Author: M. R.

Pinheiro
Address: Po Box 12396, A’Beckett st, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 8006
E-address: mrpprofessional@yahoo.com
Website: www.geocities.com/mrpprofessional
Telephone: 61-404944546
Fax: 61-3-96124545

RAELISM IS INCONSISTENT AND, THEREFORE, IT SHOULD BE AVOIDED,

REJECTED, NOT TO INJURE CROWDS OF POSSIBLE BELIEVERS
SHORT-TITLE: RAELISM IS DEMONIAC
Abstract: In this paper, we try to make use of logical and mathematical tools to analyze
the theory proposed by `RAEL’ in his Raelian movement. We make use of the Christian
Bible and its tools whilst doing so because `RAEL’ does it as well, but we go further than
`RAEL’, and make use of the whole Bible to actually write against him and his
movement. Basically, according to the Christian Bible, his movement ought to be
classified as demoniac. Here, our proof.
Key-words: Rael, Raelism, Bible, God, ET, vagueness, origins

1) INTRODUCTION

Just another day, we attended a talk on `crop holes’, that is: `crop intelligent designs’, as
the self-proclaimed experts have decided to name them. A very well dressed male, with
looks of someone who is highly polite, having provided us with the name of `Alec
Kwitko’1 as a reference for himself, who reminded us very much of the main
representative of the Brazilian branch of `Seicho-no-ie’2, in the suburb of `Catete, Rio de
Janeiro’3, place to which we were dragged by very mystical and mysterious reasons, in a
unique experience which definitely involved the holy Bible4 and God5 (but carries

1 In quick search over the Internet it was impossible to locate a single scientific paper
by Dr. Alec. That does not mean he is not wise, or could not be, but it is certainly an
evidence of full disrespect for current Science. It may mean that he thinks Science is all
wrong, which is plausible; but then, one would expect him to be trying to change it
somehow, we suppose. If his `Elohim’ are about wisdom, there is already some
inconsistency with his refusal of at least publishing a single scientific paper and
subjecting it to other people’s appreciation/judgment on the grounds of logical coherence
(if someone is sure they hold the truth, if they claim to be doctors of any sort, why would
they not challenge Science at least?)
2 http://www.sni.org.br/index2007/, as accessed on the 6th of August of 2007
3 City in the Southeast of Brazil
4 King James version in Portuguese, which also came to me in very mysterious ways, as
mentioned in full in `Have you done something good for someone else today?’, found at
www.geocities.com/livrariadofuturo, as accessed on the 8th of August of 2007
5 The `God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob’, as mentioned in Exodus, 3:13-
17:``13 Then Moses said to God, “If I come to the people of Israel and say to them,
‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’
1
explanations beyond those of why God would ever push us to there).
`Alec’ told us he was a doctor, as several others we have met throughout the years.
What shocks us the most is the human ability, unfortunately predominantly masculine, of
thinking that `Dr.’ is something such as an initial that one adds to their names so that the
name becomes longer, and because it is longer, people hold more difficulties in reading it
and, therefore, they immediately associate personal contact with the person to whom that
long name refers to to something very complicated and inaccessible, immediately
assuming that they do not hold any chance of getting anything from the `reference’ to
which the `name’ applies, as good `Wittgenstein’6 would put it: only to refer personally to
that `reference’, the person loses their breath…
We then took a seat.
In sitting, we heard `Dr. Alec’ stating: `the holes are a clear sign that human kind was
designed by ETs: They are designs which are very mathematical, no one can deny that’.
He further states: `We had the grace of getting the fourth hole…’
The concepts involved this far, in the talk provided by `Dr. Alec’, were: `mathematical
designs’, `grace’, `creational theory’.
`Dr. Alec’ was, by no means, talking about trivial things.
The origin of human life is debated until nowadays.
What made us write this paper, however, was the odd impact of what he stated.
How could holes, artificially made on someone’s crop, ever be a blessed thing?
In thinking about how not-holy the event of the `holes’ over someone’s work was, as soon
as `Dr. Alec’ associated that with the God from the Bible, there was immediate negative
reaction: God of the Bible defends hard work and blesses those who do it, He would not
laugh at their expense and destroy part of it intentionally…
With these things in our minds, we then decided to go further.
This paper, then, tries to demystify `RAEL’ and his Raelism, making justice to the `God
of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob’, who would never jeopardize the work of someone else,
especially of such basic nature.

what shall I say to them?” 14 God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” [1] And he said, “Say
this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” 15 God also said to Moses,
“Say this to the people of Israel, ‘The LORD, [2] the God of your fathers, the God of
Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my
name forever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations. 16 Go
and gather the elders of Israel together and say to them, ‘The LORD, the God of your
fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, has appeared to me, saying, “I
have observed you and what has been done to you in Egypt, 17 and I promise that I
will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt to the land of the Canaanites, the
Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, a land flowing
with milk and honey.”The above passage was copied from the English Standard
Version Bible, 2001, by Crossway Bibles, as accessed on the 8th of August of 2007, at
`http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Exodus+3%3A13-17’Footnotes[1] 3:14 Or I
AM WHAT I AM, or I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE
[2] 3:15 The word LORD, when spelled with capital letters, stands for the
divine name, YHWH, which is here connected with the verb hayah, “to be”
in verse 14
6 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/, as accessed on the 4th of August,
2008
2
We progress in the following sequence:
1) Introduction;
2) Origins of human life (and argumentation against Raelism);
3) A few issues on Raelism;
4) The name of God;
5) On Higher-Order Vagueness;
6) Soundness in theological theories;
7) What sort of judgment can we scientifically make over Raelism or any other sort
of religion/belief?
8) On the claims made by `Rael’: fallacies;
9) Conclusion (about RAELISM);
10) References.

