Philosophically, the goal here is to prove to the reader that God does indeed exist. If this brings you to God, then it is worthy. If it does not, then it should be rejected. Many superior, and more learned, persons have proven Gods existence. Recommend Sts Anselm, Aquinas and more. In any case, the author does not amount to anything but a nobody, who wrote this to help his belief in God. It helped him ; perhaps it helps you. This is not to say that this is terribly original, for the threads of past proofs of God run through this. But, maybe, just maybe, this little discussion provides a modern way of stating the works of more wise ancestors, who provided God exists. In short, for the moderns, who are not familiar with the great wisdom of our common past, this discussion is submitted. The author has no doubt that there is a God and that He is involved in our very existence each day ; and that this God is just, loving and good. His heart aside, the author needed to work through that belief from an intellectual perspective as well, for he believes that approaching God is possible both in the mind as well as the heart.

LET US BEGIN FIRST WITH NOTHING. LET US SAY THERE IS NO REALITY. THERE IS NO GOD, FOR ARGUMENT SAKE ONLY. LET US SAY THERE IS NOTHING WHATSOEVER. I WILL NOT ACCEPT EVEN THAT THERE ARE ANY MATERIAL OR NON-MATERIAL ELEMENTS.

AT THIS VANTAGE, CAN ONE SAY THERE IS EVEN A ME? INDEED POTENTIALLY THERE IS NO ME. IS THIS ABSURD? DESCARTES WOULD SAY THAT THERE IS A PHILOSOPHICAL STARTING POINT, COGITO ERGO SUM. BUT, I WOULD POINT OUT THAT THINKING DOES NOT NECESSARILY IMPLY BEING. (OF COURSE, THIS ARGUMENT WAS MADE AGAINST DESCARTES AS WELL BY OTHERS, I BELIEVE).

I FIND THIS PERSPECTIVE OR VIEWPOINT TO BE INTELLECTUALLY BENEFICIAL FOR MY PURPOSES. I AM FREE OF THE GRASPING ELOQUENCE OF ARGUMENTS FOR THIS AND THAT PHILOSOPHICAL SYSTEM. WHETHER IT IS CONSTRUCTIVE OR DECONSTRUCTIVE. WHETHER IT IS SELF-SERVING OR NOT. WHETHER IT IS WHOLISTIC OR INDIVIDUALISTIC.

I AM FREED, BUT INTELLECTUALLY HELD BETWEEN TWO OPPOSING POINTS IN A SPECTRUM. ON ONE END, ALL IS REAL. ON THE OTHER END, ALL IS NOT REAL. INDEED, THERE IS ROOM IN THE MIDDLE FOR A COMBINATION OF THE TWO. IS IT ABSURD TO SAY ALL IS NOT REAL? IS IT ABSURD TO SAY ALL IS REAL? WHICH IS MORE ABSURD?

FRANKLY, REAL OR NOT, THIS IS STILL REPORTABLE and REVIEWABLE. ARGUING REAL OR NOT REAL IS NOT OF RELEVANCE. FOR THIS IS REAL IN SO FAR AS IT IS EXISTS TO ME. THUS, PHILOSOPHY AT THIS POINT IS RELATIVE FOR AS EXISTENCE OF THIS OR THAT FLOW FROM MY PERCEPTION (MATERIAL) AND MY PERSPECTIVE (IMMATERIAL).

THUS, I HAVE SET FORTH THAT PHILOSOPHY IS RELATIVE TO THE PERCEPTION AND PERSPECTIVE OF THE PHILOSOPHER. (AS AN ASIDE, THIS IS TRUE OF SCIENCE AND THE SCIENTIST.) IN SO FAR AS PERSPECTIVES AND PERCEPTIONS ARE COMMON AMONG MULTIPLE PEOPLE, THERE IS THE HEART OF OBJECTIVE PHILISOPHY. BUT THAT IS FOR ANOTHER QUESTION. HOWEVER, CURRENTLY AT THIS VERY POINT OF MY DISCUSSION HERE, I AM THE ONLY PHILOSOPHER OF RELEVANCE WHETHER REAL OR NOT REAL.

THIS AND THAT AROUND ME MAY OR MAY NOT BE REAL. I CARE NOT. I PERCEIVE THAT THEY EXIST, SO NATURALLY MY PERSPECTIVE IS THEY DO EXIST TO THE PHILOSOPHER OF MY WORLD ME. QUITE NARROW INDEED, BUT THAT IS WHERE WE ARE AT HERE IN THE DISCUSSION.

SIMPLY PUT, I ALLOW THEM TO BE REAL, eg. PEOPLE AND ANIMALS, IN MY WORLD PHILOSOPHY. THEY ARE EXISTING FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THIS OBSERVER AND THINKER.

