"If there were no other independent things besides the composite natural ones, the study of nature would be the primary kind of knowledge; but if there is some motionless independent thing, the knowledge of this precedes it and is first philosophy, and it is universal in just this way, because it is first. And it belongs to this sort of philosophy to study being as being, both what it is and what belongs to it just be virtue of being."-Aristotle
Who is the God of philosophy and what evidence is there to prove his actual existence? How can we describe him in a plausibility that we could comprehend of his universal nature? What differentiates him from his evolving creation? Is he the same God of religion or a mere contradiction of science?
I shall attempt to answer these and many more questions about God, within a basis of logical or metaphysical arguments of philosophy. The reference to God is a polysemant, in the definition of his meaning or holophrasis. In a theist concept of philosophy, he is the Universal Creator. He is the Creator and the universe is his ultimate creation. The distinction of the God of philosophy and the God of religion is simply understood, within the uniformity of God and the universality of his essence. What is interpreted, as a prefigurement of God in religion is not necessarily, the preconception of the Universal Creator of philosophy. Thus, that implication is displayed, in the dichotomy between religion and philosophy.
We can define the existential monism of the Universal Creator, with his omnifarious structure that makes him omniferous in his process of creation. There must be a primary substance to creation and to the universe and kairos. If space has only one substance that cannot be bounded by another substance so easily, then we must conclude that space is bounded, by the evolutionary process of creation. Within the concept of synechism space is linked to wave mediums, and the discrete and separate particles that form are connected to the wave motion of space that causes matter and time that is consistent with the universe. Within the actuality of space is the unity of substance, which then corresponds to a causal connection. Matter and time are two properties that the universe and God are composed of in their existence.
Henceforth, the Universal Creator's creation of the universe is metaphysical to the cause and effect. We must understand that the universe evolves around its sundry elements, be it the sun, an electron in an atom, the stars, the planets inter alia. If we are cognisant of these properties and their equipollence, we can fathom the causal connection, between the universe and the Universal Creator. This would allow us to surmise the relative hyle that the universe possesses.
We can perceive with our sense of perception the fundamental effects of light, gravity and oxygen upon the Earth. Thus, we can perceive the causal connection, between these effects and the universe. The essence of either of these effects are manifest, in the form of that genuine perception. Once we have established that principal correlation, then we begin to understand with our sensible empiricism, the proposition that the underlying unity of substance can be explicated, with the causal connection.
The Universal Creator is not a pseudo or quasi phenomenon that is demonstrative of the first causes and the principles of objects. This is where the subject of the objective natures and the oeuvres of Aristotle, ontology, natural theology are introduced, as the Universal Study of first principles with logic and reasoning. Once we make the correlation of the Universal Creator with the cosmos, we can proceed to understand the difference of plane, between a natural and unnatural phenomenon. For example, a hurricane, typhoon or earthquake is attributed to a natural phenomenon, whilst an atomic bomb, chemical warfare, or even a homicide is attributed to an unnatural phenomenon. We realise that within our zoetic nature that our existence is meaningful and connected to the universe. The question that we ask frequently is, what is the nature of our existence and what does it consists of in its entirety?
We know that existence is an axiomatic truth, but what else can be elaborated, about the consciousness of our existence? If existence is primary and consciousness is secondary, then we construe within the physical and abstract of the universals or properties that existence is defined by our consciousness. When we are cognisant of that relativity then we realise that the reality of our existence has a definite nature, which makes it known and existential, without antinomies. Aristotle believed that all material substances are matter and form. Therefore, if we were to analyse that statement, we would assume that the universe as well has as its existence matter and form. According to Aristotle, the universal intelligibility is present in every being and in everything present. The cosmos consists of distinctive substances. These substances can be either matter or form, or a compound of each element in its congruence. The composite shape is that, in every being, in general is intelligible. Our consciousness and soul are intelligible invariables that can manifest in variable forms of our existence. It is feasible to rationalise our existence to a metaphysical concept that corresponds to a hierarchy of paradigms. The sublunary existence that is the center of the Earth, would be the changing factor of the compounds of matter and form on the planet, whilst the supralunar universe almost of immobile and immaterial beings within its periphery would be representative of God, as a pure force of energy.
