A and O: A Dialogue
A: Pretend you’re God.
O: Isn’t that a bit grandiose?
A: It’s an experiment.
O: I mean really, to just say in conversation that one should pretend they’re God. Some would say you’re manic.
A: I am not manic. Some would also say that we were created in the image of God. If that’s the case, shouldn’t you be able to imagine what it’s like?
O: I imagine it would be lonely.
A: So you can pretend.
O: To an extent. What of it?
A: I’ve been thinking.
O: Did it hurt?
A: … I’ve been thinking of what it’d be like to create.
O: So you’ve been imagining what’d it be like to have the power of God?
A: Not really. More so what it would look like if I were to try to create the world.
O: Well, you’d need some dirt, some water, some air-
A: Not the world as in the earth. The world, generally speaking. The universe, reality, everything. Call it whatever you want.
O: I like the term reality.
A: Fine, reality. What would it look like to create reality?
O: What is reality?
A: Are you serious?
O: I’m very serious.
A: Don’t we all know what reality is?
O: Don’t we all know that we shouldn’t assume the knowledge of others?
A: Stop being difficult.
O: It was a fair question.
A: Fine.
O: So, if we all know what reality is, what is it?
A: Reality is everything.
O: What do you mean by everything?
A: Well, everything. All that we see. All that we hear. All that we touch.
O: So everything we sense is everything? We’re really making progress here.
A: Everything we sense is reality.
O: Can things we not sense be reality? For instance, a deaf person does not hear my voice. Does my voice exist in reality? Or does it exist in my reality and not their reality? Wait, do we have different realities? What if-
A: We need to define reality.
O: I think that’s a good idea.
A: So, what is reality?
O: Let’s try a different question.
A: Like what?
O: Like what does the word reality mean?
A: Are you asking me to look in the dictionary?
O: I was thinking more what the origins of the word are.
A: So its etymology?
O: Yeah! That thing.
A: From that perspective, reality is simply all that is real. Or, having the quality of being real.
O: So reality is all that is real?
A: That’s what we’re working with apparently.
O: What is real?
A: You don’t know what’s real?
O: Do you?
A: I’m real. You’re real. The air is real.
O: What makes us real?
A: We exist.
O: So to be real is to exist?
A: That’s fair.
O: So, reality is all that is real, and to be real is to exist. So reality is all that exists?
A: That is valid.
O: What is existence?
A: I’m going to kill you.
O: What? Why?
A: That’s why. You ask too many questions. We’re not getting anywhere.
O: Imagine that, killing someone for asking too many questions. I think I’ve heard this story before.
A: Isn’t that being grandiose?
O: I’m sorry, was that a question?
A: We’re not making any progress.
O: I think we are. We have a definition. Reality is all that exists. It follows that we have to ask what existence is.
A: Well what is existence?
O: I don’t know.
A: What do you mean you don’t know?
O: I wouldn’t ask what it is if I knew already.
A: You’re playing dumb.
O: I’m just trying to define our terms.
A: Fine, how should we define existence?
O: I suppose as earlier, we have to ask the right question.
A: What’s the right question?
O: Not that.
A: You liked etymology earlier. Should we try that?
O: I don’t think it’ll get us as far. Don’t some equate reality with existence? So if we looked up the word, we’d probably come to some circular definition like “reality is all that exists and existence is all that is real”.
A: That’s not very helpful.
O: I agree. How about a different question?
A: What does it mean to exist?
O: “Mean” might be the wrong word. We could end up with a lot of questions we’re not ready for yet.
A: What about the skeptic?
O: I think therefore I exist?
A: Yes.
O: It doesn’t tell us what existence is.
A: It does tell us that a consequence of existing is thinking though.
O: Weren’t you doing that earlier?
A: Doing what?
O: Thinking.
A: I was.
O: What about, again?
A: What it’d be like to create reality.
O: Let’s try that. If we’re able to create reality, then maybe we’ll learn what existence is, right?
A: Maybe. Let’s call that an assumption.
