The Nature of Existence

INTRODUCTION

In the world today, there seems to be a lot of dysfunction regarding the concept of God. It would seem that there are several definitions and names for this concept, as well as differing beliefs regarding this concept's actual existence. It is as if existence questions itself, considering how thoroughly this subject permeates every aspect of society.

Philosophy, Science, Religion, Psychology, Mathematics, and Art all try to unlock the "secret", explain existence (or deny it), and prove their point(s). I, myself, am no different. It is my purpose, in writing this paper, to both prove and describe God in full detail.

In order for me to begin, I put forth a definition of God that even those "not believing" will agree upon. Conventionally, God is described as "creator" (or "cause"). A supreme supernatural being with almighty abilities, that couldn't and didn't require creation, as well as cannot be destroyed.

I proclaim that this concept, so universally held (regardless of standpoint) to be true (for the most part), but also INCOMPLETE. Please note that even here, a truly complete description is not contained due to length constraints, however a good overview and explanation of what I feel are the most pertinent particulars, are presented.

THEORY

In any "beginning" (or at any "core"), philosophically speaking, there are only two possibilities. These options are "something" or "nothing". Regardless of belief, it cannot be disputed that it is either "something" or "nothing" that fundamentally is. In other words, either "something" or "nothing" exists. It is irrelevant, at this point, which it is. What IS relevant is that there is no other option except these. Any particular that exists, even if that particular is "nothing", DOES EXIST and can be called an existence. Therefore, EXISTENCE IS, with "something" or "nothing" being mere descriptors of what that existence is. Since existence itself cannot be disputed, the fact that EXISTENCE itself cannot NOT BE, is also indisputable. Based on this, it is self evident that EXISTENCE IS, without being created, and is inherently impossible to destroy. Also proven is the fact that "nothing", in and of itself, is impossible. If it is "nothing" that exists, then that "nothing" is the "something" that is, making "something" the only description of existence that can be.

EXISTENCE, having been established and proven to be "something", questions further description of its substance beyond pure generic concept. Considering that it IS, it can be deduced that this "generic concept" substance also has an active quality. This quality, the act of BEING, is called Time. It is the most fundamental trait that Existence possesses, and should not be mistaken for a separate, or "next to", kind of thing. Truly it is one with the "pure generic concept", a quality of it, or rather completely solvent (in the same way that chemical solutions can be solvent). They are an inseparable sameness, divisible only through description alone.

Since EXISTENCE IS, in a manner that can't/didn't involve creation, deems creation (by conventional definition) itself impossible also, with all that we call "creation" truly not being such, by definition. All other things, like Time, are inseparable solvent "parts of" within the whole existent singularity. Given this, all things "already are", within existence theoretically, in some form or another.

The question then turns to form(s). If everything already is, being simply inseparable parts of a singular solvent mix, how is it that physicality and its apparent separateness possible? The answer lies in what is in the mix itself. Just as Time is in the mix, so too are such things as the ability to perceive, the ability to be perceived, self awareness, ability to think/comprehend, etc. No matter what it is, it already exists, solvent in the mix (not unlike the new holographic theory). Your particular viewpoint and subsequent perception is in certain sense, an illusion. Not to say that the physical world is somehow separate from some real world or that the physical world is not exactly as it appears, because neither is the case. The physical world IS as it looks and is the only real world there is.

It can be difficult to envision exactly, the structure I am attempting to describe. To better understand, imagine a saltwater solution. You are the entire saltwater solution but a part of you is that saltwater solution's ability to perceive. Another part of you is the ability to be perceived. Also in there is the perception itself. The ability to be perceived is best described as "sympathy" and the ability to perceive "empathy". As such, these parts make up the apparent physically separate world of "me" (the "ego", self), "other" (that which is not "me"), and "material" (physicality itself Ð'- solid, liquid, colors, pain, joy, hot, soft, sounds, tastes, etc). Another point that must be made here, and not overlooked or underestimated, is the solvency of abilities. The ability to perceive and be perceived IS SOLVENT, hence "the ability to be perceived" side that "the ability to perceive" perceives, also has the ability to perceive (and vice versa).

All other things are just as solvent as perception; however it is perception where difficulty in comprehensive quantification seems to arise (illusion too being a solvent part, perceivable). The ability to perceive, be perceived, and think comprehensively illusive, are all solvent parts of the singular whole mix.

The next question becomes "what about those things that aren't, such as dragons?" This in itself is very simple. It is not that "dragons are not". The truth here is that dragons are. "Imaginations" are perceptions just like any other. You cannot hear colors or see sounds, but both are real perceptions. Likewise, perceptions by the organ called "mind" are no less real. The "material" of any perception is highly relative to the perceiver's "tune" (like the tune of a radio to a radio station). Depending on the relative particular "tunes" of perceiver and perception, the "material" form is designated (hearing a sound vs. seeing a color).

At this point, "tuning" requires further description. Of the entire concept of tuning, Time is first and foremost. As stated, Time is