Aristotle defines "first philosophy", as the science of being qua being. Being can be said in different classes of predicates: the substance (God is a force of energy), quality (God is illimitable), location (God is universal), etc. All developed categories have a purpose. These are the categories to be addressed by the universal science, science of forms, which were called "metaphysical" by the followers of Aristotle. Aristotle devised a list of ten basic categories: substance, quantity, quality, relation, place, time, position, possession, action, passion. I have replaced passion with relativity. His primary causes can be divided into four causes Substance (ousia) or quiddity (to ti en einai), Material (Hule) or substrate (hupokeimenon) Guiding principle, and the purpose (telos). All of these elements form the criterion of principle (arkhe), cause (aition), element (stoikheion), and nature (physis).
The cosmos as matter is connective to the pure form of a perfect and intelligible force of energy that is the Creator. To be existential requires the contingency of an actuality. The essence of any principle of first cause is attached to the induction that is the inducement of the evolution of an emerging process known, as creation. The agency of the universe is connected to the necessity and contingency of creation. We could analyse within the phenomena of cosmology or the specificities of cosmogony, the different effects of the universe, but if we were to surmise the first cause of the universe and God, then we would have to better understand Aristotle's word for "prime matter" or the haeccity of God. If we enunciated the origin of things that involved the state of monism, metaphysical dogmas, the knowledge of physical reality, particular identity, distinctive intellection and many other things, then we could understand the homogeneous components of the ousia of the Universal Creator. The question is how do we understand the Universal Creator and his hyparxis, if we fail to understand the hypolepsis of God preconceived in our minds?
As pursuivants of a God of theism, we discover within the epexegesis of this particular elucidation and epideictic argument, the simplification of this epagoge prescribed to address the subject with a practical apodixis. We are matter and form, but we are also composed of energy, like the Creator. The distinction is that although we possess the ability to be prime movers, we lack the power and ability to enforce universal law. If we concede to the notion that we are only a vehicle of that process, then the contemplation would be that we are ephemeral, like the wind that blows or the breath we exhale. The premise of existence is to function in an actuality that is recognised and conceived from rational inference. Therefore, the concatenation between God and the universe is perceived, as a noumenal effect that is metaphysical and dynamic, if we ascribe the terms of in posse and in esse to God. The universe and creation, within the concept of God would be interpreted, as an extrapolation of the universal truth that encompasses the circumference of that alterity.
The universe is not at a variance with God or is contradictory to universal law. Science bases its premise of the origin of the universe on a theory that is predicated on a point of singularity. Ergo, if we are to understand that tentative analysis, then the universe had an original inception that was logical and not dilogical in its cosmogenesis. The only exception to that scientific argument is the concurrence of the interpretation of that conception. Science attributes no creator to the phenomenon of the inception of the cosmos. It simply theorises that inception, as an unnatural phenomenon. Religion speculates in its fervent belief and doctrine that the inception of the universe and God was a preternatural phenomenon ordained. According to religion the universe was created ex hilo by God, without matter and form. What is peculiar is that science nor religion denotes the origin of God and the universe, with a logical inference as evidence.
The Universal Creator conflated the universe into the plenum of animation that are the planets, stars, galaxies, light, time and living beings that include us. If we are aware of the existing elements of aition (cause) that are space and time, qualia that are equated to the psyche and quanta to the nous, the matter to hyparxis and motion to energy, within the quantifiable phenomena of the universe, then we would better understand the cosmological diagram that is the universe.
Is it feasible within the Dynamism of the relativity of the arterial inception of conjoined phenomena that existence manifests, into a protean matter that is the cosmos? Can the homogeneity of that energy be invariable in its definition? If we asked the metaphysical questions of what is there in the universe that is relative to God, then we would discover that matter and form are connected to him incessantly.
What is the similarity with the universe and God? Aristotle had interpreted sense and essence that we learn in ontology and epistemology, as components of the vital nature of the cosmos and the Universal Creator, the dynamis and entelecheia of change, in association with matter and form, the telic veracity of that actuality. I believe as an exponent of this thought, the universe has forms and ideas, but coincide with the observation of existential matters or forms established. We could debate the monadic or henological reference to God, but his undeniable existence is expounded by metaphysics.
Aristotle's form of what phenomena are based on does not contradict, with the general belief of theism. The universe was instantiated in a form or matter that is aligned to the kathekaston (particular things) or a miscellany of objects. My thought is a miscellany of Plato's and Aristotle's theory of epistemology that is relative to the concept of theism. Aristotle used induction from examples, along with deduction to surmise his conclusive forms. I believe that form defines the cause and effect of phenomena, but matter is the compelling origin of those phenomena.