2) ORIGINS OF HUMAN LIFE

POINT 1: THE MAIN BOOK OF `RAEL’ CONTAINS CLEAR

CONTRADICTION REGARDING THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY (THAT
DEPICTING EVOLUTION FROM SKELETONS OF MONKEY-LIKE BEINGS
TO HUMANS).

The theory that men have evolved from monkeys looks archeologically and
paleontologycally accurate.

If there are so many monkey-alike beings in the string which ends up in human kind,
according to everyone studying that for many years now, and they reached the conclusion
that everything is plausible and proved, at the possible exception of few skeletons, who in
the World can doubt that?
Therefore, if any theory on the origins of human kind is plausible, it must account for that
part, minimum requirement (according to the scientists, there is room for proving it is not
true, but that likelihood is very reduced by now, probably below 1%).
It must be made clear that `RAEL’ does not explain, in any possible extract of his texts
we had access to, so far, how monkey-alike beings were changed into humans.
In a part of [1], page 274, it is written that only false prophets would believe humans
have evolved from monkeys by chance. They seem to also assert, by page XVIII and 280,
that their ETs have created human beings themselves, in laboratory.
Clear inconsistency.
Basically, either human beings have evolved from monkeys, or were created in
laboratory, or both things happened. Once they clearly state that they have created human
beings in laboratory, with all letters in the book, that is inconsistent with the earlier
affirmation that the problem was the `by chance’ expression in terms of evolution from
monkeys to human beings.
Supposing that they meant that could only be false, then there is no explanation
whatsoever in their theory for why the evolutionary sequence seems to be so perfectly
3
well assembled in terms of going from monkey-like beings to human beings.
There is no chance he holds the truth, then, because the truth has to be perfect, perfect
must mean an explanation for why the chain is proved for several bits and, therefore, it is
all sound and clear. There might be divergence from one bit to another, but not in the
length which is already fully proved. What that means is that the person uttering that
would not be a false prophet, would be correct for at least two or three different species
which theoretically would be intermediaries of human evolution (see [5]-[8]).
He claims, in his book (`RAEL’), [1], that `Elohim’ have made each species as they
chose, each and every one.
Such cannot, possibly, then, according to all our scientific beliefs, which look very sound,
be true.

There is then a chance for the Bible to hold the truth about human generation. We will
examine this hypothesis here later on as well, to make the paper complete.

POINT 2:

As discussed below, we have made a clear point on the fact that Genesis could never be
part of the Bible, it is simply the grossest mistake of all, belonging to a few churches
which make use of the Bible, but not all of them.
Little bits which prove the book of `Genesis’ to have been written in Aramaic are found
in, for instance, [10]. The name `Adam’, according to the source, would mean someone
created from dust. The name `Eve’, on the other hand, is found in [9] to mean `serpent’.
Not only we now have the fact that there is a high chance the first book of the Bible was
written in a language which differs from the rest of it and was usual amongst Egyptians,
rather than the Jews from Jerusalem, who would speak Hebrew, but it all cannot, now,
make less sense, scientifically and logically.
In [12], it is mentioned that the Book of Genesis was written in Neo-Aramaic, a Dialect
of the Jewish.
Facts are that men and women hold same number of ribs and at least one part of the
`Genesis’, therefore, cannot ever be accepted as true or accurate.
With all that said, suppose we had access to what `God’ Himself said (who took note?)
about the origin of life7:
` 21And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took
one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and
brought her unto the man.
23And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be
called Woman, because she was taken out of Man’.
Well, this is obviously surrealistic, so that it could not possibly make any sense. First of
all, human skeletons are studied by Medicine students and they seem to all hold same
7 As seen at
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=2&version=9, on the 6th
of August of 2007
4
number of ribs, independently of the gender (see, for instance, [23]). Second, why would
Adam sleep whilst God has the work of taking his rib away? It is obviously all
nonsensical: if God generated Adam from nothing, why could He not do the same with
Eve?
It is obvious that the person who put that book in the Bible is a false prophet, because that
book is blasphemy: how could God be so stupid?
Taking into account the time in which Adam and Eve have lived, it is highly unlikely that
any notes would have been preserved.
However, in [13], as well as in [14], one finds out that they have made use of `cuneiform’
writing style to tell the story of creation.
Cuneiform writing was used over rocks, what makes it all plausible.
However, there are, apparently, several difficulties with the original language/symbols
used in cuneiform writings which were included in the Book of Genesis (see [11]).
The most basic principle of Science is that: in doubt, do not spread around, do not
referee, and do not publish.
This way, it is obvious that `Genesis’ is already blasphemy of the worst sort as possible,
given that if we twist God’s words, in any possible sense, He does not like it, and this is
also His most basic principle, the principle of the `God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob’, the
God from the Bible.
If there is a single doubt raised by a scientist of the field in terms of accurate
interpretation, then that should not be published, distributed, reproduced, or told to be
God’s words, this is one of the most basic sins of all: blasphemy.
Therefore, it is not for one reason that we should destroy the Book of Genesis, or take it
away from the Bible; it is for several, including induction to sin and profanation of the
Holy Book.
With this, there is no `creational theory’ yet, there is only symbols which may or not
describe it and, if anything, should be published as they are in the original, once there is
no common agreement on their meaning.

