First Sequence: Becoming a Prisoner of the False Glimmer in the Allegorical Cave
"Father… Where is God?"
The sharp crack of a slap echoed through the entire room. "Don't you ever—ever—ask something like that again!" His face flushed red, his words tumbling out in a frantic rush. What I got wasn't an answer, but a hand flying toward my face.
Truth be told, from the time I was little—around six years old—I never even thought to question anything like this. Because as a child, I had joined a local children's organization oriented toward theology.
If I remember correctly, the organization was called Cheerful Early Childhood. "Cheerful" feels like an exaggeration, because cheerfulness rarely—if ever—occurred while I was a member.
My role there wasn't particularly significant, but at least I made some contribution, however small. You could say my presence was quite mediocre. Even so, if there were a ranking of top members, I'm confident I'd place in the top ten out of roughly fifty children in the group.
Not trying to brag, but I was far more diligent than most of the kids there.
The organization taught us about the origin of the world. We usually referred to the world formally and sacramentally as Sanguis Aguinarius—in prayers or during sacred feasts. In everyday, colloquial speech, we'd just refer to one part of it or shorten it to Sanguinarius.
In our teachings, Aguinarius was the divine craftsman, the one who created everything that exists and everything we can perceive with our five senses. Humanity was one of his products. He carved out everything in this world.
This world and everything in it is an imperfect embodiment of eternal, non-physical, perfect ideas. Every thing has a Form that corresponds to its material existence here. By "Form," I mean a blueprint from the Mundus Verus, the realm of true Ideas.
That is a transcendent, abstract world beyond the material one—the place where those blueprints reside, where Aguinarius dwells and carves perfect forms from materials that existed long before this world took shape, turning them into material objects.
Aguinarius carves ceaselessly. Even time itself is a product of that eternal realm of Ideas, like a sketch etched from eternity.
To draw an analogy: the ephemeral, physical, imperfect material world is like a body that "acts" only through dependence on the mind or intellect, while the realm of Ideas—as I've already explained—is eternal, non-physical, and perfect. Two variables bound together, yet diametrically opposed.
Honestly, I'm not very good at explaining the concept of Aguinarius's existence. He isn't the God I mean, because he himself didn't create the realm of Ideas. Even back when I was in the organization, though it was explained in simple language for us children—whose cognitive capacities were limited or still developing—it was hard to grasp fully.
I might have explained it better if, after leaving the organization, I had gone on to an orthodox religious school. But my family couldn't afford the burdensome tuition, so I had no choice but to attend a regular local school. Even there, a little material on the origin of the world's existence was still taught.
One interesting thing is the naming of the world. According to fragmented codices, its origins underwent natural redaction by time and nature, but those fragments were eventually reassembled. The language used is almost impossible to understand with modern tongues.
From a linguistic perspective, the evolution from the old world to the new involved massive changes. Humans tend to imitate what they see. So phonetics and phonology—tied to human physiology—shifted dramatically. Back then, people ate much harder foods, which stiffened the articulation of certain letters; they sounded rigid when spoken and appeared equally stiff when written in alphabet form.
Why am I digressing like this? Back to the earlier topic: the origin of why we call the world Sanguis Aguinarius. I've already explained Aguinarius—it's a proper noun, a specific name, so no need to repeat that.
As for Sanguis, it means "blood," because it is believed that this world was created from Aguinarius's blood after he finished crafting the material realm.
And Sanguis does mean blood, true to its history. But the abbreviation is just as cool: Sanguinarius derives from the root Sanguis—as you can probably guess, it relates to blood. If you guessed "bloodthirsty," you're right! Ah, never mind. People passing by will think I'm crazy for talking to myself, when really it's them who can't speak to you all.
You don't know who "you all" are? Yes, you—the readers, the ones reading this string of text on monochromatic paper.
To you, I'm just a pile of text. If everything here—sentences, words, letters—on this monochromatic page were scrambled in just the right way, the essence of my existence might vanish, and I'd no longer be able to speak to you. It's a terribly sad thought for me.
Speaking of books, as a child—besides often reading from the codices and scriptures—I also frequently visited the large library in the village center. Although most of its collection was religious books, there were quite a few on sciences outside the theological field.
One thing I remember from years of reading there: I never once found a book that discussed where God is. There were only explanations about Aguinarius. I can't name my God, because His name is so sacred and taboo that its holiness surpasses even uttering the full name of the world.