If we discuss the differentia in the kinesis of motion and change according to Aristotle's, "Natural Philosophy", we would examine the phenomena of the natural world or the universe and conclude that reason is science, not science the reason. We would learn the distinctions of material cause, formal cause, efficient cause, final cause. Plus, the transposition of creative means of power, formidable force, dynamicity, the epistemic principles and ontological reasons, the prime mover and the three kinds of matter, that are physical and one unmovable.
Therefore, the universe has a form, and God has a form as well, as a prime mover; although his form is strictly universal and not physical. There cannot be a before or after if time did not exist, in regard to the continuum of motion. There is no continuation of motion, except in place, where forms must materialise. In order for a sequential order of universal law in creation, there must be a potent force to govern that specific law as described, as the first principle. If by the act of contemplation we are conscious about the relativity of that actuality, then the force of energy that is God is construed, as logical to the physical laws that are governed in the universe. If God is actual in the chronological order of the universe, thus, is the relativity of his creation. The hyperagency of an eternal motion and energy, the noetic inception of the cosmos are all related to the "Omnis" of the universal existence.
The specificity of God can be discovered in the depth of our consciousness. Energy can be interchangeable like matter and form, but consciousness is the compelling force that defines the actuality of that hylomorphism, the property of the consciousness of the immortal soul. God is energy and the universe is energy too. That energy can be a quantitative or qualitative form of energy.
Matter and energy are interconvertible. Thus matter is a compressed form of energy. God's energy is omnipresent and omniscient, and it cannot be begotten or abated. The universe is comprised of energy, as a basic unit. And to the state of singularity from nullibicity, we exist in space and are thus bound by time. Atoms, molecules, electrons are energies. Energy can be of high intensity, as in the stars and sun, or be of low intensity such as inert beings as rocks, or in outer space. If we make that assumption of energy, then we can assume that energy is omnipresent and invisible, like God. We know energy can be converted from one form to another. We use the sun as energy on Earth. We are created from matter and form that creates our compound substance. We learn that from Aristotle's metaphysics. God has no metaphorical comparison, except the metaphysical sense of the existence of his abstract origin.
To expound on the notion of a metamorphic sense of change of form in the universe and our existence, we must first understand the methodical interpretation of logic, as it pertains to the relationship between matter and energy that is analysed with observation. I could attempt to discuss in my peroration, the mechanics, heat, lights, sound, electricity, magnestism, and atomic energy of physics, but this would not be adequate to the premise of this argument.
Is God to be conveyed, as a primordial thought or substance? He can be interdimensional in his quintessence that defines our natural composition. The universe is not composed merely of the terrestrial elements of animation known in the tetragen, as earth, water, air, fire, aether that have their elementary qualities such as heat, cold, wetness and dryness. We know that the earth is cold and dry; water is cold and wet, air is hot and wet, fire is hot and dry. Each property has a natural place in the structured universe and returned to their natural place. We can see vapour, such as steam, fog, mist, because they are produced by the effect of heat upon a liquid, and vapour is gas formed, from a substance that is primarily a liquid or solid that is variable. So too are we, a continuum of the local motion that derives its continuity from the continuity of extension, and time derives its continuity from the continuity of motion. Time is not identical with motion, because it can be either natural or unnatural and is not conditioned to velocity. We perceive time and motion, as a link through the process of alteration and the realistic nature of the difference from qualitative and quantite energy, matter as any shape, size, context and is what all things are predicated, and therefore its essence is different from that of all the predicates of the "prime matter", or Aristotelian notion of matter. As a phrontist, I perceive the phoronomia, within this form of perception.
Any form of something was not separate from the thing itself to Aristotle. Form is always connected to matter, and the paradigm examples of forms are those of material substances. The distinction between substantial and accidental is that substantial form is a second form as universal that corresponds to substance and accidental to nonsubstantial. What makes two human beings different is not their substantial form that remains the same, nor their accidental form that can differ, but their matter. Matter not form is what defines us. The mere rigidity of religion and the complexity of science is a mere banality of a superficiality that attempts to ignore the cosmological force that is the active principle in Aristotelian ontology that is God.
Every being in any category other than substance is a property or a modification of substance, qua being, variables. We learn by the ontology of metaphysics that light is not matter, what neutrinos are, how beta decay works, what is meant by the big bang, how quantum entanglement works, how gravity warps space time, human consciousness emerges from a neutral network. This learning only facilitates the mind and belief that God is an absolute force that is equivocal to a magnet in the spectrum of the extensive universe. What is meant by that, is that he governs the universe.
