The Idea of God: The Imprint of the Maker and the Necessity of Existence

Introduction: The Mind as a Mirror, Not a Factory

For long centuries the human mind was regarded as an absolute arena of freedom, capable of creating endless worlds and fantasies. Yet philosophical scrutiny and structural scientific analysis lead to an entirely different truth: the human mind is not a factory that produces the raw material of ideas from nothing, but a highly advanced “mirror” that rearranges, reshapes, and recombines what is already deposited and present in this universe.

If we trace the mechanism by which scientific theories are produced and technical inventions are formulated, we arrive at a rigorous epistemic law: the mind does not invent new rules; it discovers what exists and applies it. And when we apply this physical and philosophical law to the greatest and deepest idea that has occupied the human conscience across history — the idea of “the absolute God” — we reach a conclusion that is inevitable and, in its simplicity and precision, startling: the mere capacity of the human mind to conceive God, with its believers and its atheists, is in itself the greatest and most dazzling proof of the necessity of His existence.

1. The Concept of Existential Philosophizing and the Term Ex Nihilo

To grasp the human mind’s inability to invent absolutely, we must first understand one of the most rigorous philosophical and theological terms in history, the Latin term Ex Nihilo, which means literally “from pure nothingness” or “from nothing.”

In metaphysical philosophy, creation or bringing-into-being is divided into two kinds:

Creation from nothing (Creatio ex nihilo): the bringing of a thing into being from nothing prior to it whatsoever — that is, the absence of matter, of time, and of place, and then the sudden dawn of existence by the act of an absolute power. This act is a purely divine matter in existential creeds and philosophies, where existence is poured upon nothingness and it is transformed into being.
Making and shaping (Creatio ex materia): the bringing of a new thing into being on the basis of pre-existing raw material — and this is the utmost that human beings can do.

When we say that it is impossible for the human mind to invent something Ex Nihilo, we mean that the human being does not possess the “feature of originative creation.” The mind is governed by reality; it always needs a first building block, a sensory signal, or an existing cosmic law in order to begin thinking. The mind cannot cast an idea into existence unless that idea has some share or root in external existence that supplies it with life.

2. Dissecting the Mind: The Mechanism by Which Theories and Inventions Are Born

The impossibility of invention Ex Nihilo — that is, creation from nothing — is most clearly manifest when we look at humanity’s finest products: the sciences and technology.

1. Scientific Theories: Lifting the Veil from the Hidden

When a scientist formulates a great theory that changes the course of history, the precise expression for what he has done is “discovery,” not “invention.” Isaac Newton (1642–1727 CE) did not create gravity; Albert Einstein (1879–1955 CE) did not invent the fabric of spacetime; and quantum mechanics was not produced from nothing by the mind of Max Planck (1858–1947 CE).

A theory always begins from the observation of an “anomaly” or a gap in the witnessed reality, followed by a process of rational and mathematical abstraction. This abstraction is not the creation of a new system from nothing, but an attempt to decipher the geometric and physical order already present in the universe since the moment of the Big Bang. Here the mind receives the latent cosmic laws and translates them into a human language and equations.

2. Technical Inventions: Hybridization and Biomimicry

The most revolutionary and magical of human inventions are nothing but an advanced process of “recycling” sensory inputs and existing materials. The human mind here plays the role of the “hybridizer” or the maker of combinations; it mates two existing tools or ideas to produce a new function, but it does not create the essential materials of either.

For example, an invention such as the “airplane” was not a leap outside the laws of the universe or a creation from nothing, but a fusion of metals extracted from the earth such as aluminum and iron, a direct application of physical laws already in place such as the principle of buoyancy of Archimedes (c. 287–212 BCE), and a literal biological mimicry of the engineering of birds’ wings and their way of cutting through the air.

The same holds for the “wheeled suitcase”: the mind did not invent the wheel and did not invent the suitcase, but rearranged the relation between them to solve a human problem. Even “radar” is a technical imitation of the biological system that guides bats by means of ultrasonic waves, and “artificial intelligence,” at its depth, is an engineering reproduction of the way the neurons interconnect in the human brain.

