Of God

As a philosopher once said, that to contemplate the inconceivable is to think of nothingness. I shall here attempt to refute this statement wherein it pertains to the nature of God, for it seems more likely that God is most conceivable only in an economic perspective, that God is of coherence and thus conceivable.

1. I here come to certain conclusion that God be necessarily perfect through the economy of its parts, rather than be of a mystery to the human mind. That is, when we talk of perfection, one must think how the whole – perfection – defines the nature of its parts – omni-benevolence, omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence, and the essence of oneness, being un-derived. That is, perfection be in its true form must be reflected by the interrelationship of its parts, in such a way that its parts necessarily make economic compromises against one another in order for all to reflect the true essence of perfection through the best combination of compromising parts. It is the economy of its parts that form the perfection of the whole. And perfection is so, that for if there be omni-benevolence and omniscience, there cannot be complete omnipotence. Also, that if omnipresence be, then omni-benevolence is hard to be confided with, for omnipresence necessitates having been in the state of being both immoral and moral. Or, that either cannot be compromised due to other philosophic theories that enable both to exist. In all, then, perfection is the purest of intellect, the essence of truth, the eternity of coherence. Thus with economical theory at hand, one can find out what compromises have to be made in order for the best to come out of all these, and the result shall be the ultimatum of perfection. This, the economy of perfect parts, is the very nature of fundamental coherence. Nevertheless, to prove coherence exists, look no further but to the principles of Geometry. Since we know Geometry to be of the basic tenets of mathematics, that geometry has no contradiction whatsoever, unproved by another form of mathematics, thus self-sustaining, that everything in the universe is dependent upon the very fact of geometrical forms (no matter the dimensionality of the form), then coherence exists (in light of the nature of geometry), and then so too for perfection. One could even say that after having a full comprehension of geometry in relation to the universe is to too understand the very essence of God! In essence of the argument, God is perfect, not mysterious.

2. From the former assertion that God’s essence be necessarily of coherence, I shall here reveal the very consequence of the claim. As Spinoza once argued, for since one's essence of being reflects upon one's nature, and one's nature influences one's will and therefore what one does or causes to exist, then God being all perfect and therefore inherently coherent (wherein coherence is taken here to be of perfection), then as shown from above, God's designed universe must necessarily be innately coherent. It clearly follows then that no miracles can occur within a universe that is in itself coherent. For miracles to exist would then mean that the universe has to be constantly maintained, rather than self-fixing, and thus be imperfect. Clearly then, anything contained within the universe must follow not from laws, but instead eternal truths. That is, the term 'natural law' is better said as 'eternal truths'. For since if God is perfect, thus creating an inherently coherent universe, then, no natural order can be broken, and thus become truths that are as applied for all eternity, rather than laws. Therefore it follows that humans' existence must have necessarily come about through a coherent process, of which the only so-called 'miracle' is God having the role as a 'first-cause'. This coherent process is, in the perspective of organic life, biological evolution. Then, it is coherence that becomes the very essence of all things. In fact, let me put all this together more directly. For if God, its essence being perfection, so knew what that which was moral and knew his divine plan laid out as seen, what need is there for him to intervene with the grace that which he has befallen upon the universe?

3. There is yet one issue from #2 to which I shall address here, since it in itself behaves as a separate point. This problem has to do with differentiability, of being un-derived, and of coherence. Primarily, the problem is that with some who differentiate reality into two orders – the supernatural order and the natural order. It is argued that the coherence of the supernatural order necessitates for the natural order to be coherent. That is, no other variant as yet conceived has the necessary essence to infringe upon the former causation. Yet, if God be perfect, and necessarily coherent – that the very essence of coherence is un-derived – that God too be un-derived in this sense, then he cannot necessarily be a derivative of reality. Therefore, we can only say that God either is of a higher order to the natural order (that reality is only of the natural order), or that the supernatural order and the natural order are as one reality – undistinguishable. That is to say, God either controls reality or is contained within reality itself. In essence, coherence is either independent of reality itself or an innate property of reality. So the question arises: if coherence is independent of reality, then reality is necessarily in essence either mysterious or probabilistic. That is, coherence has some way to cause reality to be what it is. But whether the method is in itself coherent, probabilistic, or mysterious, one has to use an argument that appeals to either a coherent line of rational axioms, probabilistic mathematics, or pure mysticism. To point out which is the true one, one is to use so:

Wherein only one of which has to be the true one…
We let (a coherent line of rational axioms) = #1; (probabilistic mathematics) = #2; (pure mysticism) = #3