The one thing I still cling to tightly from my faith—even now, amid this crisis and internal debate with myself.
Second Sequence: The First Step Against the Illusion of the Fire in the Allegorical Cave
I might as well tell you the reason I asked about God's existence. More precisely, not existence itself, but something more specific: the "location" or "place" where God is. I suppose there's no real difference—maybe I'm just a little tired.
What's clear is that asking this doesn't mean I'm denying God's existence. Honestly, my family isn't overly orthodox, conservative, progressive, or liberal. You could call us centrist—in everyday politics terms, anyway. Though in my view, there's a slight lean toward orthodoxy, mostly due to the influence of our village.
Our village is deeply orthodox in its traditional beliefs. Talking about something like God's existence is extremely sensitive and taboo.
If the elders ever found out what I was saying, they'd surely label me a heretic. Yes, I know the consequences of my questions, and the accountability for my words rests entirely on my own shoulders.
Even if not, they'd say, "Enough, don't ask such taboo things—just believe it and be done." Smirking at me like I'm some naive, foolish child. How can a thesis stand without substance, with only a conclusion? It's utterly ridiculous—like a house with no walls, just a roof and floor.
It's not without reason. One thing that sparked this question is the irony, the paradox, the contradiction between actions and established dogma. From childhood, we—the kids around me, whether at school, in the family, or in social circles—were educated to be moral. Our teachings emphasized this too; it was the most basic and important thing, which is why morality was shouted from the rooftops.
Elder Jonas, one of the village elders and arguably an expert in our doctrine's theology.
This became a turning point in my thinking. It felt profoundly ironic to see God's commands, teachings, and prohibitions violated by those who claim to be closest to God Himself—wrapped in dogmatic faith to justify their immoral actions. It was diametrically opposed to everything we'd been taught for so long.
I became aware of this as a child—around eight years old, very young, right? Yet I find it bitterly tragic how a little kid could notice the flaws in the existing dogma. At the time, though, I couldn't yet organize my thoughts coherently.
I often denied my own ideas, feeling like I was arguing with myself in front of a mirror under dim light. Over time, those thoughts piled up, creating a small seed of doubt about God's existence.
Still in denial about those thoughts, I kept trying to distract myself with other things. I decided to get some fresh air to silence the voices in my head.
Yes, honestly, it was incredibly heavy for someone still in puberty, with a brain still developing, to process information like that. It was like trying to swallow food bigger than my body—you can imagine my body as my brain, and that information as the oversized meal.
Alright, enough with the analogy. There was one incident that further nurtured my doubt about God's existence. One day, I heard rumors that a villager was suffering from severe anxiety, affecting his psyche and behavior.
He could still communicate normally, but with slight glitches. The people around him offered no help—in fact, they made his mental state worse.
They—some of the villagers—urged him, or more accurately, subtly forced him. Their approach was quite blunt, so calling it "subtle" feels contradictory.
"You're just ungrateful for the blessings you've been given," said one villager.
"And try worshiping more often to calm yourself down. You're just lacking in devotion, that's all," added a senior elder.
Their words might sound reasonable on the surface, but this person was the eldest son of one of the most orthodox elders in the village. His contributions to every ceremony, tradition, and so on were immense. I saw him praying—almost always—with his father.
Their forceful words and the young man's mental state created a vicious cycle, where his psyche closely mirrored his behavior.
This led to a reciprocity driven by social pressure: he became impulsive because the burden in his head had finally reached the threshold between sanity and madness—it could no longer be contained.
His impulsive outburst shocked the elders and villagers gathered at his father's pendopo. I still remember the words he hurled: "You're the crazy ones! Don't you realize you worship like sheep without direction!? Where's your reason? Oh, right—you threw it away as kids, didn't you? How pathetic." Then he turned on the elder who'd told him to worship more.
While pinning the elder to the floor, he declared, "You just told me to worship more often, didn't you? But during the sacrificial ceremonies, where were you? I won't call you 'sir'—it's completely unfit. You just sit around lazily because people consider you an elder?" After that declaration, he beat the elder until his eyes bruised and blood poured out.
The villagers and other elders could only watch in silence, their bodies stiff as mannequins. I saw it all from a distance—the incident happened so quickly and felt utterly horrifying. Even from afar, I fell into the bystander effect. Besides, what could I have done at that moment?