There is, obviously, some reason for Jesus to be among poor, miserable, and common
people: Christ was always worried about misinterpretation of God’s words. The Romans
were in power back then, and they have murdered Christ, according to the story they
themselves chose telling. The protestant movement, generated by the time of Inquisition,
is leaded by the people who cleared disagreed on several points (such as priests not being
able to marry) from those in power who created and sustained the ROMAN CATHOLIC
CHURCH, on the grounds of oppression over the gentiles.
Therefore, it is not necessarily the case that the invalidation of the book `Genesis’ makes
the `God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob’ a wrong God, it simply fixes historical mistakes
and gives back to God His perfection in all senses, that is, puts God closer to the throne
He should always see us from, the throne to which He is entitled via total perfection of
everything He is, does, intends. And Jesus, His proclaimed Son, also with a very doubtful
set of books, agrees via His actions and decisions in the World, which may be told true
only if consistency of common core of the New Testament is considered true, that is, if
the origin and translation of those books are at least close to what it should be, then the
common core of all which is there written, considering wrong translations, mistakes over
5
each translation, which may add a degree of X in terms of distance from the originally
intended text, re-writing by Romans, etc, should be accurate. But it is all conditional, and
same scientific rules must apply because the God from the Bible presumes perfection of
Himself and for Himself/in His honor.
With this, we are really left with the monkey-like being generating us all, once it is the
only theory being progressively proven, never being contradicted by findings, and
holding consistency so far, that is, at least there is hope it is going to be fully consistent,
what is better than what is already proven to be a set of fallacies.
Conclusion here is obvious, if anyone wishes to teach any theory of creation, that they
teach human evolution from apes, if ever having anything to do with our `vain
philosophy’ so far, must be a monkey-business!

POINT 3:

If the `God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob’ were ever interested in telling us how we appeared
over the World, why would He not show up and say it as clearly as all the rest He told us
in the Bible?
Apparently, it was never of His interest that we even discussed that.
He was really concerned about practical matters and living well together for us all.
God was concerned about fairness, equity, and awarding rewards to those who were good
in their hearts, loyal to Him, follow His commandments and direct orders, and were
extremely wise/fair.
If God was never interested, and the Bible is about Him and what He expects from us,
why would we pollute it with the Book of Genesis?
Conclusion is that there is absolutely no `theory of God about our creation’ for God is no
theorist.
It is either the case that there are facts or not.
And even with the facts, God was never interested, so that it has nothing to do with His
sayings, or laws, or intentions with us, and should absolutely never be part of His Holy
Book, as nothing which may be doubtful in terms of translations, interpretations, should
be either.
Perhaps, if doing so, we end up with what Moses had in his hands direct from God. And
so?
It is truly unbelievable what men wished to do to God and did.
Nobody can place words in His mouth or actions in His history with us.
That is, once more, blasphemy.
It cannot obviously be a Holy Book if it contains clear blasphemy.

3) A FEW ISSUES ON `RAELISM’

a) On possible support of Bible pieces to their theory or part of it.

The Book Genesis, from the Christian Bible, might have come from the Egyptians, once
6
it was written in Aramaic, as the book `Lords of the World (literal translation to the book
in Portuguese `Senhores do Mundo’8) states. They seem to be serious about what they
say, with references…and they say Aramaic had more than 3 meanings allowed for the
word there picked to mean `God’, the same one as the rest, written in Hebrew; a totally
different language trend. In the book previously mentioned, they assert that the Aramaic
word for God could also mean `ship which spits fire’.
However, [15] let us know that Aramaic is still spoken, even nowadays. Therefore, it is
hard to think they would not have written about it themselves, once the people who
currently speak it are part of the same core of those who originally would have written
the Bible.
That would obviously make it very hard to be believed.
Basically, Egyptians were well known for adoring cats (therefore the opposite to the
people who would believe the `God of Isaac, Jacob, and Abraham’, as God insists it is his
reference in the whole Old Testament), the sun, and spaceships.
Of course this would have to match the `Raelian’ movement, as `Dr. Alec’ calls his `little
church-alike environment’. `Raelians’ then, if ever making sense, would have to be keen
on liking `Genesis’ and Egyptians in general.
That is not a bad thing, once Egyptians were as clever as to build pyramids, had women
in power, etc.

b) On what is beyond what people usually see.

Truth is that everyone has, indeed, got different levels, or characteristics, in their spiritual
`powers’9: some experience things, others cannot even dream of it; some do things and
get results quick, others will never get them; all to do with energy, spirit…Indians call
this karma (see [16])…and that makes sense with spiritualism and their beliefs, also with
what may be inferred if logical rules of inference (see [17]) are applied to the little which
is consistent (see [18]) in the Bible reading. If karma is ever accepted, each person will
live their lives with little or no progression in their spirituality, depending on where they
are by the time they get in and how much effort they make to progress and do what they
must do.
However, some people call a certain type of spiritual manifestations schizophrenia of
some sort (see [19]). As for [19], it is almost sure that `demoniac’ spirit domination would
certainly be a psychiatric disease. Also according to [19], some people are, indeed,
healers of others, having sustained people alive whilst near them, for instance, or happy.
However, everyone is entitled to their own definitions and labels in this World, as well as
to their own belief regarding spirit, life after death, etc, or their own knowledge,
depending on who is evaluating whatever is someone else’s experience.

