s I have previously indicated, this proof advances the world's only definition for Deity that simultaneously and undeniably proves the necessity for Its existence.  It does so by clarifying the limits of thought -- or, the interface that we necessarily share with whatever exceeds us.  This causes the proof to be "subjective" in nature and therefore limited to yielding the relative form of Deity.  However, since we can't conceptualize anything that is not relevant, this in no way demeans the result.  Hence this proof fully satisfies all that might be expected of it, or is being claimed for it.  By advancing a tangible representation of the Ultimacy of thought, it cannot help but force a rethinking of the idea of Deity's transcendence.

Let us now consider the proof's dynamics one last time. Since temporal thought is inherently constrained to a state of flux, any valid definition for Deity must be able to accommodate all change without effect.  Only one idea is capable of doing this and it characterizes Deity as an "ordered unknowable."  It alone attributes to Deity the form by which all change becomes possible as opposed to any specific manifestation of change.

However, it also simultaneously promotes two diametrically opposed conclusions.  The idea of order implies "time," while the idea of the unknowable does not.  Under any lesser circumstance this conjoining of opposites would be illogical; but, since 'order within the unknowable' constitutes the most fundamental form of self, this exception is necessary.  Once validated, the idea of 'order within the unknowable' then confirms the necessity for the 'ordered unknowable' -- one aspect of which is constituted by the potential from which knowing springs; the other by the actualization of the potential that knowing inherently manifests.

Since both of these differences lack process, they can't be distinguished from one another quantitatively.  Hence, for all sakes and purposes they are quantitative equals.  Nevertheless, we qualitatively make distinction between them in the form of pre-self and post-self.  When you combined these differences, this makes the unknowable successive as well as simultaneous to itself.  This difference in the unknowable's potential is what reason then uses to define its own limitations -- in order to ground the relevance of its ongoing process.

 

o recap: Quantitatively, the unknowable constitutes a singularity that qualitatively assumes to form as a plurality characterized by both zero and one -- where zero is perceived to be yet another one.  This multiple representation of the unknowable (one) is what then establishes the foundation for set theory -- by which temporal relevance thereafter assumes to force.  Only one idea is capable of encompassing all of the possibilities which we have cause to verify during the confirmation of ourselves and it is the idea of an 'ordered unknowable.'

Since this paradoxical understanding sits at the very root of thought itself, we are thus destined to view all ideas in two diametrically opposed yet inherently linked ways.  One characterizes the potential of order; while the other simultaneously describes successive representations of that potential.  We refer to this phenomenon as dichotomy; and without the possibility it affords us, we would be unable to make differentiation within sameness (the unknowable) and hence incapable of conceptualizing anything at all.

In traditional literature, the contrasting natures of dichotomy are characterized as quality and quantity.  Qualitatively, all change is seen to be irrelevant to the characterization of the unknowable that provides for its possibility.  Quantitatively, all change is seen to be an aspect of the sum of the process by which that unknowable comes to be of separation for us.  This causes quality to be fixed in the singularity of universality; while quantity finds meaning through a consideration of the plurality of process by which that universality is characterized as a relevant totality.  Hence the ideas of space and time.

The 'ordered unknowable' therefore comprises all possibility inclusive of a personification that encompasses opposing finite and /or infinite processes.  By necessity, we view this 'ordered unknowable' in four different ways.  Either it is past, present or future to our conscious awareness of it, or simultaneous to the possibility which incorporates the other three.  The inability to determine which, forces us to respect the validity of all similarly. As a result, the idea of an 'ordered unknowable' defies temporal denial.

Much additional thinking on this subject is possible, but that is not the immediate concern of this offering.  One thing does bear note however.  This proof allows us to know that all ideas about Deity can never exceed our ability to understand ourselves without tampering with our freewill -- because we are the base for their qualification.  It also means that there is no Holy prescription that is Divinely dispensed to anyone (or any group) that can obviate our understanding of truth -- without severely compromising us.  If a more encompassing truth is to replace a currently held truth, it must do so in a way that is logically understandable -- or it renders the whole idea of justice meaningless.  So whatever the purpose of Divine manifestation, it cannot help but be self damaging if we do not restrict it to the situation it immediately affects.

In spite of the inherent complexity that haunts our conceptualization of the unknowable, it has been traditionally characterized as a singularity.  The reason is because of a misconceived belief that the continuity of language depends upon this rendering -- since the unknowable exceeds the capability of language by definition.  This position amounts to a capitulation to the limits of language as opposed to the limits of self.  This proof finally sets this misconception straight.
 

Although the unknowable could conceivably be a singularity outside of the field of thought, within the field of thought the unknowable is undeniably a plurality.  Were it otherwise, we would NOT be speculating about its nature or anything else.