The climax of the young man's impulsiveness came when he cursed every belief system in our village. I can't repeat the exact curses—it would be far too sensitive. After that, the guards on security duty acted decisively, restraining him and exiling him to the Forest of Exile.
He received the highest punishment in our village's legal system: Exile. Many had been sentenced to it before, and honestly, I don't know what became of them afterward. But one thing was certain: I felt a surge of inspiration to break free.
That's why I asked about God's existence. I'm not denying His existence—I'm just curious about all the contradictions and misalignments between the teachings and their practice. If God exists, where is He? Why is there evil?
...
What began as uncontainable determination finally overflowed. Curiosity piled up, endless searching, meaning-making in the blindness of the mind.
Prohibition became my heart's command. That prohibition was like gasoline poured on a fire, igniting it to rage bigger and devour every boundary in its path.
Following a tradition without being allowed to criticize it with reason—isn't that the same as being blind? Apathy toward knowledge—anti-intellectualism. They don't even know the basic essence of what they do; it's just directionless ritual.
I said it to him—out loud, loud enough to echo his earlier slap: "Fine then! I'll find Him myself, and I'll never need help from your narrow, rigid mind, you old man!" I stormed out of the living room and went to my room.
Yes, I know what I did sounded like a cliché teenage tantrum, and many would think I'd change my mind after a few hours and come crawling back home. But my decision was firm. So I started packing my things.
Third Sequence: Falling and Rising Again Against the Slippery Slope of the Allegorical Cave
After finishing packing my things, my father hurled curses back at me in response. But I no longer cared about his ranting. I prepared to rush out of the house. From inside my room, I searched for the right moment to run as fast as possible and escape his pursuit.
Sure enough, he was already at my door, trying to hold me back. But I shoved him hard enough that he fell to the floor. Without a second thought for his condition, I ran—never once looking back.
...
The first place I went after successfully fleeing home and beginning my wanderings in search of God's whereabouts was my schoolteacher's house. Since he wasn't from this village, I figured his thinking wouldn't be as rigidly bound to the villagers' mindset.
When I arrived at his doorstep, I stumbled forward, my face pale and exhausted. His house was very far from the village—and from my own—so I'd run even harder, not just to evade the chase from a few people. My father had called in some fanatic youths who happened to be on security duty.
Fortunately, my body was strong enough to break free from their pursuit. Even more luckily, he was relaxing in his front yard. When he saw me so pale and gasping for breath, he immediately realized I was in a frantic state for some reason.
He approached me and said, "Hey, kid. What's going on? You're running so hard you can barely breathe. Better rest at my house first. Once you feel better, you can explain everything." As he guided me inside, his calm voice brought back memories of my school days.
His teaching style was so easy to understand. Among all the teachers I've encountered, he had by far the best interpersonal approach with his students.
After a few minutes—maybe half an hour—I felt better and not as drained as before. He also gave me a cup of hot tea to warm my body.
"So here's the thing, sir. I just wanted to ask about something you once said in class. It's stuck in my mind all these years, and I still haven't found any clear answer," I said weakly.
"You once told me: if neurons store information, but if a neuron dies, where does the information go? And what is the actual form of that information?" The clash between materialism and idealism—like pitting Karl Marx against Plato. Not literally, of course, but their ideas. After all, they lived in completely different eras.
Is information a material-like—like chemical components—or an abstraction that manifests in material form?
He adjusted his posture and cleared his throat. "Yes, that's right. You have a good memory, huh? Even though that was almost a decade ago, I think. So forgive me if my explanation has some gaps."
"Well, this might be a bit biased, but in my view, information first exists as an abstraction—from an idea, then manifests in an object. If that information is stored in a neuron, and suppose that neuron fails to form new connections with surrounding neurons and dies—that's called apoptosis. But information or memory isn't isolated or centralized in just one neuron. It's redundantly distributed across a network of interconnected neurons, sharing signals in less than a second. The same information still exists in other neurons. Even if one neuron holding that information dies, the signal merely weakens. But if the network of neurons storing it dies or gets damaged—through accident or disease—the transmitted signal grows fainter, and eventually the stimulus to recall that information breaks down completely." He explained it with genuine enthusiasm.
I wanted to respond. "That's pretty confusing, sir. But—" He interrupted me—though truthfully, I'd interrupted him first. "Hold on, I'm not finished yet. My throat's dry from all that talking." He took a sip of his drink. Feeling rude, I apologized. "Sorry, sir." I lowered my gaze and scratched my head, embarrassed by what I'd just done.
