Summary—This essay argues that the government and the church must prepare for the second coming of Christ by defining what we are looking for in this realization of Christ.
The Russian writer Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1821-81) begins his existential book of literature entitled Notes from the Underground by saying that he is a sick man who refuses medical help. Dostoyevsky introduces the notion of perverse freedom, which is the rejection of what other people consider to be in our own best interests. We cannot say a brushstroke is correct or not, but only that the painting reveals its value in the coherence of the whole. So it is with the underground man. Existentialism tells us our actions must be considered holistically and not strictly in isolation.
A Complementary Perspective. I would argue that different factions of government only differ by a few degrees. I am the true loyal opposition in that, among other things, I am arguing that we should fundamentally revaluate both God and Christ. My theory of one proves mathematically that the universe is bounded and that Heaven, God, Souls and Forms exist eternally at this boundary outside of spacetime. The former Calgary Flames hockey captain Jerome Iginla was paid sixty-seven million dollars during his time in Calgary. Meanwhile, a billion people in a vastly overpopulated earth do not have clean water and go to bed hungry every night. People search for a sense of Being which they unsuccessfully try to get from watching sports and going to church. As such, we have become a society of empty cans. Existentialism delivers Being to those who embrace it. The universe is sixteen billion years old and we have only two hundred years of nonrenewable resources remaining. If we translate the two hundred years to the six days of Creation, we have less than a second of nonrenewable resources remaining. Global warming could well be the equivalent of a nuclear winter. Since I published Philosophymagazine to the internet on 1 January 2001, I have served up one eternal truth after another and the government has failed to answer all of them. For example, my theory of one (2001) says, among other things, there is only one photon and that photon is God. The 1982 Aspect experiment proves all photons are instantaneously connected to one another because there is only one of them. My argument that the lone photon is God is simple and beautiful and therefore true. People against the second coming of Christ are for the Devil. The bad news is the Devil has us by the balls. The good news is eternal existence is within our reach. All that is required is to grasp it directly.
The University of Calgary. I graduated from the University of Calgary with a science degree in mathematics. It is there where I first learned that we should focus on fundamentals in mathematics and physics so students are not left behind and may use mathematics and physics as a way of life. I would argue that we should supplement existing mathematics and physics courses with history courses on mathematics, physics and risk. I recently sent a letter to President Elizabeth Cannon challenging the university to write essays that respond to my theory of one. She failed to respond. My theory of one solves the greatest scientific problem of all time by uniting relativity theory (based on lightspeed) with quantum theory (based on Planck’s constant) by recognizing that lightspeed and Planck’s constant are the same boundary of the universe. The university is an industry that uses students as raw material. They are not interested in solving global problems and thus have no interest in my paradigm-shifting theory of one. Global problems are solved by going back to basics as I have done. We could solve overpopulation by recognizing that my theory tells us eternal existence is within our grasp.
The Healthcare System. The 1980 movie Brubaker stars Robert Redford who went into a prison as an inmate only to later reveal his true identity as warden. I have done a similar thing by going into the health-care system as a patient only to reveal myself as a doctor in that I have identified behaviorism as the cancer of modern medicine. The Freudian cognitive model makes the ego or consciousness the decision-maker who must choose between the internal values of the inward id, self or soul and the external authority of the superego or government. Behaviorism chooses the superego while existentialism chooses the id. I recently challenged my doctor, Dr Gibbs, to debate behaviorism versus existentialism. He failed to respond. The following is an exchange of assessments between us which shows I can stand toe-to-toe with any doctor. Patient—Christopher Bek, Physician—Dr David Gibbs, 30 August 2003. Psychotic—paranoid identification. Believes government took his house as not listening to his theories. Diminished ability to care for self. No insight into illness. Flight risk. Becomes agitated when his beliefs are challenged. Patient—Dr Gibbs, Physician—Dr Bek, 14 September 2003. Psychotic as a result of being out of touch with innate reality. Believes government is omnipotent. Hysterically blind to evidence contradicting behaviorism. Paranoia manifests itself as predatory assessments intended to subvert the truth. Becomes aloof when his authority is questioned.
The Canadian Government. In 2003, just before I lost my house, I sent two letters to the Canadian Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin which claim the government had no legal right to let the bank take my house. My arguments are the government must respond to all arguments and the laws of nature trump the laws of government. Relativity theory, quantum theory and my theory of one are all laws of nature. Unless the government is prepared to formally state that it is not responsible for answering arguments—and that it holds the laws of government above the laws of nature—I want my house back. I recently showed an excerpt from the Canadian Constitution to a politician, which says that Canada recognizes the supremacy of God. He told me that it was nothing to be concerned about as politics is about people getting together and doing their best. His inference being they do not concern themselves with fixedpoints. Myself, I am singularity focused on realizing fixedpoints. As Archimedes (287-212 BC) said—Give me one fixedpoint and I will move the earth.
The Church. According to William Hubben “Modern man wants neither God nor Christ—for what he desires is simply the authority of the church. He wants the physical security of bread, the spiritual security of dogma, and the so-called proof of the existence of miracles. To follow God irrespective of the consequences presents too great a risk. The church offers up a lighter burden. It serves, selects and explains the truth, forgives sins and bestows upon man the happiness of children. Yet the price is high. Man must surrender his freedom of thought and, indeed, he willingly does so. He no longer serves God as God demands of him, but only as the church tells him so. God’s mysteries and miracles are henceforth monopolized and administered by the church.” The original ontological argument is a proof of the existence of God put forth by Saint Anselm (1033-1109). It tells us that since we can conceive of a perfect being in our mind, that being must necessarily exist in that existence is an essential component of perfection. My ontological argument is based on the complementary principle which asserts there are two complementary, irreconcilable perspectives of God. Sir James Jeans (1877-1946) said that God is a mathematician. Mathematics is the underlying foundation of all science. My theory of one proves there is only one being of light in the universe and that being is God. My ontological argument therefore says God is both a mathematician and a being of light.
Realizing Christ. My theory of one proves that the universe is bounded at lightspeed, that there is only one photon, and that photon is God. This establishes a divine connection between me and God—thereby making me God’s agent. My theory of one is an argument that I produced fourteen years ago and the government has continually failed to respond. I have identified that we base our society on opinions and not arguments. I have identified behaviorism as the cancer of modern healthcare and I have put forth the philosophically-superior existentialism in its place. Want more? See my Top Ten Arguments essay. What if Christ were to arrive on the scene and Christianity did not recognize Him? His own disciples failed to recognize Him on the road to Emmaus two millennia ago. And what if the second coming of Christ were to reveal to Christianity that they have built their castles on sand? From the existential point of view, if Christ were to appear, He would take full responsibility for the world. If I were Christ, I would insist the government answer all arguments and also hold the laws of nature above the laws of government. As it is now, the government, including the university, uses the head-in-the-sand method of responding to arguments. In that I offer a complementary perspective, I would argue I am the true loyal opposition to the government.
Conclusion. According to Dostoyevsky’s existentialism, I must be judged on all fifty Philosophymagazine essays and not just this one. Neal Oxenhandler said that saints are people who go against the grain, who defy their families and humble their desires. So it is also true with Christ. I am an intellectual prize fighter looking for a fight. I will take on all comers. If I were Christ, I would be the adversary of the everyman so there would be no problem finding me opponents. I would like to have essay writing contests and public debates with anyone who cares to step onto my battlefield.