8 Reference currently not found, accessed personally by us a sort of 20 years ago.

9 The own Bible mentions, on several occasions, possibility of contact of human
beings with the spiritual world: from consultations with necromancy practitioners to
the own Jesus Christ who rises from the deceased and walks amongst us. The
different spiritual powers are also stated in the Bible for whilst in the consultation the
necromancy practitioners there is only a prediction about the future, with Jesus there
is healing and raise from the deceased.
7
As it is easily seen, all these concepts lie in a blurred area which, it seems to us, is not
really accessible for final judgments by people, that is, once more, `God of Abraham,
Isaac, Jacob’ is right: judgment can only be performed by Him, nobody else.
One may be wondering, at this stage, about what is the use of this little piece of
knowledge.
The use of it is showing that `Dr. Alec’, unfortunately, is not the right person to talk about
`Intelligent designs’ because he is not blessed enough to hold any truth about it, once
there is no logic to it, or whatever he states.
God is perfect (see [20]), or must be, for He created all and everything, and has power
over all: if anyone admits His existence, then that person must admit He is the only one
choosing with full freedom. If full freedom is only a gift of God, everyone else is His
puppet. In being His puppet, people say what He wants them to say. Therefore, a person
claiming to be speaking in the name of God, who states things that are either confusing or
bear evident absence of logical reasoning, or closure, should be, to the best of our belief
(Catholic Bible), stoned as false prophets.
In [20], it is argued that God could not be good because He allows evil to exist. However,
God is, indeed, not good: He is fair. In the same source, [20], it is mentioned that God’s
moral system is perfect. That is about it. What we need, for the World to praise good and
honest people, rather than evil, coward, satanic people, is a good moral system, that is, a
perfect moral system, that is, God’s moral system, or whatever system may be proved
better, or as good as, for it is a principle of every Science that we should fight for
improvement, that is, fight for perfection, top perfection.
If God’s moral system is `X’, and another moral system is `Y’, we should then measure
them in terms of perfection, that is, establish an equation of the sort `perfection(X)-
perfection(Y)’ and, in case the result is negative, God’s moral system was proven not to
be perfect and should then, scientifically, be fully replaced by system `Y’.
However, as we prove in this paper, once more, it seems that the difference above
mentioned is still very positive for the `Y’ of Intelligent Designs.
Nobody is allowed to say the good name of the Lord in vain 10. If what they say is
nonsensical, they should be deposed; they should be `stoned’11. God is perfect and He
would not, therefore, make use of a tool which is infinitely inferior to what He may use (a
tool for humans, language) to state things which are obvious frauds.
The intentions of this paper are, indeed, deposing `Dr. Alec’ (and, therefore, `RAEL’)
from his position, and letting it clear that if `Intelligent designs’ were ever true, he could
not possibly be the person to speak for his god (we use small letters because it would
definitely not be our God, who is the only one we should respect or adore).

10 Exodus 20:7 (King James Version), King James Version (KJV) , as seen from
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2020:7;&version=9; by the
6th of August of 2007:` 7Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in
vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain’.
11 Leviticus 24:23 (King James Version), as read from
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2024:23;&version=9;,
byt the 6th of August of 2007:` 23And Moses spake to the children of Israel, that they
should bring forth him that had cursed out of the camp, and stone him with stones. And
the children of Israel did as the LORD commanded Moses’.
8
 4) THE NAME OF GOD

Interesting fact is that `RAEL’ refers to the person who was supposedly sent from the ET
world to himself as `YAHWEH’12. Apparently, this name is present in the Bible as a
reference to the same `God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob’ if natives of certain countries
are to read it, that is, the actual name of god there would be `YHWH’, and some would
read it the same way the Raelian denomination does.
This would, of course, be only a curiosity. However, `RAEL’ does associate this
pronunciation with the Bible writings all the time (see [1]), what makes it impossible not
to refer to the subject here.
Basically, in [2], we learn that nobody is really able to pronounce `YHWH’ with 100%
certainty the pronunciation is the right one, and several may be used. It is then weird that
`RAEL’ assures us this pronunciation is, for sure, that of the Bible.
However, in [3], this pronunciation is well settled, according to the author. Once it is an
earlier paper, one may think that [2] would be more accurate and, therefore, it is not
really true that `RAEL’, even if both reports are accurate as to the names heard, refers to
the same superior being.
[3], however, is written by a Presbyterian person, according to [4], what makes it far
more believable (the Presbyterian church is protestant, their pastors are elected
democratically, and may marry, and these are instructions given by God in the Old
Testament, or historical coincidences with God’s choice of pastors, what makes their
writing more likely to be correct in terms of accuracy than the writings of others who are
more distant from what God intends, if ever following a religion). Nothing is found on
the author of [2], so that one would not have a way of comparing their likelihood to be
also `blessed’ in terms of God’s inspiration, what is obviously important when speaking
about religions or beliefs. Of course God demands closeness to Him in order to
communicate with us, that is, when evaluating writings/speeches about God in terms of
likelihood of them being true, there is one more item to be considered, besides
publications or formation, which is the spiritual side of things. God must lie in another
dimension, and nothing of higher dimensions may be analyzed by those inside of a lower
dimension: at least the same. Truth is that only above the dimension of God, could one
analyze things right and tell others how things are in fact. That is mathematical, regards
higher-order vagueness (see [23], it is only the ability of abstracting; that is, being one
level up, which allows us to judge with clarity). It is then actually true that the Bible
never commits a mistake when considered logically in its common core, as explained
before: God tells us to never teach His words, that whoever wants Him must go through
the work of reading it straight from the source and from the beginning, for God does
curse slackness (one of the sins), what means that whatever a human being tries to
explain about the Bible to another must be equivocated way of doing things. All this
12 `http://rael.org/rael_content/rael_bio.php?prophet’, as accessed on the 8th of
August of 2007
9
means the Bible’s words must be read directly by anyone interested, cannot be told to
others ever, under penalty of induction to sins.
In what regards meaning of isolated words, however, it is OK to discuss them as a side
subject. So, conclusion is that, with strong amount of belief, there is a single way of
pronouncing the word which should be the name of the God, as from some parts of the
Bible, and Rael is then supported in claiming they refer to same God.