To similise the nature of God is to attempt to utilise the eclecticism inferred from our induction, as the basis to the aition and eidos "cause and form" of God. We are cognisant of the compoundable nature of the cosmos and its irrefragable composition that evolve from the quondam thoughts and doxas that are not contradictory to the postdiction of this concept. The universe is not invisible in an interminable vacuity of nullibicity and subreption, instead God is present in the natural phenomena demonstrated in the universe. But could the dynamis of God be regarded, as an epiphenomenon that can be construed, as an inopinate anomaly? How do we then comprehend consciously the diachronicity of our quotidian episodes of existence? The continuum of God and the universe to acknowledge that God exists does not equate to an axiom, since we could describe God in a singular optimality and the cosmos, as a pluralistic omnibus. God is not a solecism of the Socratic or Aristotelian demiurge expounded in ancient Greek philosophy, instead his presence is deprehendable. Is God an adiaphoron or a reflection of the serendipity that is not coincidental? I would conclude that he is the undeniable arche of the universe. In our nitency to explicate the validity of God with an illative analysis, there is a great form of probabiliorism in the inveterate theory that God is perhaps more abstract and metempirical in his invariable nature.
Is God a paradigm or archetype of a perfection that is exclusively reflective in his seity? Philosophy is not a mere notion of a philodoxical pretension, because it is the practical sense of noesis and not an Orphic contemplation that requires a descant. The quiddative function of our existence is associated to a desitive synthesis of God and the universe. We are a synergy of a germane process that is reflective of our universal nature and the methexis of the defiendum of that diuturnity. To claim that God is extant does infer a dianoetic relativity that is utible in that philosopheme. We are conscious of the distinction, between volition and nolition. Is God a vivendum and theion?
If we applied a logical and didascalic approach to our sapience, it would not obtrude on our interpretation that God indeed is alive, but not in the physical sense or the religious divinity. If we are aware of the assumed hypodoche then we would not need to postulate, since the universe is proof of his creation. Thus, to state that God and the cosmos are bound together is not an antithesis that contrasts the principle of the first cause, if we partook in a quolibetic discussion. Quoad hoc as the assumption that God is not a pure form of energy, I submit to the notion that in the megalopsychy and its preservation, we can relate to his supernal energy. Why do we obstrigillate the argument of the God of philosophy, if the argument is not inscrutable in its criterion?
To suggest that the schema of this belief is strictly indescerptible is a stochastic notion of obstriction in thought, within a parochial viewpoint that obviates the constation of a sui generis being. It is the soul and not the ego that is significant. Eo ipso, it is not an ipse dixit or a non sequitur, but an actuality of an empirical nature that is described in the apodictic essence of the cosmos, the aetiology of God and the corollary to his creation, within the prophasis of that phenomenon. We would understand the concept, as a reification of God that is transcendental. The consectaneous stages of our immortal soul are a contingent state of the process that follows death. To make that statement is not the banality of a pleonasm, but the complete acknowledgement that our soul is immortal in its existence, after mortal death. Death is understood, as the noema of the photoric sense of the abatement of our mortality.
Without philosophy, we are nequient to understand the prevenance of the universe, the macrobian soul, the perscrutation for the universal truth, the induction of the constant psychomacy that precedes the thanatognomonic sense of our mortality, the metaphenomenal animation, the eicastic form of the cosmos, the adumbration of immortality, the synyparxis of God and the cosmos, the ontic presence of God, the organum, the tautology of this analogy, the definement of the microcosm or ouranos, the differentia of God, the ingent cosmos and its dilation, the metemperic form of philosophy etc. Theism should not be confused, with pandeism, pantheism or deism.
As a general rule of thought, we must apply the rudimentary knowledge of philosophy and not our mere peirasticity, if we are to discover the universal truth. It is not the incompossibility or adiaphoric nature of the Universal Creator that is being discussed, instead the intrinsicality of his sublunary and supernal existence that is only found in the pleroma and alethic nature of his existence. If God is the prosopopeia, then to apply the kalokagathia of philosophy to ourselves would not be an alogical assumption. The universe is a form of an origin that is regarded as the lemma of the argument, in my symperasma of the dynamism of the concept.
We can debate the nature of the conceptualisation of creation as natural or unnatural, but the origin of its substance is produced and understood, as phenomenal in its accentuation. If we are cognisant of any phenomenon, then we can establish the relativity of its useful introduction. Human beings are capable of obtaining consciousness, if they apply a heightened state of the mind. Existence is either material or abstract in its comparative essence. Thus, mortality is the materiality of our existence and immortality the abstraction. If we ascribe to the Aristotelian thought of existence, then we must make the assertion that the origin of our existence is linked to the origin of the universe.
