https://youtu.be/gK82m7AW-lk?si=3wEIoYAUqS4r97MB

An insufficient description of God does not itself represent insufficient evidence for God.

Now, regarding evidence:

The observation of specific evidence for God is, in fact, a rational and physical impossibility. This is because God, by implicit definition, represents the Metaphysical Primary—the root and source of all Reality. Therefore, literally everything which exists is in some sense an expression of God, and therefore constitutes evidence for God.

Once again, an insufficient description of God does not represent insufficient evidence for God; and thus does not disprove the existence of God.

So, how would one disprove the existence of God; or how could one feel confident that there is indeed no such thing as God?

Disproving the existence of God could only be achieved by presenting a non-contradictory metaphysical description of Reality which precludes the existence of a Metaphysical Primary. (Note, again, that “God” by definition represents the Metaphysical Primary.) This is actually impossible, since without the Metaphysical Primary one cannot account for the plurality of existence…or, better said, the plurality of Reality. ”Plurality” here meaning the fact that more than one thing exists; or, said another way, the fact that Reality is comprised of the co-existence of many things, not simply one single thing which exists as a direct expression of the Metaphysical Primary. Reality needs something that implies an actual plurality—a plurality of things which exist distinctly from their root Cause—and to “tie it all together”. That is, to unify it in its plural co-existence. This is the point, purpose, and relevance of the Metaphysical Primary; and while this is paradoxical, it is absolutely not irrational; it does not necessarily represent a contradiction.

The Metaphysical Primary—that is, God—is necessarily axiomatic with respect to Reality and that which exists. The only real debate, then, is not the existence of the Metaphysical Primary, but Its, or His, definition.

Thus the “proof” of God shall consist of a rationally consistent metaphysical description of Reality logically proceeding from a specifically defined Metaphysical Primary (God). He who provides this description wins the debate, so to speak, and reveals the Truth.

[NOTE: I assure you, this description does exist. It is necessarily written into Reality, Itself. It is the fundamental how and why of Reality. It therefore is there.]

Finally, it must be said that science simply cannot provide this description. In fact, science is categorically insufficient to the task. This is because science-qua-science is nothing more than a tool of the Observer—that is, Man. Science-qua-science is a conceptual and practical methodology for cognitively organizing what the Observer observes (that is, his environment, including his body). As such, science is naturally incapable of describing the Observer, himself, since the Observer cannot be a function of that which he observes without fundamentally eliminating the distinction and therefore contradicting them both. And without the Observer, any description of Reality is incomplete.

In short, science, in searching for its Grand Unifying Theory is, and shall forever be, “digging in the wrong place”.

END