God for atheists

Towards a rational construct of the Creator

What if you could believe in God without believing in a supreme being?

The question sounds like a Zen koan or perhaps a trap. For centuries, the atheist and the believer have been locked in a stalemate, each defining themselves against the other. The believer says, 'God exists'. The atheist says, 'I see no evidence for such a being'. The conversation ends.

But it only ends because both accept the same hidden premise: that if God is anything, God must be a being—somewhere, somehow, existing.

What if that premise is wrong?

The paradox at the heart of perfection

Here's the problem that won't go away. If God is perfect—and by perfect we mean complete, finished, lacking nothing—then God cannot also be a being.

This isn't wordplay. Strip away the abstraction and this is a story about what words actually mean. To exist is 'to be out of'. The word itself betrays its meaning: existence is derivative. An existent is something that issues from something else. Every existent we know—every rock, every thought, every galaxy—is in motion, transforming, incomplete. That's what it means to be. Being is literally 'action to be'. It's a verb pretending to be a noun.

Think of it not as an object, but as a process.

If this seems counterintuitive, you're in good company. The ancient Greeks wrestled with it. So did the medieval theologians. How can the perfect—the unchanging, the complete—have any relationship with the imperfect world of change and decay? Their solution was to place God outside of existence entirely. God doesn't exist in the way a rock exists. God is—in a way that transcends our category of existence.

But theology got tangled in its own metaphors. The God who transcends existence somehow kept getting treated as the ultimate being in existence. The king of the universe. The celestial watchmaker. A being among beings, just infinitely more powerful.

What if we take the theologians at their word, but follow the logic to its conclusion? If God is perfect, God cannot be a being. If God is not a being, God cannot exist in the sense that anything exists.

So where does that leave us?

The question creation forgot

There's a story that has caused more confusion than almost any other. It's the story of creation from nothing: creatio ex nihilo.

The logic seems impeccable at first glance. If God created the world, there must have been a time before the world. Nothing existed except God. Then God spoke, and the world leaped into being from the void.

But the logic collapses the moment you examine it. Nothing isn't. That's what nothing means—the absence of anything that is. You cannot create something from nothing because there is no nothing to create from. There is only existence. There has always been only existence.

This is not a claim about cosmology. It's a claim about logic.^[1] Existence cannot have a beginning because a beginning would require a state of non-existence to precede it, and non-existence isn't a state. It's nothing. And nothing isn't.

The original writers of the Torah understood this. When they described creation, they described creatio ex materia—creation from something. A formless void. Deep waters. The raw stuff of existence, waiting to be shaped. God in that story is not a magician pulling rabbits from empty hats.

This created a conundrum for later theologians. If God shaped pre-existing material, where did the material come from? Who created the deep? The question seemed urgent, so they invented an answer: God created it from nothing. They solved the puzzle by creating a contradiction.

The conundrum was always a phantom. You only need to ask 'where did the material come from' if you assume existence had a beginning. But existence doesn't have a beginning. Existence is. It has always been, in some form, transforming. The question isn't 'how did it all start?' The question is 'what is the process by which it continues to transform?'

The engine of everything

Now we're getting somewhere. If existence has always been transforming, we can ask: what is the fundamental pattern of that transformation? Is there a primitive process—a basic engine—that drives all change?

Look closely at anything. Not with the eyes of a mystic, but with the eyes of a physicist, a biologist, a philosopher. Look at an atom. Look at a cell. Look at a society. Look at a thought. What do they have in common?

Every existent is a conference of difference.

The language is precise, so let's unpack it. Existence is, literally, 'a process of declaring together of action to be'. The etymology reveals the mechanism: all existence is mutual. It's a declaration made in the bearing together of that which is otherwise bearing apart. A proton and an electron declare together, and an atom exists. A community of cells declares together, and an organism exists. A network of concepts declares together, and a thought exists.

This is the pattern without exception. Existence is a 'condition of bearing together'—a conference—that constantly transforms a 'condition of bearing apart'—difference. The conference holds difference in relation, and that relation is existence.

Think of existence not as a thing, but as a relationship. The relationship between difference and conference is not something existence has. It's what existence is.

We observe this conference of difference everywhere. In the quantum foam. In the dance of binary stars. In the marketplace. In the dialectic of ideas. It is the universal process that transforms every existent and reveals every abstracta. You cannot find an existent that is not a conference of difference, because to exist is to be difference in conference.