The human inventor is exactly like the “sculptor”: the sculptor does not create the marble, nor does he invent the physical laws that allow his chisel to cut the stone. He merely has the “vision” to remove the excess parts so that the form latent within the rock may appear. The mind, then, disassembles and assembles, but it is entirely incapable of inventing a “raw material” or an “essence” that has no root outside.

3. The Philosophical Vision Across History: The Impossibility of Imagining Nothingness

This applied mechanism of invention was not absent from the minds of the great philosophers across history; rather it formed the pillar of the epistemic schools from Greece to the modern age, affirming that everything in the mind is derived from existence.

1. Greek Philosophy: From Parmenides to Aristotle

Parmenides (c. 515–450 BCE): He laid the cornerstone with his rigorous principle: “Being is, and non-being is not.” He argued that the mind can only think of being, because non-being has no reality, and it is impossible for the mind to draw an image or an idea from nothing.

The proof and its interpretation: Parmenides advanced a rational proof resting on “the impossibility of epistemic contradiction,” to the effect that any idea the mind contemplates must issue into an object, and the object must “be” in order to be thought of. If the mind tries to think of “absolute nothingness,” it either turns it into an object (thereby granting it a kind of existence and thingness in the mind) or is entirely unable to encompass it. The interpretation here is that pure nothingness possesses no selfhood and no properties, and that which has no self radiates no image; hence human consciousness is wholly consumed within existence, and every idea that takes shape in it is a trace of a real existence prior to it, and it is impossible for it to sprout from the void of nothingness.

Plato (c. 427–347 BCE): He held that universal ideas and concepts — such as justice, beauty, and the ideal — are not invented by the human mind Ex Nihilo, but are a “recollection” (Anamnesis); the soul had witnessed these truths in “the world of Forms” before its descent into the material world, and learning here is a retrieval of what already exists.

The proof and its interpretation: Plato argued from “the proof of the absolute universal concepts.” In our material world we see only beautiful, changing things (a beautiful rose, a beautiful painting), yet we possess in our minds a fixed, absolute concept of “beauty in itself” that does not change with the change or wilting of the rose. And since this perfect concept does not exist in the changing, deficient world of matter, the mind is unable to invent it and combine it from deficient material inputs. The Platonic interpretation sees these concepts as “objective, independent existential realities” whose image was imprinted upon the soul when it beheld them in the eternal world of Forms; and the process of thinking and reasoning in this world is nothing but the scraping away of the dust of matter from the soul’s memory to restore the origin of existence latent within it.

Aristotle (384–322 BCE): He firmly established the principle of total dependence on external existence with his famous epistemic maxim: “Nothing is in the intellect that was not first in the senses.” For him the mind is born as a blank page, and all ideas without exception are a reflection, an abstraction, and a distillation of real images and instances that external existence broadcasts and the senses receive.

The proof and its interpretation: Aristotle relied on “the proof of sensory extension and epistemic abstraction” to prove philosophically that the human mind is structurally barren of producing or inventing any “raw material” of ideas on its own, and that it is impossible for it to conceive anything from pure nothingness — the evidence being that one who loses a sense among the five (such as one born blind) is utterly unable to invent or conceive the concept tied to that sense (such as colors). Aristotle is relied upon in this very proof as a decisive pillar for establishing God; for since the mind does not possess the feature of “epistemic bringing-into-being from nothing,” and since the concept of “the absolute, immaterial, eternal Perfect” has no likenesses or fragmented material pieces in the deficient world of matter for it to be assembled like the rest of the myths, the presence of this concept in the human mind and the perpetual debate about it necessarily entails the existence of an objective external reality that radiated it. From this sensory gateway, Aristotle formulated his famous theological proof of “the unmoved First Mover”; he holds that when the senses register the reality of “motion and change” in the cosmos, this leads the mind, of necessity, to abstract the concept of “the fixed, eternal first cause.” Thus Aristotle demonstrates that the idea of God in the mind is not an illusion that emerged from a void, but the inevitable result of real data broadcast by external existence, which the mind abstracted so as to point to its Maker.

