Why God doesn't matter

A exists in relation to B iff A is in the same universe as B.
A is in the same universe as B iff A has a casual relation with B.
A is in the same universe as A.
A has a casual relation with B iff A affects B.
If A has a casual relation with B and B has a casual relation with C, then A has a casual relation with C.

Start with the senses. In another universe I may be sensing something else. For example, I may be seeing blue instead of red. However that may be, the senses are thus not absolute. They are instead cases in the infinate possibilities of universes.

To know that other things exist, one must know that something else affects one. However, there are the sense--how does one ever know that there is anything to cause the senses in the first place? They could, after all, be senses not caused by anything else.

Nevertheless, even though the senses are indeed in complete isolation with everything else, it may be useful to think of a way to describe the senses, to know what the senses will do next. Indeed one may say that the universe itself is the senses. However, to describe anything in this universe, things need to exist in relation to one another, meaning that things need to cause other things, meaning that senses need to cause other senses.

Causation is a correspondance between two objects in a universe. Sense A causes Sense B is the same as "If A is, then B is" in that universe. If a red dot appears, and a blue dot appears one second later, and that rule holds for a universe, then one can say that A causes B. However, one can never be certain the rule will hold because the universes can be more or less volatile.

An OBJECT is a set of senses and/or "rules" (i. e. mechanisms of senses) which can be more or less deterministic in a universe, with the minimum of "eventually." An object a prediction: because of these senses that one senses now, some future collection of senses will occur. The prediction always can become wrong because the sucession of senses. For an object to exist in a universe means that the set of senses and/or the rules governing them correspond with the senses in that universe.

An event is an ACTUAL occurance of one or more objects in a universe. One can say that an object causes some other object by saying that a collection of senses is followed by another. However, it suffers from the same lack of definity as the causes of single senses. Note that I say nothing about the past because it is irrelevant. It is only important if there is some object in the present that possibly is caused (note the word: possibly; we can never know if something causes another) by past objects (like our memories; they are possibly caused by past events). If there is none, then it is the same as if the events never were. However, that would imply that one object followed another. This is important only if there is something in the present that is possibly caused by it, and so on. This is an infinate regress, and it holds that since a past event is important only if some other past event is important (causation, namely), no past event is ever important.

Take, for example, the idea that God caused the universe (this one). Forst, essentially what that means is that there is some object that is caused by this past event. If God had always been something potentially accurately describing my senses, If there is no object that is possibly caused by such an event, then it is the same as if it never happened. Fortunately, there is God's memory itself, which always "records" (i. e. it is caused by everything). However, that would imply that that memory started to define the senses right after the creation event occured. That is a past event in turn, so it needs to be caused by another past event to be important. In the end, it will never be justified. Second, there was only one occurance, and a single correspondance is not enough to determine any causality. Third, objects can always eventually fail to be because the universe can always be more or less volatile. Fourth, there seems not to be any difference between the correspondence of the events "God's will of a universe" "Universe creation," a simple coincidence of the two. Fifth, God cannot cause the universe because no object can cause anything outside of its own universe. If I have a collection of senses which I shall call God, then that means that God is an object in our universe, that means that God exists, then that means that God is in this universe. If God is not in our universe, then that means God does not manifest in my senses, which means that God does not exist. If God does not exist, then God cannot cause anything in this universe because no correspondence can then exist without manifestation first.

God as an object needs to manifest to exist; otherwise, he does not matter. However, since the idea of God is by definition "unbounded" in its mechanistic rules. Thus, God can be any sense. God also has no rules, as he is unbounded. Thus, being unbounded, he is potentially any sense itself in its manifestation. However, that is useless, since we are just calling a random collection of manifestations an object called "God." The idea of "God" is therefore useless, because there is no need for completely random sets. Besides we could just call it the "random set of objects/events" instead of "God." The former name also makes much more sense, since "random set of objects/events" is much more fitting.

(Note: the above paragraph assumes that God is an object, and not the senses or universe itself. If that is the case, then the word God is irrelevant, since "God" then becomes nothing more than a label for "my senses" rather than a collection of senses.)