(Case1)
Assume 1, disproved 1. 1 is meaningless. Everything is meaningless. Nothing actually exists. Yet, we exist. Therefore, 1 having been disproved makes no sense. Therefore we proved 3. Yet 1 is observed everywhere. Therefore, conclusion as 3 is senseless. The argument is meaningless.
(Case2)
Assume 1, disproved 2. Either 1 or 3 is right. Yet 1 is assumed to be right, and this is logically fallacious. Therefore 3 has to be right. As shown above, this argument is also meaningless.
(Case3)
Assume 1, disproved 3. Either 2 or 1 is right. 1 cannot be right for it is circular and thus logically fallacious. Only 3 is right.
(Case4)
Assume 2, disproved 1. Half chance of either 2 or 3 right. 2 remains probable since logic has been debunked.
(Case5)
Assume 2, disproved 2. Either 1 or 3 is right.
(Case6)
Assume 2, disproved 3. Either 1 or 2 is right. 1 reveals that if 2 is right, the argument is meaningless. Thus only 1 can be right.
(Case7)
Assume 3, disproved 1. 2 and 3 have equal likeliness of being true.
(Case8)
Assume 3, disproved 2. Either 1 or 3 is right. 3 is wrong due to circularity. Thus only 1 is right.
(Case9)
Assume 3, disproved 3. Either 1 or 2 is right, but 1 rules over 2 due to circularity.

Since we do not know of the method, by probability, then from the above likeliness test coherence and randomness have to be equally likely, while probability is half as likely as any of either coherence or randomness. Based on this likeliness test, coherence, assumed to be independent of reality, thus either mysteriously or logically caused reality to also be innately coherent. However, since probability is least likely (as shown from above), then it would be fallacious to assume coherence and randomness to be of equal probability. Therefore, only either coherence or randomness can be true. If coherence is true, it is wrong due to circularity – making randomness true. That is, to put it into context, God used a mysterious method to make the innately probabilistic or mysterious universe coherent. It is as if to say, then, that mysteriousness is an innate property of coherence, to which all random phenomena as observed are simply generated by utterly complex but coherent axioms – as in the field of computer science. Yet, when we deal with fundamentals, we are not talking of practical randomness as of theoretical coherence and determinism, but rather, of both theoretical and practical mysticism and randomness. In this light, to say that randomness is derivative of coherence is contradictory. Therefore it makes no sense to say that coherence is independent of reality. The only other option is that coherence is an inherent characteristic of reality – just as Einstein’s belief that God is everywhere (Spinoza’s God).

[Conclusion: Structure of the argument just mentioned above has first argued by circularity, then by proof-via-contradiction, which led to the other option as being the only way out.]

4. Reflecting on the first paragraph, God did not actually create the universe but, rather, God designed it. That is, everything that which occurs or came into existence in reality followed from a line of coherence, allowing not probability or randomness – as if miracles occurred due to divine intervention. Thus Spinoza’s argument makes more sense when one says that the innate property of coherence, of God, caused the very nature of reality, of the so-called ‘natural laws’ of our universe. That is, it is the innate property of coherence in reality that resulted with the uninterruptible natural order of our universe.

As one can see then, this interpretation of what God is runs in opposition to the modern religious interpretations of God. It reveals that a truly perfect God does not create miracles and that a mysterious God is non-existent. Therefore, to contemplate how things became derived from other things is to think of coherence, and thus to ponder upon the very essence of God himself.

As in the Abrahamic religion, it is argued that we humans, after inheriting the sin of the engagement in a rebellion in order to gain wisdom before knowledge from Adam and Eve, were endowed with the intellect. Thus, wisdom, in essence, is what that which is characterized by 'eternal sin'. Therefore for humans to know what compromises must be made in order to be perfect is indeed a sin against the heavens, for wisdom about God's perfection is blasphemy in the light - as we now know how to be like God! Yet, as revealed previously, the intellect was not gained, but, rather, is an innate property of all things – and ironically God being the essence of the intellect itself. Thus, to have knowledge of certain reason is not sinful – but rather sacred

As argued that since God’s essence is coherence, not randomness or probability or mysticism, and coherence being of the intellect, then our ability to engage in intellectual inquiry is indeed godly. To say that it is sin to reason, whether of morality or of empirical facts, is to say that God is ungodly – and this makes no sense at all! Thus, it is through the evolution of the human mind and its wisdom, and therefore the perfection of his intellect that we find ourselves more able to conceive of God. So God is not only perfect, but also conceivable in the light of reason.