5) ON HIGHER-ORDER VAGUENESS

As seen in [23], vagueness may be applied to several things. In language it has to do with
the basic difference between what is clearly of human nature (purely) and what is clearly
of computer nature. In ontology, vagueness has to do with the own being. God cannot be
told to be vague, for God is, per se, precise ontologically. However, human beings are at
least one level below God’s ontology and, just like computer language, are obviously
unable to refer with accuracy to God using their limited tools (a new version of a
software may produce files which are read by an older version, but not the opposite). This
way, human beings are left with trying to develop their spiritual powers in order to
contact God directly, as it is reported in the whole Old Testament that all God’s chosen
leaders have done.
From this simple, but accurate, and extremely logical, set of reflections, one understands
that God cannot ever be discussed or `passed onwards’ to someone else.
God is to be privately and personally `experienced’.
It is only via becoming God, and that is perhaps why God is said to have denominated
Himself as `I AM’, that a human being can ever have access to even a small piece of
Him.
In any other possible use of any other tool, of other nature: language, discourse, touch;
God cannot possibly ever be accessed (due to the Higher-Order vagueness phenomenon
which will happen in the Ontology of God).
With this all, all that a human being may transmit to someone else is the consequences of
being with God, as `Jesus’, Himself, has done. It is only via actions of practical nature
and healing of the World injuries that a human being may influence others in those
regards.
Therefore, in the matters of religion, or churches, people can only be accurate if what is
passed onwards is history of facts involving actions which help, in practice, humanity to
be healed, in any possible sense.
Whoever speaks about God to someone else is a false prophet, given that accuracy is
never possible; blasphemy.

6) SOUNDNESS IN THEOLOGICAL THEORIES

It is then necessary, that similar to [5], we establish a way of judging who is righter, if we
ever want to write scientifically about matters which are well beyond.
If one wants to be scientific, one must play God’s rules: that of perfection.
Philosophy cannot admit mistakes to be regarded as Science: nobody must be allowed to
publish and make others waste time and life perpetuating clear mistakes of any order.
10
How can a person ever write about the matters of faith?
It is obviously the case that there must be a small core to faith, which is the scriptures
(only logical part or part passive of logical analysis), which is suitable for philosophical
debate: faith cannot be, or witnessing of any sort (experiences, such as that of `RAEL’). It
is a requirement that everyone is believed in this World and listened to, at least once, for
us to be able to include ourselves as members of a logical community, that is, a
community that progresses from monkeys due to the fact that it is able to communicate
and progress via communication towards any direction wished or intended by it which,
ideally, would be knowledge with ethics (respect for authorship, for individuals, as
prescribed both by the Bible and in the democratic laws).
First of all, the criterion of soundness (see, for instance, [24]) in Mathematics is the
simplest as possible: classical soundness. Therefore, in Mathematics, one could not admit
mistakes anymore in published papers by scientific journals. If there are papers which are
published and they contain mistakes in such a closed area, it is sound evidence that
Science has been changed into a joke. Similar to any other area of human interaction,
journals should be terminated by inspecting bodies if mistakes occur with a certain
frequency, complaints are made, but they do not fix their mistakes or produce apologies
(similar to trade rules). It is obviously not fair for a researcher to base themselves in a
work they think to be sound and checked well, even in terms of originality, but find out,
later on, that the original results they spent a long time developing, or applying to
something else, are not sound enough.
Soundness in non-classical logic is defined in a very similar way. See, for instance, [25].
It is basically a fact that everything that one may infer, from the validity or not of an
axiom of the system, must be well stated in the rules that define the own system.
For instance, it is part of the axioms of the Bible that `God is only one’ and `whoever
makes God look, or sound, inconsistent is a false prophet’. Given that the Bible has got a
Cartesian (see [30]) system of gods13: devil or God, the rules applied to its soundness
must be those of Mathematics. However, to support that, we may think of a few
sentences, of the sort `I said God is the devil, therefore I am a false prophet’. We know
the consequence is true once the premise is. That makes the whole assertion true, what is
sound according to our supposed classical logical soundness criteria. If classical logic is
not valid, we would find, for instance, at least one example in which the falsity of the
premise would not generate the whole set of possible assertions in the system. Let’s try:
the devil does not exist. If the devil does not exist, we know that it is all God and,
therefore, any assertion is part of God and, therefore, true, given it is a dualistic system.
Of course what we are stating is simply evidence to support our conjecture that the Bible
(common consistent core, taking away conflicting books) would demand a classical logic

13 Interesting fact is that God, Himself, refers to Himself as the `God of Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob’, what makes us think that, perhaps, it was never a dualistic system
of gods, what is simply logically correct. What makes sense is having a single axis
system for God, in which we may put ourselves or not (via vibrations, via spiritual
alignment, etc). Basically, the only possible logic, without fallacies, would be that
having as premise that there is only one God, as it is described in the history of
Abraham, Jacob, and Isaac. The existence of the devil besets God’s autonomy and
kindness. Once more, the issue of assembly of the Bible comes into play (who, why,
etc.).
11
soundness definition.
The point now has become finding a definition for Raelism in terms of soundness.
Raelism is also dualistic, for there is good and evil, mentioned explicitly, all over the way.
Supposing that evil does not exist does lead to the law of explosion.
Once more, it is all evidence, not a proof, for to being able to prove we should be able to
enlist every possible assertion and design a unique system of inference from them to
make it all coherent. Once soundness of their systems was not defined by the creator,
upfront, it all becomes more complicated. Given the scope of logical human actions in
language being infinite, such field is impossible to be encompassed by any human logic.
However, the set of moral assertions, from each (system), could easily be studied by a
group of scientists in order to define a unique soundness theory.
That is, of course, of major relevance, given all the crimes committed against humanity
and the scriptures along the years, as we previously mentioned. Via logic, we do not need
to prove who did what, we are able to recover all original writings, or what would be
their moral contents, which are obviously enough to determine, with certainty, what God
expects from all of us in our daily moral decisions.
That is highly desired.
For instance, on the issue `suicide’, if the New Testament is taken away, it should be
forbidden, for the moral rule `do not kill’. However, if it is considered, given that the own
apostles have committed it, who would say this is wrong?
If someone wants to believe that God, they must be sure of at least what He wants, or
expects, of course.
Even though this is our conjecture, not a proven set of statements, we shall apply
soundness as in classical logic, given that both systems are of dualistic nature (good and
evil), Cartesian.

