The Ethereal

For the purpose of our communication, there needs to be a word (which technically could be any word as a defined term of art) universally to communicate the concept of divine, deities, gods, supreme beings, or simply by whatever causation we exist. It might be said that The Ethereal is that which cannot be contemplated or expressed, but at best only personally experienced.

Faith aside, a Rational Deist stays lucid to the metes and bounds of rationality by The Second Enlightened Tenet. A Rational Deist does not assert knowledge of the nature of divinity or any other “thing” by which the “first cause” occurred or keeps occurring existentially. Therefore, a Rational Deist cannot judge the space of that concept properly to define it existentially. Human existence has a frame of reference, but that frame of reference does not exist beyond the human framework of existence.

For example, consider the paradoxical irony of the debate about the “existence” of “god.” The temporal secular debate is folly, in fact, double folly. First not being able to “contemplate the nature of god (or the gods),” particularly for definitional purposes, and then trying to pack god (or the gods) into a temporal construct of “existence.” A two-times failure of rationality. Existence, such as human beings understand the construct, is bound to space and time. Therefore, to assert god is timeless and spaceless, on the one hand, while also using the term “existence” on the other hand, is paradoxical ironic folly.

“The existence of god” (or supreme “being”) issue is inherently an issue of delusion as is trying to adduce it, being a riddle that cannot be resolved. And these unevolved ancient riddles are still the cause of the debate that adduces hate, war, death and destruction, each finally concluding arrogantly (oft by cultural bias) that the unsolvable has be solved and any contradiction must be irradicated.

Moreover, human beings use words to express concepts. To use a word regarding a “thing” (putting aside the above existential concepts for “things” at the moment), the thing must be judged. That is, we cannot use a term regarding a “thing” unless we judge it first, being what the thing is, and then to apply a word that reflects that thing for communication. To socialize the judgment regarding the word, the judgment of the thing to which the word refers must be the same for both the expression and the interpretive receipt. The lesser cannot understand the greater. And then, even if the “thing” could be duly judged and a word duly implied, the ability to convey the concept socially is futile, because there is no existential frame of reference.

Anyone who suggests the ability to judge that which is divine or the cause of existence, by purpose or anything else, has elevated self to the equal or better than thing defined. To define a thing we must know the thing. If we try to define a positive fact without knowledge, it only breeds confusion.

Therefore, The Ethereal is the term used to embody that which cannot be known. If the Rational Deist is grounded in theistic (or religious) faith, the term can mean the divine or a supreme “being,” and, if the Rational Deist is agnostic or atheistic, otherwise.

The only reason this concept is not thoughtfully considered is because delusive indoctrination has created the riddle from birth, and then purports to solve it by presumptuous condescending arrogant self-serving dogma that does not allow a challenge without self-serving condemnation.