Then he said something that surprised me. He chuckled softly and said, "Don't use 'sir' and 'you' like that. We're not student and teacher anymore, right? Feel free to use 'I' and 'you' casually. Consider me a friend now—don't be so formal." I nodded quickly. "Okay, sir!"
"Alright, let me continue. So basically, in my interpretation, information has dual properties, much like light—specifically photons. You might know about wave-particle duality. It's roughly like that: information is an abstraction that manifests materially. So? Does that satisfy your curiosity, kid?" He said while popping a piece of cheese sagu from the jar on the table.
I paused for a moment to digest what he'd said, then replied, "Yeah, I get it now. But hearing your explanation actually sparked even more questions in my mind. First: this is what I actually wanted to ask earlier, but I accidentally cut you off. Roughly like this—if information and memory are stored in neurons and the nervous system, where neurons and the system can be created, modified, strengthened, or weakened through neural plasticity… doesn't that violate the law of conservation of energy?"
"And second: I think your conclusion about information having dual properties is a bit off. Wave-particle duality involves two distinct variables—particle isn't a byproduct of wave, and vice versa. But your explanation implies that information, originating as abstraction, gives birth to a physical or material product. So the material object of information is a product of abstraction, not a separate or opposing variable."
After laying out my thoughts, I felt tense. Ever since school, whenever I asked a question in front of the class or answered one, I always got nervous and jittery.
He clapped his hands. "I'm genuinely impressed by your critique. You're still as sharp and critical as you were back in school, and your questions are really interesting. Alright, I'll try to answer."
Before replying, he did a small stretch. "Sorry, getting old means this—sitting too long makes me stiff." He laughed lightly to ease the mood. "For your first question, you need to understand first that new neurons aren't created from nothing or out of thin air without cause. It's through neurogenesis, where neural stem cells can produce cells via cloning. Now, why can neural stem cells clone cells? It comes from what we eat."
"Metaphysics? Pataphysics? The transcendental realm? The realm of Ideas? Could this be where God is—the one I've been searching for all this time?" I muttered. But it seemed he heard me. Then he said, "Whoa, you know about those things? I didn't expect that. I thought the library there would have redacted information like that." He sounded a little surprised.
This felt like the perfect opportunity to ask something taboo. "Yeah, you could say that—though those books are often kept on the deepest, dustiest shelves."
"A religious figure previously suspected in a sexual abuse case against students at an institution he ran has now been unconditionally released." The voice came from the TV in the next room. I knew exactly who the perpetrator was and which institution. But I won't name them. Sadly, despite overwhelming evidence—clear proof, even video—nothing changed.
Themis—the Goddess of Justice—groans in pain with every act of injustice. Her blindfold symbolizes that justice is impartial to every individual, not that the goddess is blind to what's right in front of her. Every injustice is an assault on Themis herself. And every time law and justice crumble before power, strength, wealth, and lust—the sky falls.
Equality Before the Law and Fiat Justitia Ruat Caelum—two legal maxims meaning all are equal under the law, unbound by status, title, wealth, power, or authority; everyone receives fitting punishment according to their deeds.
And justice must be upheld even if the heavens fall—a clearly metaphorical phrase. "The sky falls" can be interpreted as: no matter the emergency, even if the world itself seems on the brink of collapse, justice must still be enforced.
Yet in practice, it's rarely so. Many enforcers of the law—burdened with the duty to uphold it—end up violating it themselves. Oh, how ironic this world full of irony is.
I wasn't brave enough to openly discuss the subject I meant. Strange, isn't it? I'm just text, yet they're terrified of text. Even more absurd—they're terrified of cameras too. Besides fearing their superiors, they fear scraps of paper with words and sentences, cameras, even CCTV—as if they were common thieves! Yet they're supposed to be enforcers of law, not breakers of it. How bizarre, isn't it, dear reader?
I hope you—yes, you, my beloved readers—are not the kind who would censor books just because they hold views different from your understanding, or even silence mere criticism.
Don't be like that! Because their thinking isn't meant for understanding. Instead of trying to absorb and grasp the perspective of the ideas presented—understanding not just what's explicit or oppositional, but the hidden substances behind them, the implicit meanings and implications.
In every courtroom, before every judge in every case, there stands a sword ready to strike anyone. But that sword is double-edged. Every judicial decision can take the life of the accused, of another, or even of the judge himself.