7) WHAT SORT OF JUDGEMENT CAN WE SCIENTIFICALLY MAKE

OVER RAELISM OR ANY OTHER SORT OF RELIGION?

Whilst Mathematics may be measured in the Cartesian duality scope (accuracy, results),
theological papers must be measured in the Yung’s scope (making our own
denomination): spirit of the writer, accuracy, results.
We have already written about consistency of a theory: if ever wanting to propose a
religious/philosophical system, a person, or group, is obliged to watch over such:
inconsistency of the theory besets its allowance to be before anyone else as `the truth’
regarding anything in this World or in another.
Once `RAEL’ claims to hold it (see [1], p. 10, for instance), if a single inconsistency is
found, he is already proven to be a false prophet or, in more mathematical terms,
BLANTANTLY EQUIVOCATED.
What is the truth?
According to [26], truth is a fact.
If that is what truth is, and `RAEL’ claims that the ETs would speak our language with
perfection, as well as the language of everyone else in the World (see [1], p. 30), it can
only be the case that the ET-father knows the meaning of truth for us and has made use of
that meaning (or reference). Therefore, if we find a single thing in their communication to
12
`RAEL’ which is incompatible with the facts we know, we have found inconsistency and,
therefore, a false theory, a false prophet, a false god (the devil, according to the Christian
Bible supporters).