Every creation must have a creator, but does God have an origin and creator? Are we to believe in the doctrine of religion that the universe was created in seven days or in the theories of science that hypothesises the origin to the universe, with the notion of an epiphenomenon? In accordance to the Aristotelian concept of a universal demiurge, I prefer to form the following analogy. God has no physicality and his matter once more is a pure and unalterable form of universal energy.
Therefore, the God of philosophy is recognised, within his hylomorphism, as a celestial phenomenon that can only be explicated in the propaedeutic teachings of philosophy. From the inherent nature of that thought, the consciousness of the soul is awakened. We are only a small insignificant part of creation and a testimony of the wondrous process that is existence. If the universe and we are existential, then why would the universal Creator of creation not be existential, as the prime mover of all that encompasses existence?
Philosophy allows us the necessary form of enlightenment and illumination that the mind, body and soul require to function. We cannot progress, if our thoughts do not progress. We can be narrow-minded in our judgement or be open-minded to the exploration of the universal truth. What is the universal truth? It is the ultimate form of comprehension and guidance affined, through an epistemic purview of philosophy and its causal relation, between the two main elements of knowledge and logic.
In this disception of the God of philosophy, we can dismiss the inverity and ad homimen of the scepsis, as an antimonic discrepancy or assentation that respues this concept. However to a reasonable polemic to the concept, who does not interpret this concept, as a putative argument that is not evident, then I remit to the zetetic reference of pantosophy, as a tenable premise and sententious conveyance of a cunctipotent deity. The indicium of God and the consilience of a logical conclusion support my claim that is not an esoteric concept, but a metaphenomenal concept. The omphalos of the cosmos is replete, with the prospect of impending phenomena that are not antemundane. To understand the zenith of God's quiddity is to understand his ubiquarian presence in the protractive universe. If we understood the quoddamodotative nature of the universe, then we understand the apeiron of his universal extension.
The materiality of the Universal Creator is not reflective of a superlunary contrast, whose endeixis is not misconstrued. It is of an eviternal connotation and exponible interpretation that are not supraliminal. Is there a hypnopompic state of consciousness that we are mainly aware of its consectaneous function and viability? This concept could be evaluated, with an empirical syncatathesis that determines the basis of the argument. We could deduce a prolegomonous introduction, an adducible theorem, gnoseology, phronesis, an apposite conclusion, excogitations, solutions to our aponias and the preservation of that praxis.
We could explicate an inherent induction, from a deducible inference that was introduced meticulously, by Aristotle's 10-fold classification of that which exists: substance, quantity, quality, relation, place, time, situation, condition, action, and passion, but what is essentially more relevant is the purpose for each of those variables. What is necessary is that we realise with our discernment, the relativity of what Aristotle had intended with this form of classification of existence in the end.
The inherency or illation of existence is interpreted, as either illusion or presence, mythos or philosophy, reality from surreality, actuality from potentiality. Thus, we require the adherence to sound reason that is logic and not the pseudological application of an undeveloped thought that is inscient. If we applied logic, to the concept, then we would better understand the deictic contrast of life and death, mortality and immortality, the aporias of scientific rhetoric, the dyslogistic rebuttals. Therefore, if we applied metaphysics as the premise of the argument, then the criterion would be comprehended, as a logical correlation of philosophy, without the need for scientific phaseology or terminology.
Time is the incontrovertible force that human beings think that they can accelerate, when it is impossible to alter its course. Time is sempiternal and cannot be governed, by the laws and theories of science. We live as human beings within the duration of our mortality that is conditioned to the invariable nature of that existing time allocated. Time chronicles our mortality, but it is unlimited as the soul. Thus, the universe is unlimited as well; consequently, what is recorded as time is perceived as the duration elapsed, but its essence remains continual and unadulterated.
As with the Creator, time is an illimitable force that pervades over the megathos of the universe. Logic is the method to deduce the cosmological and metaphysical composition of God. With the structure of logic, the differentia of matter and form is comprehended, as a universal thought. With knowledge we ascertain wisdom, with logic we ascertain intellect, and with cognisance we ascertain thought. What we acquire with these elements of logos is known, as "cosmosnoetos" (the intelligible cosmos of divine forms and intellects) that is located, between the One and the Soul.
