Aristotle's point of view utilitarians go to excess in their application of the mean,.." (Kenny, 2010:214). Take for example warning and threatening. Receiving warnings reduce risks and are therefore good and part of labour law. Being threatened increases risks. When people generalize that the middle way should always be chosen, they do not distinguish between being warned and being threatened. They regard warnings as threats with consequential problems.

93 Tarnas. R. 1993. The passion, 291-292.

94 Aristotle did not convincingly defend the law of the excluded middle according to author. (Aristotle. 2004:107;1011b-1012b).

95 Tarnas. R. 1993. The passion, 405.

96 Tarnas, R. 1993. The passion, 252.

98 Gen. 2:9 of the Bible.

99 Gen. 2:17 of the Bible.

100 Gen. 3:1-4 of the Bible.

101 Gen. 3: 6-13 of the Bible.

102 Kearney. R. 2011. Anatheism, 22.

103 "katharevousa |ˌkäθäˈrevoōsä| noun the purist form of modern Greek used in traditional literary writing, as opposed to the form that is spoken and used in everyday writing (called demotic). ORIGIN early 20th cent.: modern Greek, literally ‘purifying,’ feminine of kathareuōn, present active participle of Greek kathareuein ‘be pure,’ from katharos ‘pure.’ " (New Oxford American Dictionary)

104 Aristotle. 2004. The metaphysics, 148;1024b-1025a.

105 Plato. 2007. The republic, 81;389a.

106 Pienaar, MD. 2012. Management, 107.

107 Kant, I. 1781. II. Transcendental doctrine of method (Weigelt, 2007: 571-668)

108 Kant, I. 1781. II. Transcendental doctrine of method: chapter II: the canon of pure reason: section II: of the ideal of the highest good, as a determining ground of the ultimate end of pure reason (Weigelt, 2007:635).

109 Goudzwaard, B. 2013. 2nd Lecture: the philosophy of Rousseau includes voluntary explicit group membership of a society as citizen of a city in contrast to automatic implicit citizenship of a country.

110 James, W. 1907. Lecture II, 43.

111 Kenny, A. 2010. A new history, 928.

112 Weigelt, M. 2007. Immanuel. Kant's Critique of pure reason use the term sophistical for metaphysical uncertain postulations. In that sense sophistical and sophisticated metaphors could be similar.

113 Goudzwaard, B. 2013. 1st Lecture.

114 Tarnas opined Plato was an ancient rationalist (Tarnas, 1993:291-292).

115 In Memphis, Ptah was a creator (potter) (Venter, 2012:14-19). Logically Ptah had to be objective in order to be able to create pottery artistically. Objective honesties had to be an attribute of creator theon in order to assemble mental components before components of material could be assembled.

116 Nietzsche, F. 2003. Beyond good and evil, 156.

117 Tarnas, R. 1993. The passion, 236-237.

118 Goudzwaard, B. 2013. 2nd Lecture.

119 Tarnas, R. 1993. The passion, 333, 291-292.

120 Weigelt, M. 2007. Immanuel. The word 'sophistical' was used in the quoted English translation of Immanuel Kant's Critique of pure reason. The meaning of the words 'sophistical' and 'sophisticated' are not generally fixed in author's mind. 'Sophistical' and 'sophisticated' relate to Sophists who were masters of rhetoric during Greek antique times. Corresponding truths were not priorities for the Sophists. A big part of Critique of pure reason is about opposing sophistical reasoning.

121 Habermas, J. 1991. Lecture 1, 1-2.

122 Habermas, J. 1991. Lecture 1, 3. Author understands the reference Habermas makes to functional stagnant ideas of modernity as the idea of, The-honest, as postulated by Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas referred to 'God' in the male singular with 'Himself' and therefore it is assumed Aquinas referred to Christ as a singular male. If Aquinas did not refer to Christ as Singular Male, he would have used a plural form when he referred to God; his reference was a functionalist, instrumentalist deceit.

123 France 24 news channel on 18 November 2013, 19h00, South Africa time.

124 Pienaar, MD. 2012. Management, 108.

126 See The malaise of modernity by Charles Taylor (1991) in which he argues authenticities should be sacrificed, in search of One Authentic Creator.