8) ON THE CLAIMS MADE BY RAEL, FALLACIES

We believe to have proved, so far, that, at least in the account provided by `RAEL’ on the
origins of life, there are gross fallacies.
`RAEL’ further claims, however, that:
1) `Rael’, as described by the `RAELIAN’ movement, was someone who would
have had personal contact with THE SAME GOD AS IN THE BIBLE (or from
some parts of it, once, even in what regards His name, some disagree, and the
Bible uses different names in different parts; thanks, most of the time, to the never
knowledge-orientated Inquisition priests) – not only they use the name of God as
a few claim to have been read from the original Bible (one of its readings), but
they also make use of several passages of the Bible to justify themselves (see [1]);
2) [1] seems to be stating that knowledge is given to us `little by little’ by this society,
who simply `likes doing it’, `enjoys it’, or `fears us and what we may do with it’
(p. 61, [1]). Therefore, it is either an evil god (we will suffer, take long to acquire
knowledge) or a powerless god (fear that we dominate them);
3) That ET god has created us all plus everything that there is on Earth, with passion,
with dedication, and lots of thinking about it, to choose it all well (see [1], p.17);
4) That ET gods procreate normally, hold a society, which, by the time `RAEL’
contacted, was more numerous than ours… that they die, that a few do not (see p.
131, p. 133, [1]);
5) That it takes them less than two months to arrive on Earth (see p.89);
6) From p. 8, [1]: `How long does it take you to come here?’ `As long as it takes to
think about it’.
Inconsistencies:
A) We will consider items 1,4,5,6 first.
On this claim, `RAEL’ seems to have transferred the problem of the first being to
another human (or similar to human) society. The question remains the same: what
about the first?
`RAEL’ then claims that the `Elohim’ society (which we call ET society) was created
by another one, and that another one, by another one, and so on, so forth (see p. 253,
[1]). What that gives us is a necessary `Mobius Band’ (see [27]), or alike, with
infinity being coincidental with point zero, somehow. In [1], p. 253, they actually
claim that one cannot, ever, find the beginning of the space and, therefore, will never
find the origin of the first society. However, infinity may be as long as a piece of ruler
going from 0 to 1, so that they actually are providing no information to support their
claims at all by simply referring to infinity. There is still the problem of the first being
and the fact that there, on the first set, the being would have `to be’ and `not be’, as
the paraconsistent account on ontology would state. As for infinity concepts, some
claim that, for instance, `the parallels would meet there’ (see something about this in
[28]). However, even this claim may be disputed for there is literature stating
13
 precisely the opposite. Basically, infinity has become a beautiful word to justify
almost anything which is untrue. People who do not belong to Mathematics do not
seem to understand that infinity might be as easily reachable as going from 0 to 1, as
spoken before, on a ruler. Infinity is obviously reachable. How long it takes for a
person to get there is another issue. However, it is certainly something very solid if
ever referring to societies of people and, therefore, it has to be reachable. When the
ET refers to space and makes them equate, things get very inconsistent. Space is
certainly not as tangible as societies of beings or planets; space may be contained
inside of boundaries, but is still abstract. Were this ET ever knowing our language in
depth, as he claims, he would never mix up things unless he, himself, did not have
them clear. If he does not, he is not as knowledgeable as he claims to be, just to start
with. The only way to make his theory plausible is definitely imagining the zero and
the infinity being possible at the same time/position in space. With this, ontological
paraconsistency would finally be reality, as Dr. Priest, for instance, claimed
personally to wish for. However, once it is never true anywhere else in the World we
live, as we believe to have proven in our paraconsistent account of the Sorites (see
[29]), it must be something special about the space/time relationship. We could then
think of a phenomenon which is never repeated, to make it all coherent, that of `being
and not being’ at the same time, for a single society, which lies both at the end of all
societies and at the beginning of all. There is then a moment in which that stops being
true, once the ETs seem to think they are and they were born from someone else
(Where? Why?).
However, to save us time, there is never mention to such a thing in the ETs theory, but
there is comparison between beings of totally different nature: space and society
(some compare with time, dimension, but not societies or planets, not so far). It is
already a fallacy for the fact that it states to be `the same thing’. Assuming the ET
dominates our language leads us to a fallacy.
Not happy, there is item 5 and 6: it takes both less than two months and as long as it
takes to think about it for them to reach Earth. It is obviously the case that thought
takes far less than one day. The reference to two months seems to be at least odd,
then.
However, it starts making sense with someone who claims that space and society
could ever be compared.
Apparently, the reference for `time’, `society’, `space’, they hold, can only be of
totally different nature from those we know. But they actually seem to state it is all
the same…
Clear inconsistency.
One could think we should give `RAEL’ the same sort of tolerance we have given to
the Bible writings. However, one must remember that nobody has changed `RAEL’s
sayings and it was all written in French and advertised in the whole official press as
he got the message, so that there is no chance for the message told not having been
the message got, whilst, with the Bible, there are so many crimes, but so many, all
well registered in history, that one must make an allowance to give God a (holy)
chance.
The same allowances could never be made to Raelism, however, that is for sure.
14
 Pushing it a bit would provide tools to next `RAEL’ to exploit their religion. Of
course, similar to the Bible, there were several `false’ and `true’ prophets, so…
If they ever resurrect this theory, however, the only way to stick to most of it is
allowing zero and infinity to coincide in the first planet with the first being, so that no
explanation is needed for them, once they `are’ and `are not’ at the same time.
Historically, however, one must expect that to also be proven wrong: see Parallax
mistake, for instance (thought to `be’ and `not to be’ before explained in human
perception terms).
B) On item 2
Suppose ET-god is evil god. Therefore, evil god wants to have fun at our expense: he
knows all, but will hide from us, will play with crop holes, etc…
The question to be asked is `why would anyone cope?’
And, of course, ET-god, himself, provides the answer, the only logical path of action
to follow: destroy him! (See [1], 61).
Suppose ET-god is good god: he fears us.
Well, if he fears us, logical path of action is domination by us, never to hesitate: if
they hold any higher knowledge and come to play with flying saucers, why not taking
over?
If ET-god fears us, it can only be true that we would win any battle against him, so
let’s go for it!
In any hypothesis, then, the only possible conclusion from ET-god talk is: destroy, or
dominate, never adore (who would adore those who are less, Who fear? Well, of
course, this is the only logical decision because there is no agreement between their
society and ours in terms of limits, or laws).
Once more, it is impossible to think that `RAEL’ could ever be an enlightened person,
who `knew better’. That cannot be the case because his decision is creating adorers, a
church devoted to the ET-god.
To make it all worse, when claiming that they refer to the same God as the one in the
Christian Bible, they are committing clear blasphemy in Christian theology.
Basically, God from the Bible never feared us and was never of sadistic nature either:
the `God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob’ is well above us all and we should fear Him
instead. Besides, He was never a player: He tells precisely what He wants and has no
creator. This suffices to put down the statements that they are the same god. Once the
Christian Bible allows no competition, the ET-god can only be the devil himself
(dualistic system).
C) On item 3
ET-god created those `he fears’.
Once more, who would create Frankenstein ever knowing he was more powerful and
could turn against the creator? The contents of page 61 of [1] are so clear as to state
ET-god is truly stupid.
Not happy with the first, already in fear, he keeps on allowing procreation of what he
fears…
At least the creator of `Frankenstein’ there stopped…
Once more, `following idiot-ET-god?’
D) On item 1
15
 If Rael is proven to have uttered inconsistencies, he can only be a false prophet. If he
is a false prophet, it is obvious to us that he has lied and he never met the `God of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob’. It is either the case then that Rael has never had a single
encounter with a single E.T. being, or whatever he contacted is obviously the opposite
of God, for it claimed to be God, but it is not. And we all know that this is what is
called, by the own Bible, devil’s trick.

9) CONCLUSION

In this paper, we have proven RAELISM to be the consequence of an evil mind,

rather than a blessed one and, therefore, to hold principles which should never be
spread around, by any means. Until someone else, who is not `RAEL’, tells, in public,
that they have been inspired somehow, and are able to now write the truth, nobody
should really advertise, or write about, RAELISM not to harm the World further, or
allow less intellectually developed people to be driven to the Christian hell.
On the top of that, we do truly believe we have considered the theory presented by
`RAEL’ with all respect it would be possible to have, making logical remarks and
pointing out their clear inconsistencies.
We have also provided an almost complete proof that the Bible is coherent, if
logically considered in human terms (history, scribes, translators, languages, etc.).
We have also proved that God cannot be talked about, cannot be discussed; only the
communications made by those who claim to have contacted Him, given this is the
only level we access, as human beings.
As a plus, we have proved that if ever seeing Raelism from a Christian Bible point of
view, the ET-god can only be the devil himself and, therefore, `RAEL’ is a false
prophet who should be punished heavily (once Raelism does make use of the Bible as
a source, the laws there apply, so stoning is adequate).