"Hey, kid?" He said, slapping my shoulder quite hard. I, lost in my own thoughts, jolted in surprise. "You seem pretty tired—talking to yourself like that." Still startled, confused, and at a loss for words, he continued. Wait—talking to myself? So he heard everything I said!? This was mortifying. I didn't know what to do.
"Want to rest for a bit in the room? You've been running a lot, right? And it seems the earlier rest wasn't enough to fully shake off the exhaustion. Come on, I'll take you to my daughter's room. She's at a school camping event, so you can use it until tomorrow."
I really didn't want to refuse, but at the same time, I didn't want to accept. After all, he'd done so much for me.
"Wow, thank you so much, sir. But I don't want to trouble you, and I need to head to my next destination soon. Once again, thank you so much for helping me and hosting me so kindly. One day, I promise I'll repay your kindness!" With shy embarrassment and reluctance to decline, I responded to his offer. It wasn't rudeness—I just had to continue my journey and stay focused on my main goal.
"In that case, maybe I'll give you a few things to take with you. Wait here a moment!" He hurried to his room, apparently looking for something. I had no idea what he was getting for me. It didn't take long—he returned to the living room and handed me a journal notebook and some writing tools. I was stunned. "Here, this is what I meant. So you can write down your journey ahead. And one day, when you come back, tell me all about it. I'd love to hear it, for sure!" Enthusiasm filled him, like a child making a promise to a friend.
Finally, I understood why. There was truth to it. It reminded me of the adage: Vox Audita Perit, Littera Scripta Manet—spoken words perish, but written words endure. How perfectly it fit. No doubt about his genius! It was only natural that I idolized him.
I took the items and tucked them into my bag, then prepared to say goodbye. "Thank you so much. Everything you've taught me has had a huge impact on me, and I promise—I'll come back someday to share my story, sir!" Uncontainable excitement washed over me. I couldn't hold it back—I hugged him tightly before saying farewell.
"Come on, don't be so formal with me, and don't be so stiff either. It's sad, but we know every meeting has an inevitable parting. Especially for us ephemeral, mortal beings. Alright, I won't say much more. Take good care of yourself, kid!"
"I'm really sad too, sir. But…" I held out my pinky finger as a promise symbol. "Whoa, what's this for? Oh, I get it—pinky promise, right? It's been ages since I did a pinky promise with anyone. Feels nostalgic—even though this isn't exactly something to get nostalgic about." "Ah! Sorry, sir. If it's too childish…" I replied, full of embarrassment. He laughed and said, "It's fine, kid! I actually love doing this. So, what are we promising?"
He hooked his pinky around mine. I said, "I promise to meet you again someday!"
"Promise?"
"Promise."
After that, I stepped out of his house, waved goodbye, and began my journey once more: searching for where God truly is.
After hours of nonstop walking, I reached a village fairly close to the city—even bordering it, you could say. Yet it still had a classic look. Exhausted from walking for so long, I sat on a public bench near a place of worship. I was sure that if a cleric from there found me sleeping here, I'd be chased off. But I didn't care—I just closed my eyes and slept on the bench.
The moment I shut my eyes, someone woke me. "Hey, kid? Wake up—don't sleep here." I was certain he wanted to shoo me away, so I responded hastily, "Alright, I'll leave right now."
The man laughed and said something that surprised me. "You think I want to kick you out? Oh, no. Relax—it's cold outside. Why not come inside to warm up?"
I was bewildered. "Inside? You mean this place of worship? Who are you, anyway?" He smiled at my naive question and replied, "Yes, exactly. I'm an elder in this village and one of the main clerics here. So come on in—it's getting dark."
I followed his instruction willingly. After all, I had nowhere else to take shelter.
"May I ask? What's your name, young man?" Name… something I myself rarely even remembered. "I… don't have a name." His expression showed surprise, but he kept his calm. "That's impossible. You must have a name. Why'd you say that? I know there's something behind it. So why not just tell me how you ended up coming to this village? I'm just curious."
I wasn't sure about this. Maybe I'd tell him a little. "If you insist, alright—I'll tell you why I came to this village."