The equation

If we wanted to capture this abstraction in its purest form—to strip away all metaphor and see the skeleton of the idea—we might write it like this:

∃ = {Δ}

Let's read it slowly. The symbol ∃ stands for existence, all existence, everything that is in the mode of 'being out of' and thus the product of transformation. The braces { } we borrow from set theory, but we repurpose them. They don't denote a collection here. They denote a conference, a bearing-together, a holding together of difference in relation. And Δ, the delta, stands for difference—itself a conference of difference—yet differing from others.

The equation says: all existence is a conference of difference. Not 'existence arises from' or 'existence is caused by.' Existence is. The relationship is identity. To exist is to be a conference of difference.

This is the conceptual leap. We're not describing a mechanism that produces existence. We're describing the ethic: 'character' of existence itself. The conference of difference is not a cause as much as it functions to constantly express: 'press out' existence. It's the process primitive of existence.

And as the transforming function of existence, something else emerges.

The potter revealed

{Δ} initiates the equation. The conference of difference is what existence is—but it's also what the condition of being stems from. Not in time, but in logic. As the character Firmus declares in Plutarch's Symposia:

It is universally true that a principle is before that whose principle it is.

The principle is logically prior to the existents observed to constitute it. The construct of relationship is before the things observed to be related.

Here's where we return to God.

There can be no clay pot without the process that creates it. Not because a supernatural being must intervene, but because the word 'pot' names the result of a process. The pot is the trace of that process. To deny the process is to deny the very actions that give existence to the phenomenon that we categorize as a pot.

The same logic applies to existence. Existence is creation. It's the constant process of transforming difference into conference. If there is creation, there must be a creator—not as a being who performed a one-time act, but as the process itself. The process is that which creates.

We have identified the process primitive of all existence: the conference of difference. We have observed it everywhere, without exception. We have abstracted it into an equation. For all intents and purposes, we have identified the process of creating as creator: 'that which creates'.

Not a being. Not an existent. But the constant expression {Δ} that initiates the equation of existence. The creator: 'that which creates' is creation: the 'process of creating'.

This is the move that resolves the paradox. The Creator is not a being, so it does not exist. But it is—in so far as it is the principal process that makes existence possible. It is omnipotent, if by omnipotent we mean 'enabling of everything'. It is omnipresent, if by omnipresent we mean 'caused to go before everything'. It is omniscient, if by omniscient we mean 'realizing of everything'. These are not attributes of a person. They are attributes of the process primitive of existence.

The category of 'that which is'

We have one category left to place this in.

We're accustomed to thinking that everything that is must exist. Rocks exist. Trees exist. You exist. I exist. If God doesn't exist, then God must be a fantasy, a fiction, a wish.

But there's another category. Mathematics discovered it long ago. The number seven is. It has properties. It's prime. It's odd. It's the sum of three and four. These are not opinions about seven; they are facts. But the number seven does not exist. You cannot trip over it. You cannot measure its mass. It has no location in space. It belongs to the category of abstracta—that which is but does not exist.

God, in this construct, belongs to the same category. God is the principal process that transforms existence. God is the constant expression {Δ} that, when read from right to left, initiates the equation of existence. God does not exist, any more than the number seven exists. But God is of the same category as the number seven, albeit infinitely more powerful.

This is what the theologians were reaching for when they spoke of God as actus purus, pure act. This is what the philosophers meant when they said God was not a being but being-itself. The language has always been there, struggling to say something that ordinary categories cannot contain. The mistake was to keep treating this pure act, this being-itself, as if it were 'a' being. As if it existed.

The God an atheist can believe in

So here we are. The atheist says, 'I do not believe in the existence of God'. They are correct. The God who exists—the celestial being, the cosmic king, the supernatural person—is a construct that collapses under its own weight. It cannot be perfect and exist. It cannot be creator and be a being among beings. The atheist's disbelief is rational.

But the believer says, 'God is'. They are also correct. Not because God exists, but because God is the process primitive that transforms all existence. The conference of difference is not an hypothesis. It's an observation. The equation ∃ = {Δ} is not a creed. It's an abstraction from observations of reality. And the identification of {Δ} as Creator is not an act of faith. It's an act of logic.

You can be an atheist about the God who exists and believe, with full rational confidence, in the God who is. You can grant leave—which is what believe originally meant—to the construct of God as the constant expression principal to existence. You can deny the potter who is a being, and affirm the potter as the creative process (creation) itself.

This is not a compromise. It's not a watered-down God for people who can't handle reality. It's simply reality, stripped of the contradictions that theology piled onto it. It's the God that survives the death of God. The God that is without existing. The God that all existence must obey if it is to exist.

The God for atheists.

Towards a Mathematical Proof of God

by John Mackay

There is no greater question than on the first principle of existence i.e. the Creator: 'that which creates'.

Discover the book