I HAVE SAID THEIR EXISTENCE FLOWS FROM ME, IN SO FAR AS THEY EXIST TO ME. SO, THEN, I CAN UNDO THEIR EXISTENCE, eg. SNAKES, BY NOT PERCEIVING THEM AND NOT BELIEVING IN THEM. AND SO, RIGHT NOW, I CHOOSE THAT THERE ARE NO SNAKES. LATER, I WILL ASK MY FRIEND IF HE HAS EVER HEARD OF A SNAKE. HE SAYS, TO MY SURPRISE, YES! I PROTEST AND SAY, THERE IS NO SUCH THING!. HE DISAGREES AND SAYS COME, I WILL SHOW YOU A SNAKE!, AND HE TAKES ME TO A ZOO WHERE THERE IS A SIGN THAT SAYS SNAKE HOUSE AND INSIDE THERE ARE THINGS THAT HE CALLS SNAKES. THEY CERTAINLY LOOK LIKE WHAT I WILLED TO NOT EXIST. THEY APPEAR TO BE EXISTING IN HIS VIEW, MY VIEW AND IN THE VIEW OF THE PERSON WHO PUT UP THE SIGN. NO MATTER HOW MUCH I KEEP MY EYES CLOSED AND WILL THE END ALL SNAKES, IT DOES NOT NEGATE THE EXISTENCE OF ANY OF THE SNAKES, WHICH HE IS TRYING TO SHOW ME. NO MATTER HOW MUCH I CONVINCE MY MIND THERE IS NO SUCH THING, DOES THAT AFFECT THE EXISTENCE OF EVEN ONE SNAKE? IF I REFUSE TO BELIEVE IN SNAKES, AS MY ONLY OPTION, DOES IT KEEP THEM FROM EXISTING?

HENCE, ANECDOTALLY, PHILISOPHY IS STILL RELATIVE AT THIS PLACE IN MY DISCUSSION, BUT EXISTENCE IS NOT ALLOWED OR DISALLOWED BY ME. I DO NOT BY WILL CONVEY EXISTENCE. IT WOULD SEEM TO BE INDEPENDENT. OF COURSE YOU MAY SAY THAT I CAN ENGINEER SOMETHING INTO EXISTENCE, BUT OF COURSE SUCH WAS BUILT FROM SOMETHING THAT ALREADY EXISTED.

MY WORLD IS NOW (IN THIS DISCUSSION) A COMBINATION OF PERCEPTION AND PERSPECTIVE. IT IS RELATIVE, AND THUS BY IMPLICATION FILTERED. I CONTROL PERCEPTION AND PERSPECTIVE, BUT I DO NOT CONTROL EXISTENCE.

IF OTHER THIS AND THAT'S EXIST, SEPARATE FROM ME, COULD THEY EACH HAVE THEIR OWN INDIVIDUAL REALITY? OR IS THERE A COMMON REALITY?

MATHEMATICAL CONSISTENCY SHOWS US THAT SEVERAL OBSERVERS CAN OBTAIN THE SAME RESULTS IN TERMS OF PERCEPTION FROM THE SAME GENERAL PERSPECTIVE. FOR EXAMPLE. THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY. THIS WOULD IMPLY A COMMON REALITY SHARED BY MULTIPLE OBSERVERS PERCEIVING FROM THE SAME PERSPECTIVE.

DOES THIS PROVE COMMON REALITY? NO. IT MERELY PROVES THAT MORE THAN ONE OBSERVER IN MY WORLD CAN ARRIVE AT THE SAME RESULT. THI IMPLIES THAT REALITY IS NOT NECESSARILY COMMON, MERELY ITS MANIFESTATION IN MY WORLD TO MULTIPLE OBSERVERS IS COMMON. ALSO, IT MAY IMPLY THAT REALITY IS INDEPENDENT OF AN OBSERVER, NOT JUST ME.

HENCE, PHILISOPHY AND SCIENCE (METAPHYSICS AND PHYSICS) ARE RELATIVE TO THE OBSERVER, YET MAY BE COMMON TO MORE THAN ONE OBSERVER. THUS, PHILISOPHY AND SCIENCE, AS FORMS OF UNDERSTANDING, ACT TO PUT RELATIVE MEANING TO OBSERVATIONS BY OBSERVERS. AND THUS THEY ARE BUILT UPON IMPERFECT FOUNDATION. THEY ARE BUT A FILTERED APPROACH TO KNOWING, INDEPENDENT OF REALITY. THE FACT THAT EVERY OBSERVER CAME UP WITH THE OBSERVATION OF TWO APPLES ON A GIVEN TABLE AND THAT THEY ARE RED, DOES NOT CONVEY, CONFIRM OR PROVE THEIR TRUE QUALITY OR QUANTITY BY ITSELF. IT JUST MEANS THAT THE SHARED OBSERVATION IS SUCH.

