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 Raelistic 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 have 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’ as a reference for himself, who reminded us very much of the main representative of the Brazilian branch of `Seicho-no-ie’, in the suburb of `Catete, Rio de Janeiro’, place to which we were dragged by very mystical and mysterious reasons, in a unique experience which would definitely involve the holy Bible and God; but carries 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 the least chance of getting anything from the `reference’ to which the `name’ applies, as good `Wittgenstein’ 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.
We progress in the following sequence:
1)	Introduction;
2)	Origins of human life (and argumentation against Raelism);
3)	A few issues which could support 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) EXPLANATION PROVIDED BY THEM AND THEIR OWN `TRUTH’ REGARDING THE ORIGIN OF HUMAN LIFE.

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 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. Let’s see.

POINT 2:

However, 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 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 cannot 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 life: 
` 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 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 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 for evolution, 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 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 as well.
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 WHICH COULD SUPPORT `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 it was written in Aramaic, as the book `Lords of the World (literal translation to the book in Portuguese `Senhores do Mundo’) 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 spirituality `powers’: 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. 
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. If what they say is nonsensical, they should be deposed; they should be `stoned’. 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). 
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’. 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 as the Raelian denomination. 
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). 
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. 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.
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 gods: 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 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 be 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 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, someone 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 `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, since 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 written in 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 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 4 and 5: 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 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.
Pushing it a bit, however, 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 fears? 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 than 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?’
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 all 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 level we can 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 and should be punished heavily (once Raelism does make use of the Bible as a source, the laws there apply).

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%20MacLaurin%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 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 9th of August of 2007

[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 acessed 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
[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