128 Goudzwaard, B. & De Santa Ana, J. 2006. The modern roots, 8.

129 "What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns?" (Tarnas, 1993:395. Tarnas quoting from "Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science, translated by W. Kaufman (New York: Random House, 1974), 181."). The word 'suns' and Latin 'sol' relates.

130 ' "Only through singularities can we find the divine." —Spinoza' (Kearney, 2011:85). Some empirisms (parts of Empiricism) currently seem to lack a sense of individualism (authentism) and metaphysical reasoning, which according to Spinoza causes lack of true faith. Author understands this reference to Spinoza to mean that only through living as individual, can a person realize his/her own weakness and realize that God are plural form.

131 Hegel stated: "Apart from some earlier attempts, it has been reserved in the main for our epoch to vindicate, at least in theory, the human ownership of treasures formerly squandered on heaven; but what age will have the strength to validate this right in practice and make itself their possessor?" (Habermas, 1991:17-18)

132 Kearney, R. 2011. Anatheism, 21.

133 Pienaar, MD. 2012. Management, 108.

134 Nietzsche, F. 2003. Beyond good and evil, 156.

135 Tarnas, R. 1993. The passion, 395.

136 Commentators on Nietzsche wrote he conflicted with inner Apollonian and Dionysian influences. This quote of Nietzsche and the previous at classical modernity were separated to demonstrate the two opposing forces, which Habermas identifies in modernity and postmodernity (Habermas, 1991:5). It seems the history of Plato and Dionysus, the tyrant of Syracuse, influenced Nietzsche.

"Socrates: And of the divine kind we distinguished four parts, belonging to four gods, taking the madness of the seer as Apollo's inspiration, that of the mystic rites as Dionysus', poetic madness, for its part, as the Muses', and the fourth as that belonging to Aphrodite and Love; the madness of love we said was best" (Plato, 1986:101;265b).

"The Dionysian will to power of the tyrant of Syracuse at whose court Plato spent some years" manifested here in Nietzsche's philosophy (Nietzsche, 2003:226. Commentary).

137 "uncoupling of modernity and rationality has set in … shake the iron cage .." (Habermas, 1991:4)

138 Nietzsche, F. 2003. Beyond good and evil, 156.

139 Tarnas, R. 1993. The passion, 395. Tarnas quoting from "Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science, translated by W. Kaufman (New York: Random House, 1974), 181."

140 Nietzsche, F. 2003. Beyond good and evil, 156.

141 The circumstances were caused by widely formed beliefs, similar to the notions of Charles Taylor in his book The Malaise of Modernity.

142 Pienaar, MD. 2012. Management, 105, 108.

143 Vollenhoven, DHTh. 1934. The foundations, 10-11.

144 Author read that stress causes diabetes, which humans share with animals. On 28 June 2013 a search with Google's search engine for the exact phrase "stress causes diabetes" gave a result of 292 000 results.

145 Author recalls he read somewhere that Jesus believed or 'will' believe everything. A reference could not be found, although a search on the Internet highlighted writings by Paul of the Bible.

146 [Socrates]: " 'In the dog's name!' " (Plato, 2007:306;567d. 95;399a).

"Glaucon swears 'By Zeus', the chief Olympian god; Socrates, who always avoided such oaths, swears the oath traditionally ascribed to him, 'By the dog'." (Plato, 2007:390;Part III;note 69)

The word 'cynocephaly' appears not in the Collins English Dictionary nor the New Oxford American Dictionary in which author looked.

147 Popper, K. 2011. The open society and its enemies, 419.

148 Tarnas, R. 1993. The passion, 11.

149 "Popper, K. 2011. The Open Society and Its Enemies, p. 419. London and New York: Routledge Classics. (Quoted with permission from the Karl Popper Library, Klagenfurt University)" From: http://africahead.co.za/Africahead/ICrM/Entries/2012/12/12_7._The_anomaly_of_Plato.html on 12 June 2013.

