Hi Reader,

If we're going to explore this question, we need to talk about something I prefer to avoid: definitions. Definitions are boring.

But as a professional writer par excellence, surely I can make this interesting. Let's consider it by way of a parallel example:

Do islands exist?

You're thinking... "yes." (Right?)

Next question, then: do outcars exist?

You're thinking... "what's an outcar?" (Right?)

Ok, I'll tell you. An outcar is whatever part of a car is sticking out of a garage. If that's hard to imagine, here's a picture I had an AI draw for me:

So, do outcars exist?

If you're thinking, "no," then why do you think islands exist? They're basically the same thing: part of a mountain or hill sticking out of the water.

(If you're thinking, "yes," then you probably already see where I'm going with this newsletter.)

The point is that we use words to refer to things that are sort of practical within the scale of our own experience. It's more practical to talk about islands than it is to talk about mountains that are partially underwater. However, it's more practical to talk about cars than it is to talk about parts of cars that are in or out of garages.

The subtler point is that we construct words to refer to parts of reality that are arbitrary (at least somewhat). Really, even those things we call mountains, garages, and oceans/lakes (and, to answer a reader's question from last week, gravity) are inseparable from all the rest of everything.

So, given that context, does God exist? I hope you can see that what I'm getting at with all this talk of definitions is that in order to answer the question we need to try to get clear on what we're referring to when we use the word "God."

If we're referring to an old, bearded, probably white (sigh), guy in a toga standing amongst some clouds backlit by soft yellow light rays, then my answer would be, "of course THAT God doesn't exist." That's just as childish an image as is Zeus. Actually it's almost no different.

But if we're talking about that guy as a metaphor for something else, well, let's keep talking, because that's more interesting.

Ultimately, whenever we're talking about something that lies partly or entirely within the spiritual "realm," we probably have to resort to metaphor, because we don't actually know what anything is.

But if we were to try to talk more empirically about the thing this particular bearded metaphor is referring to, what might we say?

Well, I don't know about you (though I'd be interested to hear your take on it and I invite you to share), but speaking for myself it seems pretty straightforward: something exists, and that something must have come from somewhere (or, to be more precise, is emanating from a source [even if that source is fundamentally no-source or nothingness]). It seems reasonable to call that source God. You know, for lack of a better word.

But it's also a little (haha at how insufficient the term "little" is here) more than that, because these emanations I'm calling the something of both empirical and spiritual reality are also the source of the next something. For instance, this word proceeds to this word and then to this one, as if each word causes the next to come into existence. Maybe I could say something like source begets itself. So the stuff that exists is being sourced and is source.

The first thing I want to note is that I guess that makes God the ultimate sourcerer. Because that's a funny word I just came up with.

But the other thing I want to note is that this also means that whatever I'm referring to as God would have to be not ONLY the source, but also the something that exists. And ALSO also not just the something, or any particular one of the somethings, but actually God must be allofit. All the somethings, anything that exists, everything together. Source and Substance. Nothing excluded. And, also, in a way that's awkward to describe in language, nothing INcluded.

Now, here's the rub (whatever that means): why not just call what I'm describing by more empirical terms than "God?" Why not just call it universe, or multiverse, or Kosmos?

That's fine, of course. Those are all great words.

I mean, really, the answer to the question "does God exist?" isn't a simple as "yes" or "no." The answer has more to do with your experience and whether you perceive it to be more centered in the spiritual or the empirical.

But since I'm the guy writing this newsletter, I'm on the hook to answer. And the answer has a lot (haha at how insufficient the term "lot" is here) to do with the metaphorical side of things I didn't focus on in this newsletter.

For this week, I'll tell you that my answer to the question does God exist is "yes."

Next week, I'll tell you why.