IN SHORT, REALITY IS REALITY. PERCEPTION, FILTERED BY PERSPECTIVE, IS AN OBSERVER'S REALITY OR MANIFESTED REALITY. UNDERSTANDING IS BASED UPON MANIFESTED REALITY, THUS INCOMPLETE AND POTENTIALLY AN IMPRECISE MEASUREMENT OR APPRAISAL OF REALITY.

RETURNING TO THE ANECDOTE OF THE TWO APPLES, WE DISCUSSED THAT WHAT I AND OTHER OBSERVERS SEE AS TWO RED APPLES ON THE TABLE IS AN OBSERVATION OF MANIFESTED REALITY OR REALITY FILTERED BY THE PERCEPTION AND PERSPECTIVE OF THE OBSERVER. THIS IMPLIES THERE IS A REAL REALITY THAT MAY EXACTLY MATCH MANIFESTED REALITY OR MAY BE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT OR SOMEWHERE BETWEEN. DEPENDING ON WHERE REAL REALITY FITS ON THIS SPECTRUM, IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THERE ARE THIS AND THAT'S EXISTING IN A REAL REALITY THAT IS NOT OBSERVABLE.

LET US SAY THAT OBSERVER A SAYS THERE ARE TWO APPLES, AND I SAY THERE ARE ZERO APPLES. WELL SOMEONE IS WRONG. SHOW ME THAT I AM WRONG. IN ORDER FOR ME TO UNDERSTAND THAT I AM WRONG, OBSERVER A MUST EXPLAIN TO ME THE CONCEPT OF ZERO VS. TWO. THE CONCEPT OF ENUMERATION IS NOT OBSERVABLE IN ITSELF, RATHER IT IS AN IDEA. THE FACT THAT THERE ARE TWO APPLES IS AN APPLICATION OF THE CONCEPT OF ENUMERATION TO MANIFESTED REALITY.

DOES THE CONCEPT OF ENUMERATION EXIST? YES, TO THIS AND MANY OTHER OBSERVERS. WHERE DOES IT EXIST? IF IT EXISTS IN MANIFESTED REALITY, I COULD GO TO A PLACE AND OBSERVE THE CONCEPT. BUT, I CANNOT. I CAN ONLY OBSERVE THE APPLICATION OF THE CONCEPT. SO IT, THAT IS THE CONCEPT, MUST BE. IT MUST EXIST IN REAL REALITY... OR, PERHAPS, IT IS SOMETHING WE OBSERVERS CONTRIVED TO UNDERSTAND THINGS BETTER, AS IN INVENTED REALITY. PERHAPS, EVEN, IT IS IN BOTH. IF WE CANNOT OBSERVE THE CONCEPT, HOW DID WE GET IT INTO OUR HEADS. EDUCATION OF COURSE. BUT GOING BACK IN HISTORY AND PRE-HISTORY, THERE WERE NOT ALWAYS APPLICATIONS OF THE ENUMERATION CONCEPT NO NUMBERING SYSTEMS. IT WAS INVENTED. SO DID THE INVENTOR JUST DREAM IT UP. OF COURSE. OUT OF THIN AIR AS WE SAY? MAYBE. MAYBE NOT.

IF THE CONCEPT OF ENUMERATION WAS INVENTED OUT OF THIN AIR, THEN NOTHING WAS THE SOURCE OF SOMETHING. IF IT WAS NOT OUT OF THIN AIR, THEN IT WAS BUILT OUT OF A SOURCE. INVENTION INVOLVES THE BRAIN AND THOUGHTFULNESS.

I MUST SAY THAT WITHOUT MORE INSIGHT, THIS AUTHOR CANNOT SEE HOW SOMETHING CAN COME FROM NOTHING. THIS COULD BE A PERCEPTION AND PERSPECTIVE PROBLEM BUT THERE IT IS. I COULD TRY TO CONCEIVE OF NOTHING GENERATING SOMETHING AS LONG AS THERE WAS A GENERATOR. WHICH IN TURN MEANS SOMETHING WAS THERE TO GENERATE. HENCE SOMETHING GENERATED SOMETHING.