O: Assumptions are just unfalsified hypotheses. We’ll go with it for now. So, what art thou musings, oh creator?
A: As I said earlier, let’s pretend we’re God.
O: I’m still not comfortable with that.
A: You don’t have to accept the idea to entertain it.
O: ... So we’re God. And our goal is to create reality. Wouldn’t we have to not only know what reality is but also its nature? In other words, not only the what, but also the hows and whys?
A: We would. We’d need absolute knowledge of everything.
O: I’m afraid I don’t possess that.
A: I can’t say I do either.
O: Here’s an idea. It isn’t necessary that we recreate our reality, is it? In other words, we could create our own reality with its own nature.
A: That wouldn’t give us the desired product, that is the nature of our own existence.
O: But it would give us something similar assuming we exist in the likeness of God. That is, we possess some traits of God. So, even if our product and method of creation aren’t identical, we can still learn something from it, right?
A: It’s a bit of a jump, but in the end it could be beneficial in understanding our existence.
O: I’m not sure if understanding of our own existence is feasible. Or rather a perfect understanding of it. It’s as if part of reality is shrouded in mystery by design, purposely left outside the realm of comprehension and imagination.
A: Like what?
O: For instance, pretend you’re God.
A: ...
O: Follow me here. An assumed characteristic of God is that He exists non spatially or temporally. That is, God exists outside of space and time. Try to imagine that. Imagine you don’t exist in space. Or that you don’t exist in time. What would such an existence entail?
A: I don’t know.
O: Exactly. Here’s my understanding of it. You and I have never existed except in space and time. Nor has any person who has ever existed in the history of reality. Humanity has never had the opportunity to experience nonspatial temporal existence. And for the foreseeable future it appears we won’t anytime soon. Thus, we simply have no experience of the concept. Yet, an entity we refer to as God exists presumably as such, without need for time or space to validate His existence. God, as we know Him, simply has, does, and will exist. And it appears beyond our limit of imagination to conceptualize God’s existence in an empathetic way.
A: So despite not existing in space or time, God still exists?
O: Some have made that argument.
A: If so, then to exist doesn’t necessitate existing in space and time. Meaning, things outside of our perception can exist.
O: We do not perceive the world as it is. We perceive it in such a way that’s most useful for our surviving in it.
A: In other words, we’re limited by our own existence as beings in space time.
O: Bingo.
A: If that’s the case, then how do we have a concept of God?
O: You’re asking how can we know something beyond our perception?
A: Correct.
O: There must be something more to our existence then.
A: If we can know of things that exist beyond our limits, then we too must exist beyond those limits.
O: You’re saying we exist beyond our own perception?
A: It’s possible.
O: What would such an existence be like?
A: We’d have to pretend we’re God.
O: Weren’t we in the middle of an experiment concerning that?
A: We were pretending we’re God and creating a reality.
O: Right. Assuming knowledge of the unknown.
A: We do know things given assumptions concerning the issue of creation and existence.
O: Such as?
A: In the Word of God, professed by Christians, it is written that God spoke reality into existence. “‘Let there be light’ and there was light”. I believe, assuming the validity and nature of the text, that we have our “how” of creation.
O: Through speech?
A: Not necessarily speech. How does one formulate thoughts in their mind? Or rather, when does a young child begin to form their own thoughts in a meaningful way?
O: When they learn language.
A: Exactly. I believe language is the means by which we can take the unmeaningful and give it meaning.
O: In other words, taking the random and giving it order. Or structuring the disordered.
A: Correct. Language is information. Creating structure and harmony out of chaos and seemingly nothing.
O: So, God created the world through language?
A: For our purposes, yes.
O: Seeing that you and I also possess language, or at least a language and the ability to use it, can we mimic God’s creation?
A: To a degree. Just as you professed, certain things appear as mysteries. Concerning creation, the present mystery is termed “ex nihilo”.
O: Out of nothing.
A: Yes, to our knowledge, God possesses the ability to create something out of nothing.
O: We don’t appear to share that trait.
A: Correct. However, throughout history, humanity has created great things. From awe inspiring monumental structures to intricate works of art with microscopic details.