150 Tarnas, R. 1993. The passion, 380.

151 Tarnas, R. 1993. The passion, 11.

152 Popper, K. 2011. The open society and its enemies, 419.

153 Taylor, CCW. & Lee, M. 2012. The sophists. "Euthydemus 284a–c, Theaetetus 188d–189a and Sophist 236e–237e"

154 Jolley, N. "Nicholas Jolley Leibniz and Malebranche Part 3", 3:49. (The Center for the Philosophy of Religion: University of Notre Dame. From: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbQRa0hiIb4 on 17 December 2013)

155 Troost, A. 1994. The idea of creation, 8.

156 Zalta, E.N. ed. 2013. Feminist philosophy.

157 Zalta, E.N. ed. 2013. Feminist philosophy.

158 Hart, H. 1999. Notes on Dooyeweerd, 143.

159 Wolters, AM. 1995. Creation order, 36.

160 Hart, H. 1995. Creation order, 71.

161 Hart, H. 1999. Notes on Dooyeweerd, 135-136.

162 Hart, H. 1999. Notes on Dooyeweerd, 140-143.

163 Hart, H. 1999. Notes on Dooyeweerd, 141.

164 Hart, H. 1999. Notes on Dooyeweerd, 141.

165 Tarnas, R. 1993. The passion, 101-102.

166 Hart, H. 1999. Notes on Dooyeweerd, 141.

167 Joshua 10:13 of the Bible.

168 Hart, H. 1999. Notes on Dooyeweerd, 142.

169 'Hugo A. Meynell. "The Philosophy of Dooyweerd: A Transcendental Thomist Appraisal," Faith and Philosophy 20 (July 2003): 270-272' (Zuidervaart, 2004:75,82,88)

170 Hart, H. 1999. Notes on Dooyeweerd, 143.

171 Elthaughts originate primarily when partly empiricists due to their realisms do not distinguish between fact and opinion. When they opine that someone think he is 'God' (the Christ or the Messiah) they accept empiricist opinion as true and negative consequences to creators and societies follow.

172 Mackie, JL. 2003. Cosmological arguments, 242.

173 "Used of a false thing. On the one hand, either because it has not been assembled or because it would be impossible for it to be assembled." (Aristotle, 2004: 148;1024b-1025a)

174 Aquinas, T. 2012. Summa theologiae, 231. Aquinas stated here that 'God' has different definitions. Because definitions about 'God' are not objective, definitions cannot be used to prove the existence of 'God', according to Aquinas. Aquinas did not consider the possibility that a definition can be corresponding to reality, as far as author knows.

175 Aquinas, T. 2012. Summa theologiae, 230-233.

176 Hudson, WD. 2003. What makes religious beliefs, 9.

177 Clouser, RA. 2005. The myth, 239, 241, 249.

179 Swinburne, R. 2003. God, 57.

180 Van Niekerk, AA. 2005. Geloof sonder sekerhede, 115.

181 Van Niekerk, AA. 2005. Geloof sonder sekerhede, 116.

182 Grote, J. & McGeeney, J. 1997. Clever as serpents, 127.

183 Van der Merwe, W. 2012. Conclusion: tracing transcendence, 188.

184 Westphal. M. 2012. Dimensions of divine transcendence, 128.

185 Van der Kooi, C. 2012. Struck by an arrow, 54-63.

186 Van der Braak, A. 2012. Nishitani's rethinking of transcendence, 179.

187 Versteeg, W. 2012. Trauma as transcendence, 115,123.

188 Stoker, W. 2012. Culture and transcendence, 18. Westphal, M. 2012. Dimensions of divine transcendence, 133-134.

189 Van Tongeren, P. 2012. Nihilism and transcendence, 159.

190 Trakakis, N. 2008. The end of philosophy of religion, 25.

192 Collins English Dictionary and New Oxford American Dictionary.

194 Blackburn, S. 2008. Oxford dictionary of philosophy, 11,12.

195 Karl Jaspers, Kane and Samay.

196 Stoker, W. 2012. Culture and transcendence, 5.

197 Aristotle, Kant, Husserl, Heidegger etc.

Chapter 1: Pre-thesis

Chapter 2: Introduction / Contextualisation

Background

Statement of the problem

Hypotheses / Central theoretical statements

Chapter 3: Anthropomorphic trust

Introduction

Background

Discussion

Classical modern view

Structurally critical modern view

Culturally critical modern view

Post-modern view

Conclusion

Chapter 4: Creators and change

"Anomaly of Plato?", change and Greece

Singularity of the "creator", change and Israel

Conclusion

Chapter 5: Existence of God

Introduction

Background

Problem

Methodology

Statement to solve problem

Discussion

Conclusion

Chapter 6: Accounting of ideas a solution

List of references

Notes