689. As we have seen, the living being has been unable to avoid having to find a term for a reality that, despite all denial, nevertheless exists. It denies the existence of this reality merely because, unlike material phenomena, it does not allow itself to be weighed or measured, and as a consequence it cannot be directly accessible to the senses. The reason why, in spite of this, they could not avoid referring to it in everyday speech as "I" or "we" is that it constitutes such a dominant, everyday factor in the experience of life that it is in fact "knowledge C", even though this of course still shows itself only instinctively and has not become pure day-consciousness in the uninitiated being. It cannot be avoided that this "knowledge C" will eventually become clear day-consciousness in the being. The terrestrial human being has never in its daily chain of increasing experience received any confirmation whatsoever that an object can create itself. On the contrary, there can be found in its chain of experience a confirmation of the opposite. And the more these experiences fall within fields that are one hundred per cent transparent for the human being, the more strongly will it show that a "created object" is a one hundred per cent proof of the existence of a "creator". Take for example a machine, a building or a suit of clothes. Is there any normal civilised human being that would not accept such phenomena as one hundred per cent proofs of the existence of their respective creators? What is it that makes these phenomena acceptable as one hundred per cent proofs of their creators' existence? Are they more logical or purposeful in their construction and technology than the phenomena or "created things" whose one hundred per cent verifiability one will not, or cannot, accept, for example, a being's flesh and blood organism? Are there any of human beings' technical or physical creations that are more purposefully constructed than such an organism? No, no one has ever yet seen phenomena produced by human beings that surpass, as an expression of intellectual knowledge and ability, the creation of living beings' organisms. But why does one accept the products of human beings as one hundred per cent proof of the existence of a creator when does one not accept as proofs other created phenomena that are at the very least just as logical and purposeful?