2. Modern Western Philosophy: The Rigor of Experience

René Descartes (1596–1650 CE): the pioneer of modern rationalist philosophy, who investigated the origin of innate and perfection-related ideas within the human mind and their relation to the external influence.

The proof and its interpretation: Descartes advanced “the proof of the perfect being” (the existential imprint), arguing that he finds within himself and his mind a clear and distinct idea of an infinite, perfect, omnipotent, omniscient being (God). And since he is a limited, deficient being, and the rational law of causality decrees that “the cause must contain of perfection what equals or exceeds the effect,” it is impossible for his limited, deficient mind to be the maker and cause of the idea of “infinity and perfection.” The Cartesian interpretation concludes decisively that the idea of absolute perfection was not invented by the mind from nothing, nor abstracted from the experiences of deficient matter, but is a “primary innate idea” imprinted by the perfect Maker in the structure of the human mind at its creation, to point to Him like the imprint of the maker stamped upon his product, in spite of the constraints of matter.

John Locke (1632–1704 CE): He agreed with the philosophers of the empiricist school in the idea of dividing ideas into simple and complex, and considered the mind a blank page that receives its primary impressions directly from external experience.

The proof and its interpretation: Locke framed his argument through “the proof of the analysis of complex ideas,” proving that the human mind can never conceive a new page or sensory quality it has not experienced (such as tasting a unique flavor or smelling a scent that has never passed through its nostrils). His interpretation falls into two stages: external sensation and inner reflection. The mind receives “simple ideas” (such as solidity, color, and heat) from outside, passively, without any ability to refuse them or invent them, and the utmost that consciousness then possesses is to recombine and repeat these simple units to produce “complex ideas.” If the primary materials are missing from existential reality, the mind is entirely paralyzed and unable to formulate any idea.

David Hume (1711–1776 CE): He affirmed that the utmost flights of imagination are nothing but copies of sensory impressions; if you have not seen a certain color or beheld a certain material, it is impossible for your imagination to create it from pure nothingness.

The proof and its interpretation: Hume offered “the proof of tracing impressions,” posing his famous philosophical challenge in which he asks any person to analyze his most unfamiliar and unrealistic ideas, only to find that they ultimately resolve into sensible parts that memory captured from nature (such as gold and a mountain, to produce a golden mountain). His interpretation of this rests on a strict distinction between “the direct sensory impression” and “the mental idea,” which is nothing but a faded, less vivid copy of that external impression; a person’s imagination is entirely locked within the walls of what he has seen, heard, and touched in existence, and his abstraction is a mere play with the existential shadows reflected upon him.

Immanuel Kant (1724–1804 CE): He affirmed that the mind is governed by a priori categories, such as time, space, and causality, programmed into the structure of consciousness, and that the human being cannot imagine or think outside the frame of these cosmic laws imposed upon him by the order of creation.

The proof and its interpretation: Kant argued from “the proof of the necessary conditions of perception,” showing that the human mind can never imagine a thing that lies outside the scope of “time” or “space,” nor conceive an event that arises without “causality.” These categories are not ideas the mind assembled or free captures, but “the strict molds and structures” through which human consciousness was designed to operate in order to organize the data of external existence. The Kantian interpretation clarifies that the human being is structurally incapable of imagining a world without dimensions, which proves that the mind’s activity is entirely subject to and constrained by the limits and engineering of the order of creation imposed upon it beforehand, and it does not possess the freedom of absolute generation outside these established ways.