SO IF THE CONCEPT OF ENUMERATION DID NOT COME OUT OF THIN AIR AND WAS INVENTED BY THE BRAIN THROUGH THOUGHT OF THE INVENTOR, BASED ON SOME SOURCE, THEN THAT SOURCE COULD HAVE BEEN PREVIOUS CONCEPTUAL INVENTION OR A WHOLLY NEW CONCEPTUAL INVENTIONS BUT NOT BOTH. SINCE WE HAVE SHOWN, NOTHING CANNOT GENERATE SOMETHING, THEN THE SOURCE COULD NOT BE A WHOLLY NEW CONCEPTUAL INVENTION. SO THE CONCEPT OF ENUMERATION CAME FROM PREVIOUS CONCEPTUAL INVENTION, WHICH CAME FROM A PREVIOUS ONE AND SO. FOLLOW IT BACK AND IT NEEDED AN UNINVENTED SOURCE.

SO THE CONCEPT OF ENUMERATION IS CONTRIVED BY THE OBSERVER AS A CONCEPTUAL INVENTION FROM SOME PAST UNINVENTED SOURCE, OR A PRIME SOURCE IF YOU WILL, EXISTING SOMEWHERE WHERE IT IS UNOBSERVABLE. THIS WOULD IMPLY IT EXISTS IN REALITY, NOT MANIFESTED REALITY. YET, WE OBSERVERS HAVE ACCESS TO IT.

THE PRIME SOURCE MAY BE UNOBSERVABLE, AS CONCEPT(S) ARE, BUT IT IS ACCESSIBLE TO THE OBSERVERS BRAIN AND TANGIBLE SO TO SPEAK VIA THOUGHT AND NOT THE SENSES.

LET US MOVE BEYOND THE CONCEPT OF ENUMERATION TO THE CONCEPT OF SUPREME BEING. COULD THERE BE A GOD? YES. DO THE OBSERVERS LACK OF BELIEF AFFECT THE EXISTENCE OR NON-EXISTENCE OF A GOD? NO. COULD GOD EXIST EVEN IF WE DO NOT OBSERVE HIM. YES. FOR OUR DISCUSSION, COULD GOD EXIST IN REAL REALITY OR MANIFESTED REALITY? YES. SO THE POSSIBILITY OF GOD IS THERE. FOR SAKE OF OUR DISCUSSION, THERE IS EITHER A GOD OR THERE IS NO GOD. AS IN THE CASE OF THE SNAKE, I DO NOT CONTROL HIS EXISTENCE.

THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL PHILISOPHICAL PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. MANY ARE COMPELLING AND TRUE I BELIEVE. BUT, BECAUSE SCIENCE IS THE POPULAR AND TREATED AS A KIND OF SELF-PROVING TOOL FOR UNDERSTANDING, WE ARE LOOKING TO IT TO PROVE OR DISPROVE GOD'S EXISTENCE. HOPEFULLY THAT WILL OCCUR, BUT SINCE PRESENT SCIENCE ENGAGES WITH MANIFESTED REALITY AS OBSERVATIONS THEN THERE IS DIFFICULTY IN THIS DISCUSSION TO USE SCIENCE IF GOD EXISTS IN REALITY.

IF YOU ACCEPT PRIMARY SOURCING OF CONCEPT(S) VIA THOUGHT IN THE BRAIN IS UNOBSERVABLE AND THIS IS IN REALITY THEN WHERE DID THE PRIMARY SOURCE FOR THE ENUMERATION CONCEPT ORIGINATE? NOTHING COMES FROM NOTHING. PERHAPS THE BRAIN GENERATES PRIMARY SOURCES. PERHAPS GOD DOES. SOMETHING HAD TO, DIDN'T IT? CONCEPTS ARE IMMATERIAL, AS IN NON-PHYSICAL. THEREFORE THE PRIMARY SOURCE HAS TO BE IMMATERIAL. MATERIAL DOES NOT DIRECTLY GENERATE IMMATERIAL. THEREFORE THE BRAIN DID NOTCREATE GENERATE THE PRIMARY SOURCE. SOMETHING IMMATERIAL DID. AT THIS POINT IN OUR DISCUSSION THAT WOULD BE AN IMMATERIAL INDEPENDENT (GOD) OR THE IMMATERIAL DEPENDENT (SOUL).

BEING LEFT WITH DEITY OR SOUL AS THE ORIGINATOR OF THE PRIMARY SOURCE OF CONCEPTS, WE ARE LEFT MERELY TO ASK WHICH ONE. SINCE THE SOUL HAS A DEPENDENCY THAT IS SELF EVIDENT, THEN IT MUST HAVE HAD A CAUSALITY AND IT IS BUT AN EFFECT. AND SO, IT IS THAT GOD IS THE ORIGINATOR.

Copyright (c) 2003, MK. All rights reserved.

( Original edition bore copyright from 2003. Permission of the author was obtained to copy this and fix grammatics from the original 2003 version. )