**Unheard Signal**
**Fourth Sequence: Slowly Breaking Free from the Chains and Becoming a Prisoner Heading Toward Pure Enlightenment**
"I was born into a fairly orthodox religious environment. From a young age, we were taught morality, but I came to realize the many ironies and contradictions between what we were taught and how it was actually practiced. Yes, I was actually quite a model child myself. But one incident acted like a catalyst, sparking all sorts of reactions inside me. The climax came when I mustered the courage to ask the person I used to call 'Father' where God is. He didn't answer my question—instead, he slapped me across the face. I got furious right then and there, cursed him to his face, and ran away from the village while being chased by some youths who'd been heavily indoctrinated. I fled in search of new meaning, answers to fill the emptiness in my mind. Up to this point, none of my curiosity has been satisfied at all," I said to him.
"I understand," he replied. "So you're skeptical about God's existence? You started questioning it because of the deconstruction of morality that clashes with the existing teachings—whether from codified scriptures or orally transmitted traditions passed down through generations. Is that about right?" His tone was questioning, but I didn't sense any intent to corner me. So I stayed relaxed.
"More or less like that," I confirmed, though I still had some reservations about parts of what he said. "More precisely, I'm confused about where God is. If God truly exists and is omnipresent, wouldn't it be strange for God to be in places that feel inappropriate? But if God is in the heart of every believer, why would God be smaller than His own creation—the universe itself? That's what's been nagging at me all this time. That's also why I've started losing some faith in God."
"So you're in a state of doubt and wavering—is that accurate?" he asked again. Was what I said unclear, or was his hearing failing? It was frustrating. "Yes," I answered coldly. "If God really exists and loves all His creations, why didn't He make a world completely free of evil, so all His creations could live freely without fear of evil."
"Precisely by removing evil entirely, He would constrain His creations—like programming robots to do only good, without any freedom of will. We, as action agents or agents of will over ourselves—possess two fundamental wills within us. Namely: Gnomic Will and Natural Will. Let me explain the Natural Will part first, where this will is based on the inherent attributes of God and His good values. As an entity with omnipotence, it is a necessity for Him to create everything that exists in this world, including what is material and what is abstract or conceptual."
I interjected, "Okay, I understand, but I have another question." He smiled faintly while answering, "I haven't finished explaining your previous question yet, so calm yourself a little. I know very well that you are very enthusiastic about hearing answers to everything you ask. So, let me finish my explanation first." Feeling awkward and confused, I replied stammering, "A-ah, yes, that's right too, please continue."
"Let me make it clearer. Something can be considered conceptual or abstract if it is outside the scope of natural human senses, namely sight, touch, hearing, smell, taste. Even so, the abstract has inherent substance that is physically or materially embodied, namely actions or any form of material that represents the concept of that abstract thing so that it can be perceived by human senses." So far, I accepted and acknowledged quite a lot of his explanation.
"Because earlier we were talking about God's good values, so with omnipotence, it gives the sign that good values—morality based on virtue, for example—are created by Him. In addition, in classical theism, God also has the attribute of being perfectly good. So this completes the necessity or requirement for the existence of morality that descends from God's own properties or attributes."
"Is there something you want to say? If not, I'll continue with the explanation of Gnomic Will." I didn't want to wait long for his explanation, so I just nodded as an affirmative form, although sometimes there are people who, when I nod my head as confirmation of their statement, ask again what my nod means—isn't it obvious? Strange. It feels really annoying. However, it seems he isn't the annoying type like that; he understood my body language and began to continue his explanation.
He nodded his head as confirmation of corresponding understanding. "Alright, let's discuss from the etymology of the word Gnomic or Gnomik itself, which comes from Greek, from the word γνώμη (gnṓmē), which means thought, opinion, proverb, decision, maxim, intention, but this is less precise, because Gnomic is an adjective, while Gnome in Greek is a noun. We also have to pull from its adjective version, namely γνωμικός (gnōmikós) which means something related to opinion or proverb or maxim or also aphorism. Gnomic is also etymologically related to γιγνώσκω (gignṓskein) which is a verb, meaning to know or to know. So, Gnomic linguistically means a concise and dense statement that is not easy to understand, like a proverb. Now, Gnomic Will or Gnomic Will is the will based on the intention or intention of the individual originating from their mind. This will is more inclined to be epistemic than ontological like the natural will that is born from nature itself and then descends to humans."
I was looking for coherence in his explanation, wondering what the connection was with free will. "What does it have to do with free will? If the natural will is directly from God, that means humans don't have free will." My rebuttal to his explanation—according to me, if that will comes from God, then we as agents of will do not have full or complete will over our actions.