3. Islamic Philosophy and the School of Transcendent Philosophy

Ibn Sina (370–428 AH / 980–1037 CE) (Avicenna): He determined that the human soul, at the beginning of its arising, is a “material intellect” (a philosophical term meaning the mind in its primitive first state, like a clean blank page, possessing no images or information but possessing a prior readiness and capacity to learn and to receive knowledge — exactly like raw matter, or clay not yet shaped). He affirmed that this intellect depends entirely, at first, on the “common sense” (the inner mental faculty that gathers and unifies the sensations coming from the five outer senses, such as linking the shape of an apple with its scent and taste) and on the “imaginative” faculty for gathering the images of the external world, and that the mind is entirely incapable of inventing any “essence” (the reality of a thing and its fundamental core that makes it what it is) unless it has a root and a real origin in existential reality.

The proof and its interpretation: Ibn Sina relied on “the proof of the abstraction of universals and the distinctness of essence,” explaining that human consciousness begins from zero as a ready, entirely empty capacity (like prime matter), and then the images of things are inscribed and imprinted upon it through passing by the outer and inner senses. Philosophically, the “Chief Master” distinguished between “conceiving composite essences” (the mind’s free capacity to disassemble and assemble ideas it has previously captured to produce new imaginative forms it has never seen combined, such as attaching the wings of a bird to the body of a horse to produce the winged horse of myth) and “the impossibility of inventing a simple, primary essence foreign to external existence” (such as the mind’s total inability to invent an entirely new color no eye has ever beheld). The Avicennan interpretation holds that the mind, in its abstractive movement to distill the general universal laws, is never separated from reality; rather external existence, with its order and its ways, is what drives and compels the human mind to grasp and understand the great self-evident truths (such as the concept of causality and the necessity of the existence of a Creator, the “Necessary Being,” the God who possesses existence from His own essence and needs nothing else). These truths impose themselves upon consciousness through external reality, and the mind does not sprout them from nothing.

Shihab al-Din al-Suhrawardi (549–587 AH / 1154–1191 CE): He held that the images and fancies a person imagines, for which we find no direct material application or instance in our witnessed world, are not a nothingness or a void the mind created from nothing, but living images that subsist and are actually realized in another existential rank known as “the world of image” or “the intermediate barzakh” (a real world lying between the world of sensible matter and the world of pure intellectual abstractions, containing the images of things — their measures and forms — but without their heavy matter), and the human soul witnesses and beholds this world through the purity of the spirit, unveiling, and epistemic illumination.

The proof and its interpretation: Al-Suhrawardi framed his argument on “the proof of intellectual manifestation,” arguing that what are called imaginative images or impossibilities (the things a deluded person supposes his mind invents and creates from pure nothingness) are images we see in our minds that have definite dimensions, measures, and colors. His philosophical rule states that “pure nothingness has no dimensions, no colors, and no attributes,” so how could nothingness, in which there is nothing, bear fruit and yield an image having shape and color? If the mind were to originate them from the void, the mind would be a creator of existence from nothing, and this is false. The decisive Illuminationist interpretation holds that the human mind here is neither a maker nor a factory that creates these images, but merely a “manifestation” (a polished, clean mirror) upon which are reflected and manifested images that subsist and are actually realized in that “world of imagination separate and independent from the human self,” and human consciousness connects to this world by a reflective connection — proving that every idea or image in the mind is derived from a real existential rank and is not the offspring of nothingness.

Mulla Sadra al-Shirazi (979–1050 AH / 1571–1640 CE): He brought about the deepest epistemic revolution in the school of “” through his principles resting on “the primacy of existence,” holding that existence is the one true reality extended throughout the whole cosmos, and that nothingness is a pure negation that is nothing at all and hence cannot possibly radiate or give any image to the mind; everything the human mind conceives is a mode and form of the modes of existence and has a share and a portion of reality. He also held that the process of imagination is not merely the retrieval of old images, but an “existential intensification” of the soul (an ascent and rise in the rank of existence) so that the soul connects with a higher rank called “the Active Intellect.” He emphasized the rule of “essential poverty” of the human soul (a pivotal philosophical concept meaning that the soul, in its very self and substance, is created, needy, and weak, depending entirely and at every moment on God to supply it with existence, life, and knowledge — like a ray of the sun that has no subsistence and no existence without the sun itself); accordingly the soul does not possess the power of independent creation and origination of ideas from pure nothingness (Ex Nihilo), but every perception and imagination that passes through it is a manifestation, an outpouring, and an epistemic light flowing to it from the Absolutely Self-Sufficient.