O: A builder and artist both require materials to express their visions.
A: Exactly, we need a medium through which we can express ourselves. O: What about a text? In fact, many authors have created whole worlds and realities within the pages of their works. Can’t we do the same?
A: I believe we can.
O: Alright. Let me walk through this then. We’re God and we desire to create reality. To do so, we shall become an author, and our work shall be the book of life?
A: The book of life? Sounds a bit cliche.
O: Yet very descriptive. What would you call it? “Joe’s big book of everything”?
A: I wouldn’t call it Joe’s. It wouldn’t just be about Joe. Could call it “The Big Book of Everything”. I mean sure, Joe would be in it, but he isn’t the main character. Joe might think he’s the main character, and he would be right if the book was just about him. But in fact, no one is the main character. It’s simply the story of everyone and everything. I suppose we could think of it as a collection of works. That is, each individual who exists has their own perspective of reality. This perspective is their book. And their book exists alongside all other books to create the Big Book.
O: Sounds like we’re about to over complicate this idea… Is there such a thing as individual reality? If there is, do all realities then exist in accordance with one another yet separate? Or do all exist within one reality? And their perspectives might differ, yet their nature of reality is the same? That is, they all exist within the same reality, however they can perceive it many ways different from its true nature?
A: Let’s simplify this back down. Let’s say all exist in one reality. That is to say there is only one book. As for perception, even in reality is perceived in different ways, all perceptions will have commonality in that they’re based upon the same thing. For example, consider a group of people contemplating a visual work of art. They will all draw their perceptions from the same thing. However one person might find the art sad, and another person finds happiness.
O: So there exists an objective idea or absolute abstract that becomes subjectified through an individual's perception of this eternal entity.
A: Correct. As if we all are looking at the world through different colored glasses. Some then in their lives, through means unsure, take off their glasses, and see the world through new eyes. This world has always laid before them as they see it now. It is not more wrong or right from their previous world. Merely, it is a different perspective.
O: Is this what characters in our book will do?
A: They could. To mimic our own existence, each character in our book will have free will. And while we know that they were born, what they have done, and what will become of them, the journey to the end is as much a mystery to the author as it is to the character. All things begin to exist in the book and all things will cease to exist in the book. The rest is unknown.
O: Don’t all things that exist in the book come from us?
A: Yes. Even things created in the book still trace their origins to us as without what was already provided, the new could not be made.
O: Let’s go ever what we know.
A: Do we have knowledge of the world we just created as its God or as it character?
O: Both. What then can we determine about our existence?
A: It depends upon our perspective. As the character, everything appears as it does now. Our senses determine how we perceive the material existence of reality around us. We see things normally, we hear, taste, touch, and smell and that is observable. For all purposes, this sensual perception defines our existence as material beings in a material reality. We can reasonably call this knowledge.
O: And what of the character, stripped of his glasses, granted divine knowledge?
A: Practically, nothing changes for the character. His existence as he experiences it remains unchanged. The material is still very real. However, reality becomes two-fold. Not only does the character exist as flesh and blood and a material world, he exists as an idea first ever present within the mind of God, then made material through language. Being made real by taking his form and writing it into the book of all, his spirit becoming flesh of ink and paper. Joining all others that exist within the one and only text. A text in which all that is real, exists as words written on a page by our hand. An imprint of our imagination, brought to existence by giving phenomenality to the incorporeal . Words into ink, ideas into sounds. Giving the abstract material existence.
O: It appears then the characters exist simultaneously as material and abstract beings. Eternal beings, existing within the Author, thrust into material existence while maintaining their connection to the Author through their spirit. There is the world they sense and the world they reason must exist to give validation to certain assumptions, axioms, and principles of life. Both worlds are real and both are valid existences. One based in experience and one based in thought. Seeing as how both are real valid existences, reality is the simultaneous existence of the material and abstract. The material being a consequence of the abstract through the application of language on the abstract giving phenomenality to the incorporeal.
A: It appears so.
O: Assuming our assumptions to be assumable…