Then he looked at me with a disappointed gaze. Honestly I didn't really care about that disappointed look, after all I just wanted an answer. Slapping his own face, "Oh, God… I'll try to make it clearer again, so before I finish explaining it, don't interrupt my speech. Natural Will is not automatically absolute, but more of a property that descends from God through nature with a tendency to do good. There are seven basic virtues, namely: purity, simplicity, love, diligence, patience, kindness of heart, humility. These seven virtues are the tendencies of Natural Will, where humans indeed have a tendency to do good where this property descends from God through nature. Each of these virtues has its opposite or diametrical action with the essence of virtue, namely the Seven Deadly Sins, such as: lust which is the opposite of purity, then gluttony the antonym of simplicity, greed with love, sloth with diligence, anger with patience, envy with kindness of heart, and humility with pride. Virtue having its own opposite has proven the compatibility of free will itself in classical theism determinism. Gnomic Will is born from ignorance or foolishness, every human is born not directly having morality that develops fully, the growth or cultivation process is what makes humans discover what virtue is epistemically, born from deliberate choices with our own intentions as agents of will. That intentionality and ignorance is what allows humans as agents of will to give birth to other virtuous values. Do you understand now, O Seeker of Knowledge?" I was surprised to be called a Seeker of Knowledge by him, but I finally began to understand that Natural Will is accompanied by Gnomic Will, where the natural will originating from God through nature overshadows the Gnomic Will born from human ignorance and intentionality, "Yes, I understand. But there is something else I want to say."
I understood enough, and indeed much of what he said I accepted, but it still felt like something was stuck—why if the argument he brought had a little bias toward theistic belief, so there was such a tendency. So I immediately spoke frankly to him, "Honestly I'm not too sure if through arguments based on faith alone, I mean the arguments I want to understand are those based on exact science or science."
"Alright then, wait a moment I'll bring the whiteboard." He walked quickly toward a room, which seemed to be a warehouse or storage place, perhaps.
After that he came carrying a whiteboard along with some of its tools. "Sorry if it's a bit dirty, rarely used lately, wait a moment I'll write something." Then he began to write strange symbols. What symbols are these? Did I want to be bewitched by him?
Roughly like this what he wrote on the whiteboard. I myself could not understand what it meant.
Ax. 1. (P(φ) ∧ □∀x(φ(x) → ψ(x))) → P(ψ)
Ax. 2. P(¬φ) ↔ ¬P(φ)
Th. 1. P(φ) → ◇∃x φ(x)
Df. 1. G(x) ↔ ∀φ (P(φ) → φ(x))
Ax. 3. P(G)
Th. 2. ◇∃x G(x)
Df. 2. φ ess x ↔ φ(x) ∧ ∀ψ (ψ(x) → □∀y (φ(y) → ψ(y)))
Ax. 4. P(φ) → □P(φ)
Th. 3. G(x) → G ess x
Df. 3. E(x) ↔ ∀φ (φ ess x → □∃y φ(y))
Ax. 5. P(E)
Th. 4. □∃x G(x)
My head felt like it was going to explode seeing these strange symbols. "What is this? Ouch, my head feels dizzy seeing this madness!" "Hey, calm yourself first!"
Then he went again and came back bringing a glass of water, I immediately drank it until it was finished. "Thank you," I thanked him because if not I might have fainted seeing that, then I asked, "when will you explain it?" He answered, "When you can focus well, I will start explaining this formula. Yes because you said you want exact science, so I give you a mathematical logical formulation."
Mathematics? Seriously? These symbols I had never encountered before, proving God through mathematics was something unique for me, so I immediately became interested again after previously feeling dizzy seeing it.
"Okay, I'm focused! So can you explain it soon!?" Curiosity grew in me, already unstoppable, I wanted something to answer this curiosity, and I seemed to already know what would answer this curiosity. "No need to rush, I will definitely explain," he replied.
"Let's start, so originally the formula for the proof argument regarding the existence of God that I have written on the whiteboard, it was proposed by a mathematician, precisely a logician from Germany, named Kurt Gödel. Well, things like this fall under an umbrella term called Ontological Argument, up to here do you understand the context?" He asked me, then I answered enthusiastically, "Yes! I understand! Let's continue!"