16
 10) REFERENCES:

[1] Rael, Intelligent Design – message from the designers, Nova Distribution
(Publisher), 2005

[2] Maclaurin, E. C. B.; YHWH, The origin of the tetragrammaton, Vetus

Testamentum, Vol. 12, Fasc. 4, Oct. 1962, pp. 439-463, as accessed at
`http://www.jstor.org/search/BasicSearch?Query=aa%3A%22E%20C%20B%20Mac
Laurin%22&si=1&hp=25&Search=Search’, on the 8th of August of 2007

[3] Freedman, David Noel; The name of the God of Moses, Jornal of Biblical
Literature, Vol. 79, No. 2, Jun., 1958, pp. 151-156

[4] `http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Noel_Freedman’, as seen on the 8th of August

of 2007

[5] Monroe, Don; Fossil Sheds Light On Great Ape Ancestor, 19th Nov. 2004, as
seen at `http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000724B7-71E6-119B-
B1E683414B7FFE9F’, on the 9th of August of 2007

[6] Duke University; Brain, Size and Gender Surprises in Latest Fossil Tying
Humans, Apes and Monkeys, `http://www.physorg.com/news98466342.html’, from
Physorg.com, 15th of May of 2007, seen on the 9th of August of 2007

[7] News24 editors, Fossils fill evolutionary gap,

`http://www.news24.com/News24/Technology/News/0,,2-13-1443_1915849,00.html’,
from 17th of April of 2006, accessed on the 9th of August of 2007

[8] Jha, Alok; Discovered: the missing link that solves a mystery of evolution,
Guardian unlimited,
`http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/apr/06/evolution.fossils’, 6th of April of
2006, seen on the 9th of August of 2007

[9] Jr., Morris Jastrow; Adam and Eve in Babylonian Literature, The American
Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature, Vol. 15, No. 4, Jul. 1899, pp. 193-214

[10] Encyclopedia Britannica online, Adam and Eve, as seen on the 9th of August of
17
 2007, at `http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article-9309683’

[11] Kutscher, E. Y.; Dating the Language of the Genesis Apocryphon, Journal of
Biblical literature, Vol. 76, No. 4, Dec. 1957, pp. 288-292

[12] Sabar, Yona; Targumic Influence On Jewish Bible Translations in Neo-

Aramaic, Aramaic Studies, 1 2003, vol. 1, pp. 55-65

[13] Paton, Lewis Bayles; Archaeology and the Book of Genesis, The Biblical
World, Vol. 45, No. 4. (Apr., 1915), pp. 202-210.

[14] Salemi, Peter; Who wrote the Book of Genesis?, `http://www.british-

israel.ca/Genesis.htm’, as seen on the 9th of August of 2007

[15] Khan, Geoffrey; The North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic Dialects, Journal of Semitic

Studies, 52(1):1-20, 2007, as seen at `
http://jss.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/52/1/1’, on the 9 of August of 2007
th

[16] Goldman, Robert P.; Karma, Guilt, and Buried Memories: Public Fantasy
and Private Reality in Traditional India, Journal of the American Oriental Society,
Vol. 105, No. 3, pp. 413-425, as found at `http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-
0279%28198507%2F09%29105%3A3%3C413%3AKGABMP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-G’ on the 9th of
August of 2007

[17] Beall, JC; Restall, Greg; Logical Consequence, Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy, first written in 2005, as accessed at
`http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-consequence/’, on the 9th of August of 2007

[18] American Heritage Dictionary, `Consistency’, found at

`http://www.ask.com/reference/dictionary/ahdict/62116/consistency’, seen on the 9th
of August of 2007

[19] Azaunce, Mirian; Is it schizophrenia or spirit possession?, Journal of Social

Distress and the Homeless, Vol. 4, No. 3, 1995

[20] McCloskey, H. J.; God and Evil, The Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 10, No. 39,
Apr. 1960, pp. 97-114

[21] Singh, Simon; Fermat’s Last Theorem, Fourth Estate, 1997

[21] Pinheiro, M. R.; A Solution to the Sorites, Semiotica, 160 (1/4), 2006

[22] Encyclopedia Britannica online, `Human skeletal system: The Rib Cage’, as
seen at `http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-41866/human-skeletal-system’, on the
10th of August of 2007
18
 [23] Sorensen, Roy; Vagueness, Stanford Encyclopedia, as seen at
`http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/vagueness/’, on the 10th of August of 2007, written in
2006

[24] Bilanuik, Stephan; A problem course in mathematical logic, available at

`http://euclid.trentu.ca/math/sb/pcml/pcml-16.pdf’, as seen on the 10th of August of
2007, p. 27/166

[25] Verbrugge, Rineke (L.C.); Provability logic, available at

`http://www.science.uva.nl/~seop/archives/sum2003/entries/logic-provability/#5’, on
the 10th of August of 2007

[26] Merriam-Webster, as seen at `http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/truth’,

on the 10th of August of 2007

[27] Weisstein, Eric W.; "Möbius Strip." From MathWorld--A Wolfram Web
Resource. `http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MoebiusStrip.html’, 2004, as seen on the
10th of August of 2007

[28] Reid, Miles; Update on 3-folds, ICM, Vol. III, 1-3, 2002, as seen at `
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/math/pdf/0206/0206157v3.pdf’, as seen on the 10th of
August of 2007

[29] Pinheiro, M. R.; A paraconsistent solution to the Sorites, as seen at

`www.geocities.com/mrpprofessional/Preprints1.htm, on the 10th of August of 2007

[30] Pratt, V.; Algebra, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1st published on the 29th
of May of 2007, as seen at `http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/algebra/#Cart’, on the 19th
of August of 2007

19