The proof and its interpretation: Mulla Sadra argued from “the proof of the primacy of existence” and “the rule of homogeneity” (a philosophical rule requiring a proportion and congruence between the cause and its effect; for one who lacks a thing cannot give it). He demonstrated philosophically that pure nothingness has no thingness and no effect, and therefore it is rationally impossible for a concept, an idea, or an image to spring from it in the human mind, because the negation of existence yields no existence. The Sadrian interpretation accordingly determines that the human soul, described by “essential poverty” (pure attachment to the Creator), cannot pour upon itself an epistemic perfection or invent the idea of “the absolute Perfect, the Infinite, the Necessary” spontaneously from nothing; for how could a limited, deficient consciousness, poor in its very essence, invent the idea of absolute self-sufficiency and perfection? One who lacks a thing cannot give it. Therefore the human mind’s perception of absolute existence and perfection is not an error or an illusion the soul grew familiar with, but the result of an “existential intensification” and a real connection binding the soul to “the Active Intellect” that bestows knowledge. These lofty universal ideas are nothing but real, radiant manifestations and outpourings that the Absolutely Self-Sufficient divine existence pours into the depths of human consciousness, so that the idea itself is a living proof and a witnessing bond that speaks of the existence of the bestowing Maker.

4. Answering the Doubts: The Problem of Mythical Beings and the Mythification of God

At the threshold of this epistemic unfolding, materialist and atheist thought raises an objection that appears logical on its surface, meant to destabilize this structure, and known in philosophical disputations as “the problem of mythical beings.” Its substance is:

“If the mind’s inability to invent from nothing is proof of the existence of God, then why does the mind conceive the dragon, the winged horse, the inhabitants of space, and metaphysical creatures, when these do not exist externally? Could the idea of God not be merely another mythical legend the mind assembled?”

Dismantling this doubt structurally and philosophically requires clarifying the essential, existential difference between “fabricating a myth” and “perceiving the simple absolute reality.”

1. The Mechanism of Forging a Myth: Assembling Material Pieces

When a person imagines a mythical being such as the dragon, the winged horse, or a terrifying space creature, his mind does not in the least practice creation from nothing Ex Nihilo. The mind here works as a visual processing device; it does not possess the ability to invent new raw material, but goes to its sensory store derived from material reality and begins a process of disassembly and reassembly:

The winged horse: a fusion of the image of a material horse with the image of a material bird’s wing.
The space creature: a combination of an octopus’s limbs, an insect’s eye, a reptile’s skin, and a dinosaur’s size.

The mind here did not invent the raw material of the ideas, but only invented “the proportion and the combination,” which is the function of the “imaginative” faculty in Islamic philosophy that disassembles and assembles the images of sensible matter previously stored. The myth, then, has known material parts and has likenesses and counterparts in nature.

2. The Mechanism of Perceiving God: Abstraction and the Simple Absolute

When we move from the world of myths to the idea of “God” in its philosophical depth, we find ourselves before an entirely different concept; for the essential characteristics that make up this idea are: absolute simplicity that has no parts, immateriality, timelessness, placelessness, essential self-sufficiency, and necessity of existence.

Here the atheist’s analogy collapses and the trick is exposed; for we ask the atheist mind: from where did your senses capture the raw material of these characteristics so that you could combine or magnify it? A person has never in his life beheld anything “immaterial” to combine or copy from, has never lived in a “timeless” environment to derive a stored sensory impression from it, and has never witnessed in this observed cosmos a single being “self-sufficient in its essence” that does not depend on another; rather all that surrounds him is a being that is deficient, needy, and perishing.

