Become a Fan
Conclusive Proof of the Existence of God
By Vicky Bowker Jeter
Sunday, October 13, 2002
Do you believe in God? Is there one intelligent source by which all that is known and unknown is sustained? Note the simplicity of the question.
For the purpose of this inquiry the boundaries of the definition of God need go no farther. It is certainly of no concern what particular doctrine an understanding may fall under, or whether any particular doctrine is ascribed to, at all.
With all the multitudes of doctrines on God in the world, there are thousands of people who, searching with heart, have not known their seeking on this question to be satisfied; and God IS, indeed! It is for this reason that the purpose of this essay is to provide an intimate means to conclusive proof of the existence of God.
As for my choice of definitions, I have never known anyone, living their understanding of God with conviction, who does not believe it would heal and fulfill anyone else who could embrace the same belief. Therefore, I find this definition to be most universally agreeable. I am certainly no exception to this reasoning. Because the realization of this as truth is ultimately a uniquely
personal experience for each individual, my angle of approach in making my point is based almost entirely on the characteristics of experiences which brought me to the conclusion that, "God IS," without reservation.
It is my personal understanding that God is Truth--that is truth as a continuous process of what life-experience is becoming in the unfolding moment, in contrast to truth as a qualitative state of being--and that Truth is the Good of
all people, individually and collectively in such intricate symmetry that observing and interacting closely with timing in events will lead anyone, sincerely invested, to the intimate experience of sincerely awesome miracles as every-day occurrences. Life bear's forth this potential to us from every angle, but can only demonstrate in so far as we are able to entertain it.
This is also very much my in-depth experience of angelic-type assistance
or contact with other dimensions. Free will is inherent equally within all beings; we can only experience as Truth that which we have a space to entertain as possible. Anywhere a space is created, it will be filled.
Now, Ego is the foundation of "self" in individuals. Ego is unable to recognize anything beyond the means and ends of the person which it embodies. This is the context of "being" which weilds the potential to hold our experience of One omnipresent, all sustaining source at arms length. Ego is charged with the descretion of choice. I reference Ego here as an essential function of the creative process--for Life would not be living at all, were it impossible to distinguish self, from other in sensate experiences. Ego as a simple function of preference is distinctly different from the complex self-absorbed development of egotistical character, which manipulates descretion and preference into judgement.
It may go without saying that certainly my "self" is just as contained in Ego
as any one. And Ego knows not the words to say or to write such as to be
providing of proof of the existence of God. But the unseen source that drives me to push a pen across a paper does. For writing fulfills my personal Good.
In fulfilling my Good, I express God. Thus my source of inspiration for this
inquiry and the satisfaction of it is not my limited personal knowledge or experience, but the infinite intelligent source which sustains all that is, expressing through me.
Likewise, Ego also knows not the words to perceive, by sight or by sound,
such as to provide proof of the existence of God. For this would necessarily require the scope of recognizing something beyond the "self." Consequently, if you are exploring this inquiry from the narrow confines of self-perception,
do not expect any new breeze of satisfaction to your question here. No amount of evidence validating the existence of God, of any quality will alter
skepticism on the subject, until the choice is made to perceive it from a reference point other than Ego. Remember, Ego is merely the power of choice, not the substance of choices made.
Thus, coming from the position of at least speculating that there is something more that is out and about in the realm of possibility besides "self," let us consider what, on one hand, is exactly the reason why scientific proof of the existence of God is impossible by current scientific methods; yet on the other hand, states the entire case for one all sustaining source quite wonderfully.
Just suppose for a moment that there is actually one source that sustains everything in existence. If there is nothing that exists independently of the source, scientific analysis is impossible because there is nothing to test it against. Trying to prove the existence of God scientifically is like our own eyes trying to see themselves. As in the macrocosm, so in the microcosm.
As we strive to see ourselves reflected through our experiences, so God knows experiences as seperated from one another reflected through individual selves.
The binding priciple of creation is unity reflecting multiplicity.
Addressing creation within the context of the inquiry, if anything is being created, there is something that creates. I could write until blue in the pen
substantiating that "I am," and "things are." However, this would seem to be unnecessary, for if self-existence could be successfully completely denied,
then there would be Nothing against which any other potential could be referred, and the substance of "existence," as a whole would vaporize.
In this light, the conclusiveness of the inquiry does, indeed, present
an "all," or "nothing" proposition.
Any sound theoretical proposition should be able to withstand practical application and examination. For a tangible experience of exactly "how"
the endless multitudes of individual and unique forms in existence can, in fact, be created of, and sustained by one source, try this: Fill some container, like a sink or a bathtub with water. Cup your hands into the water, then, lifting your hans out, allow the water to slowly run off the tips of your fingers.
As individual drops form, they exist unto themselves as seperate from each other, and the original source. As they fall back into the body of water,
could the same exact drops ever be individualized again? The body of water is like the endless substance of God, and each drop is like an individual creation of God.
Ego, the instrument of individuality and choice, colors experience everywhere. For as we make choices, our perfect pattern according to the truth within us is revealed in personal experience. Just as a drop of water has a perfect pattern of existence unto itself, so does each individual person.
Has there ever been a personal choice made that was NOT to bring about the greatest individual and/or collective benefit perceived possible given what is perceived when the choice is made. It is the nature of all life to seek the greatest expression of personal Good; even when the choice at hand seems, "the lesser of two evils," the greatest possible good is sought.
Evil is likely the most individually relative of considerations in the inquiry of the existence of God. It is pristine paradox that while the highest possible Good governs the power of choice, "evil" happens all the time. However, how often is the power of making direct choices in lives deligated to others to invest what it takes to make decisions about certain things. This particular choice--the choice not to choose in situations--can be very tempting because it provides a potential escape from personal responsibility for the conditions in experience. Choose first never to surrender the power of choice. This transforms the question of "evil" in practical experience, dramatically.
For, how often can it be said that someone has done someone "wrong," yet the person's action which caused harm, was not inteneded to affect the person who was harmed at all from the actors perspective. When someone does outwardly express the desire to harm, claim with positive intention that this party is powerless in experience.
This is certainly not to say that the fulfillment of one person's good takes prededence over the fulfillment of anyone else's good. It only says that there is no willingness to participate,
therefore the desire of the other party must find some alternate form of expression. Personal willingness is just as much ar part of experiences we do not desire in our lives as the experiences we do desire.
One of the strongest considerations that can appear to make God unnecessary, and for some unlikely, is the matter of "chance;" the possibility that certain events just happend to fall together in just the right way, and the process of existence as we know it began, and continues according to the same process, today. However, by popular definition, chance is
"a random happening." In truth, the creation
of something of any particular type begins and is followed through to completion in the same way over and over, again. And, each creation develops according to a perfect pattern, designed intelligently, so that the experience of what ever it is will be the best it can be. No one has ever bottled the force that drives the sperm to reach the egg, or coaxes the seed to germinate; if anyone ever does, I will fully expect they will be able to see their own eyes, as well.
For an intaimate conclusion of proof of the existence of God the key is not to put further energy on the question. Facing the question squarely as an "all or nothing" proposition and siding with all, surrendering nothing more than a willingness to experience Got as Truth will open every door for God's perfect pattern to express with such clarity and miraculous timing that the existence of God is ultimately undeniable.
Site: Vicky Bowker Jeter
Want to review or comment on this
Click here to login!
Need a FREE Reader Membership?
Click here for your Membership!