In 2024, I surveyed modern astrologers to determine their arguments against the existence of accurate astrological predictions. Modern astrologers mostly repeat the same three arguments against accurate forecasts, which I want to respond to.
Argument 1: Astrology is divination. An accurate forecast based on logical analysis is impossible.
This statement is a classic axiom in which a particular assertion (in this case, that astrology is divination) is accepted a priori.
In reality, such an assertion contradicts the mathematical core of astrological techniques. Progressions, revolutions, mathematical timing techniques, spherical geometry formulas, and angular distance calculations prove a logical, not intuitive, approach to astrology.
Moreover, numerous examples from this book and a vast collection of books preserved over the centuries demonstrate examples of predictions made based on purely logical conclusions. Therefore, the reader cannot consider the first argument to be valid—it contradicts historical evidence.
Argument 2: Modern Uranian individuals have become free, and the stars no longer influence them.
The emergence of modern genetics and neurophysiology has proved otherwise—we are not entirely free in our decisions. Furthermore, the idea that physical laws governing the movement of planets (gravity), altering the composition of the atmosphere (quantum effects of relic radiation), and stimulating neural networks (neurobiology)—and other material regularities underlying astrology—have always worked but suddenly ceased to work for Uranian individuals in modern society contradicts the fundamentals of science.
If the laws of astrology, according to which stars influence visible social collisions and events in life, existed somewhere in the past, then the same laws should manifest themselves now. They will also manifest in the future as long as our Universe exists. Exceptionally material principles of astrological influence are as immutable in this Universe as gravity, electricity, and other known laws of physics. They cannot be “turned off” for individual generations. So, this argument also cannot be considered justified.
Argument 3: Forecasts are nothing more than a form of manipulation where the astrologer programs the client for a predetermined outcome.
A large number of preserved forecasts from renowned astrologers contradict this thesis. William Lilly predicted the Great Fire of London. But he couldn’t program an entire city to self-immolate. You have seen examples where an astrologer accurately named the date of the lockdown in Baku or the place and time of a businessman’s murder (see §25.5 in part 1 of this textbook). But an astrologer couldn’t program the government of an entire country or an individual killer to take a specific step on a particular day. Morinus predicted the day of Cardinal Richelieu’s death from a severe illness. But he couldn’t “program” him to die on a specific day.
This last argument also contradicts observed experience.