The mind possesses the ability to invent a “myth” because its raw materials are available to it in the world of matter; it possesses the image of the horse and the image of the wing. But it is entirely unable to invent the idea of “the infinite extension and God” because it possesses no first building block or raw material in this material cosmos resembling the absolute or the eternal. The myth is a combination of material parts; God is a simple, abstract reality that has no parts in the world of matter to be assembled from.

3. Ibn Sina’s Answer: The Rule of Distinguishing Necessity from Impossibility

The Chief Master Ibn Sina (370–428 AH / 980–1037 CE) (Avicenna) distinguished, in his investigations of “existence and essence,” between the mind’s ability to conceive “the essentially impossible mythical thing” and its conception of “the Necessary Being.”

When the mind conceives a myth, such as a mountain of ruby, it combines a “nominal essence” from essences existing outside and ascribes an imagined accidental existence between them. But when it conceives “God,” the mind does not conceive a composite essence; rather it turns directly toward pure existence and its self-sufficient simplicity. The human mind perceives, of necessity and through the self-evidence of causality, that every contingent has a cause, and since the chain cannot proceed to infinity, the mind finds itself compelled and led to posit a “first point of anchorage” upon which the cosmos rests, which is the Necessary Being. The mythical conception is a play with images; the conception of God is an inevitable rational response to the order of external existence and a compelled inclination toward the first cause.

4. Mulla Sadra’s Answer: The Proof of Homogeneity and Essential Poverty

Building on the doctrine of , Mulla Sadra (979–1050 AH / 1571–1640 CE) (Mulla Sadra) aborts the doubt of “the mythical God” by the rule of homogeneity — that is, congruence and proportion; for in order for the mind to perceive a thing, there must be homogeneity between the knower and the known. The human mind, in its existential identity, is “essential poverty,” that is, a being of pure need and attachment to another. And it is impossible for the limited and deficient to leap of its own accord to perceive or conceive the concept of “absolute self-sufficiency, infinity, and perfection,” because one who lacks a thing cannot give it, and poverty does not produce the concept of essential self-sufficiency.

Accordingly, our conception of perfection and infinity is not a myth we assembled, but an existential trace and a force of attraction poured by the Absolutely Self-Sufficient upon our souls. And just as the wavering of the needle and its inclination requires the existence of an invisible magnetic field pulling it, so the turning of the human mind and its bewilderment around the concept of “absolute perfection” is a trace and reflection of the existence of this “perfect existential magnet” outside — and that is God.

5. The Mystics’ Answer: The Rule of the Correspondence of Existence and Perfection

The mystics and philosophers hold that the human being possesses an innate inclination and an immense yearning toward “absolute perfection” — that is, infinite knowledge, absolute power, and eternal permanence — a yearning that never extinguishes. And if the atheist claims that this inclination is like the conception of “the inhabitants of space,” the reply to him is that the yearning for the mythical or space being vanishes the moment it is conceived or drawn, for it is bounded by the limits of matter and function; whereas the human yearning for perfection extends without end — if a person owned the earth, he would seek the sky.

And since the cosmic order is built upon wisdom and absolute coherence, the existence of hunger is a trace of the existence of food, the existence of thirst is a trace of the existence of water, and the existence of this “infinite yearning and its conception present in the awareness of the human being” is a decisive proof of the existence of a “perfect, infinite beloved and sought object” outside that fulfills this breadth and this existential poverty in the human soul.

5. The Inevitable Application: The Idea of God and the Imprint of the Maker

If these philosophical and scientific rules are established and consistent — namely that the mind does not invent the raw material of its ideas from nothing, that every mental image must have an existential source outside the mind, and that the idea of God is innocent of the mechanism of assembling material myths — then we stand face to face with the question of God as an inevitable trace.

