All the philosophers are so caught up with what it means to be, or to exist. Husserl conceives his mightily confusing transcendental ego, Heidegger his equally challenging Dasein, and Sartre, the for-itself. But truly, the question is: how did we come to be? It is a genealogical question more than a descriptive one. Why is it that I am here, now, amidst these things which seem so nicely constructed and which cohere to a harmonic whole that is the world? What necessitates this unbreakable harmony? The laws of nature, one says; but then, what necessitates the laws of nature? How is it that I am conscious as a being in this world? How have we emerged from nothing?
There is but one answer to all these questions: God. I suppose this is why philosophers have always left them out of their inquisitions.
So must we accept that God’s existence can never be proved, nor can it be disproved. God must always remain a metaphysical mystery, a conception of the mind too immense to behold. Take him as we may in a form of a man, adorn him with a white beard and mighty scepter, give him powers of paradoxical limits, light in him a majestic heart that glows in abundance of generosity, place in his hands the reins to all fate and the seal of time; and still, my friends, you will come nowhere close to discovering who he truly is. Perhaps, it is even wrong to call God “he”. Neither might God be called an “it”. God is everything and nothing, existence and the void, the sum of infinity and the negation of it all. God can never be answer because God is indefinable. It will do well for both the atheist and the faithful to take up this position. For then the atheist would know to be humble, and the faithful to understand those who do not believe. And is not all religious-driven violence caused by taking God as the answer?
If a man returns from the realm of death and tells everyone that there is a heaven beyond, the atheists would, upon hearing the exultant cries of the Christians, reason it highly plausible that the man had not actually died; that some small strain of consciousness remained, and by itself labored in the darkness to construct an illimitable land of fantasy. Conversely, if the man returns from the realm of the dead and tells everyone that there is no heaven beyond, only a timeless void, the Christians would, upon feeling threatened by the imperious conviction of the atheists, rely on the exact same reasoning: that the man had not actually died, and thus could not have seen heaven.
In either case, both factions remain within their camps. Neither would admit of the falsity in their belief.
Now suppose that this unusual episode was engineered by God so as to educate us on the truth. Wouldn’t he then have failed? Seeing as how no one is willing to change. So it is that God may employ no such extravagant means to communicate the truth; which even if he does, we will not be able to distinguish it from the products of worldly chance. If one takes a single occasion of extraordinariness to be a sign of God, or be convinced that it forms the key to an immortal truth, then he is only fooling himself. The possibility of error is as stupendous as the infinity of knowledge. God, through his omnipotence, will know this. He will know that should he attempt to tell us the truth about the universe or about himself, or what is beyond our conception, he is bound to fail. Yet he does not, and cannot, fail.
Proposition: Since God is beyond human comprehension, he cannot be any of those images which we habitually conceive in our minds. When we do confine him to an idea, or as commonly is the case, to a form that resembles our own, it is in truth not him that we are beholding but a mere creation of our fancy. He is too quick for our cerebral talons; fleeting to an ever higher altitude each time we attempt to catch hold of him. God will and must always remain a mystery. Curiously enough, in the instant we confer upon him such a title, he has escaped it. Thus illustrates his inexplicable almightiness.