All of these properties begin with a sole rational thought that is subsequently developed. The incomparable nature of God's monotheism, the primacy of his governance are not conditioned, to the incompossibility of our reluctance to accept with the ratiocination that God is interdimensional and therefore, his origin could be considered of a different dimension that is a parallelism to ours. In philosophy there must always be the clarity and establishment of the universal truth that encompasses knowledge, wisdom, logic, intellect, consciousness and thought. These elements are the vehicles to ascertain that truth, and by effectuating that process, we could easily discover with the lucidity of our mind the procurement of the asseveration of the fascinating answers to our baffling questions, such as who are we in quintessence and what is the meaning of our existence?
The God of philosophy is a paragon of the cosmos and not an elaborate invention of the ancient mythos or an illustration of biblical scriptures. God is matter and his form is universal. Videlicet, his matter is a force of energy and his form is not physical, but something that transcends the practical notion of amorphism. We can dispute his incorporeality, within science, religion and philosophy. Aristotle stated, "That there must be an immortal, unchanging being, ultimately responsible for all wholeness and orderliness in the sensible world". If the universe and time are eternal, then why is God not eternal and our soul as well?
The argument of science and the zoilists is that there is no proof of God, since he is not of a matter or form that is material; in other words he cannot exist, because he is not transparent. We know that the air we breathe cannot be seen, tasted or felt, yet we believe in it, because it is there and existential. We know of phenomena that are natural or unnatural, yet we believe in them, because they are existential. Then why do we refell the notion of God, if he too is existential in matter?
Theism is not dependable on the concomitance of the contingency of a definite belief or pantheism, but it can be defined within panlogism. In the logic of philosophy, there must be a rational elucidation and basis of knowledge to deduce an adducible criterion from a theorem. If we made the analysis from a hermeneutical concept that the phenomena of the universe are abstract forms of a conglomerative nature of the emergence of epiphenomena, then we would surmise the universe to be extant. For example the quotidian vicissitudes of the energy of the sun or the moon are inconvertible forms of an obtruding force or the abstract halation of the light transmitted. There is a supreme alterity to a coherentific reality. The coetaneous origin of the universe is related to our existence and the hyparxis of God.
Within his monism, the hypolepsis of the universe is based on either an extrapolation or a predicate of an apodixis that immortality is definite and mortality indefinite. There is a presumption that nothing exists after life and therefore, nothing could exist beyond the realm of death. However, if the state of the consciousness of the soul is not dormant, then the plausibility of existence is logical and establishes the precedence to the notion of the afterlife. The psychognosy and the psychosophy within the thymotic human soul is best discovered, in the universal existence of the universal truth and not in the allegories of religious parables, pseudological premises, nomological references, baseless redargutions, or dualisms that accentuate the anthropocentrism we profess, with a parvescient subjectivity and schesis.
We the people of Earth are a small fragment of the universe, and therefore, our reality is that we are nothing more than that in a universal sense that is not a utopian ideology. We are not the universe, but the universe is us. We are not a singularity of an immaculate conception, but the plurality of a universal composition. Our birth as well as our death is only a process that develops naturally and logically, through the sequence of a phenomenon that is equated to our mortality and immortality. We know then that we are born from the same matter and form that the universe possesses. When we die our bodies dissolve into that same matter. However, the soul that is our essence is universal in its form and matter. The soul is universal in our mortality and in our immortality. Our soul is part of the energy of the vast universe present. Thus, our existence is not predicated on the physicality or physiognomy of a God specificated, but on the cosmological premise of a consequential phenomenon that defines him in the verisimilitude of that occurence.
The God of philosophy is not the God of religion, in the virtual sense of his essence and hyperousia. He could be interpreted as an epiphany or theophany to us, but his essence is much more than that theurgic comparison and ananke. The God of philosophy does not require any act of worship or faith, instead the acknowledgement of his existence that transcends any measure of a pistic devotion or apotheosis. He is not a polylemma that science or religion can extrapolate, through the porism of a thesis or doctrine. We are a certain quale of energy that is associated to a quantum that occupies the cosmos. Our existence is conditioned to the universe, as the existence of the universe is to the Universal Creator. He is not a mere God of any religious mythos or posit, but a Universal Creator that is metaphysical and evident. All relative forms of knowledge derive originally, from the paradigmatical influence of pantosophy. It is us the human beings that must ultimately determine, whether we are altitudinarian or latitudinarian in our interpretation of the Universal Creator.