We are here before a critical philosophical question that imposes itself: how was the human mind — limited, deficient, temporal, and surrounded by matter on every side — able to conceive the concept of “the absolute Perfect, the Unlimited, the Eternal, and the Self-Sufficient in essence”?

From where did humanity bring this “raw material” of ideas? The mind lives in a material world in which it beholds deficiency at every moment; everything around us dies, sickens, ends, and is governed by the limits of place and time. And since one who lacks a thing cannot give it, it is impossible for this mind, submerged in limitation, to produce the idea of “absolute perfection” Ex Nihilo.

1. The Existential Proof and the Imprint of the Maker in Descartes

The French philosopher René Descartes (1596–1650 CE) (René Descartes) used this logic with rigorous mathematical precision to prove the existence of God, and his idea is summed up in the fact that the idea of “the absolute perfect mind” is clear and distinct in his mind. And since his limited mind cannot be the cause of creating the idea of “the unlimited” — because the cause must contain of existence and perfection what equals or exceeds the result — then this perfect being must actually exist outside, and it is He who imprinted this idea in the human mind as “the imprint of the maker upon his product,” exactly like the signature the Creator leaves in the depths of the created thing.

2. The Proof of the Truthful in Mulla Sadra

In later Shia philosophy and the of Mulla Sadra (979–1050 AH / 1571–1640 CE) (Mulla Sadra), this meaning is framed through “the Proof of the Truthful.”

Existence is a single reality that admits gradation, and the human mind is one rank among the ranks of this existence. When the mind conceives the concept of “the absolute existence self-sufficient of all things” — that is, the Necessary Being — this conception cannot emerge from nothing, because nothing radiates nothing. And by the rule of homogeneity, the mind’s ability to grasp and conceive the utmost of perfection and infinity is a trace and reflection of a real existence that broadcasts this existential attraction into human consciousness. The mind did not invent the concept; rather the concept was imposed upon it because its Maker imprinted it in its existential constitution.

3. The Atheist’s Bewilderment: Affirming the Concept in Order to Deny It

This philosophical proof does not stop at the limits of those who believe in guidance and the fitrah; it extends to include the atheists and the deniers of divine existence. In order to deny God and critique Him, the atheist must first conceive Him in his mind with His universal characteristics: omnipotent, omniscient, and the originator of the cosmos. The question that atheism is unable to answer according to the laws of knowledge is: from where did the atheist mind derive the intellectual material of an immaterial, unlimited being in order to deny it?

If the idea of God were an illusion or an invention Ex Nihilo, it would be impossible for the human mind to form it in the first place, because illusion itself is a combination of prior material images, like the winged horse. But God has no material likeness in the cosmos for the mind to assemble and magnify. Therefore the atheist’s conception of God in order to deny Him is an explicit admission that the concept is present and imposed upon his consciousness from outside, and is not the product of an internal forgery. The bewilderment of all humanity, with its believers and its atheists, and its turning around a single center of gravity — “perfection” — proves that there is an existential reality broadcasting this trace and imposing this attraction.

6. Conclusion: The Existential Necessity

Just as scientific and philosophical reality has proven that the airplane did not come from nothing but came because there are birds and dynamic laws in the universe that supplied the mind with data, and just as the theory of relativity did not sprout from a void but because the fabric of spacetime is already in place and waited for someone to discover it, so the mere fact that the human mind engages in a debate about God — whether affirming or denying — is the greatest proof of the necessity of His existence.

The limited mind, surrounded by matter and nothingness, cannot invent the concept of “the absolute Perfect and the Infinite” of its own accord, and it possesses in this cosmos no material pieces to assemble it, as with the rest of the fanciful myths. The atheist’s ability to conceive God in order to deny Him, and the believer’s ability to grasp Him in order to affirm His oneness, mean that the concept was imposed upon human consciousness from outside; and attraction occurs only in the presence of a magnet. The debate about God is not an illusion the mind invented, but a living reflection and imprint stamped by the Maker into the depths of human existence.