"Such a young person, alright. Let's continue, we start elaborating from the first part, axiom one. Suppose God as a variable, which has positive properties, what is meant by positive properties? Maybe you will ask like that, simply, positive properties are like Omnipotent, Omniscient, Perfectly Good, and so on, and if it is indeed supposed to be true (true in all possible worlds), then automatically that property has other properties, and those other properties are also included in positive properties. Besides the translation of that axiom, I will explain the meaning of each symbol. The symbol φ is a property, where it corresponds with the symbol P as the symbol for positive, while the symbol ∧, similar to an inverted V letter, yes. Its meaning is simple, namely; 'and'. As a conjunction or connecting sign. Continue directly with the three symbols □∀x, for this box symbol, it means necessity continued with the universal quantifier its function is also simple namely 'for all', according to its name, which means universal. While x is a variable. The last two symbols for the first axiom, → and ψ, for the arrow sign, it has the meaning of implication, but the implication is single conditional, for example, If A then B. Then for the last symbol that is the variable meant by other properties, for example other properties are for example if the positive property is Omniscient, then other properties are knowing 2 + 2 = 4. Up to the first axiom, do you understand?"
His words flowed rapidly and filled my brain, like a waterfall. My head felt dizzy again, even though this was only the beginning. "I understand." I didn't say what was really the case, although honestly I understood it quite well. "Good, I'll continue to axiom two," he replied.
"For axiom two, in short a property is positive if and only if its negation or its opposite is a property that is not positive. Continue, I will explain the symbols that exist, because some symbols I have explained before, so only two that I will explain. Namely the symbol ¬ and ↔ which is like a two-sided arrow sign. For the symbol ¬ or called negation, which means 'opposite', while the two-way arrow symbol is the implication symbol, but the implication is double conditional, which means for example there is variable A+B=C+D, then here A=C and if A+B=C+B is valid, this creates reciprocity or reciprocity. Example of a property that is not positive is Evil, so its positive property is being good. Then being Omnipotent, its non-positive property is being weak, because that is not a positive property. Easier to understand than the first axiom, I will continue directly to Theorem One" after explaining axiom two, he immediately explained Theorem One, but indeed axiom two was easier to digest than the first one. I only nodded as a sign of agreement to continue.
"Thank you for the affirmation, we continue to the first theorem. A positive property is at least possible to exist, that there is something that has positive properties in some possible worlds. Roughly can be interpreted like that. I continue to discuss the symbols that exist, and only discussed are those that have not been discussed before. Not many, only two, namely the symbol ◇ and also the symbol ∃, interesting. For the symbol like a slanted box it has the function meaning 'possible', while for the inverted E letter symbol is the existential quantifier or existential quantification, used for counting the existence of an object in an existing property. To make it faster, every time we finish discussing a notation, we will immediately continue to the next notation, okay!" He said firmly to me, I didn't know what to say, so during the explanation from now on I only nodded to his explanation.
"After the first theorem, we enter the first definition, the explanation is that a 'God-like being' is a being that has all or all positive properties. Without exception or without exception. That's roughly in language that is easy for laypeople to understand. I mean language that is easy for humans to understand, and not mathematical language. Okay, because almost all symbols in the first Definition have been discussed before, except G(x). So I will discuss that part, where G is the variable for 'God' and 'x' is the variable for a being. The next notation is relatively short compared to the previous notation, the third axiom in its formal form indeed only consists of two logical symbols. So it will be quite short."
"The third axiom simply is; being God-like itself is included in positive properties. Very short isn't it? Even, there are no symbols that I need to explain again, so no need to be long-winded, continue to the second theorem. This will be a new beginning, later you will understand"
"Wait a moment, I drink water first, my throat is dry after explaining this too long." He ran again, "Okay!" I shouted because he was quite far away.
Finally he came back again, although walking, because if running the water would spill. Then straightening his clothes. "Earlier where did we last stop?" I immediately answered, "Up to the third axiom, if I'm not mistaken." he smiled, then said, "Ah, thank you, so we continue, yes. To the second theorem"
"So, in this second theorem, it can be said like an initial conclusion or result, not final, so to strengthen the previous axioms and notations. In the second theorem it is explained that 'it is possible for a God-like being to exist or exist'. Yes, roughly like that, why is that? Because all positive properties can be combined without any contradiction at all. Even in the previous axioms it is not stated that it will clash. Almost all symbols in Kurt Gödel's proof regarding the ontological proof of God seem to have been explained by me, except for some symbols in the following notations." It seems his explanation the longer it got the more I understood, meaning before understanding other notations, we must understand the initial axioms.
"Didn't expect we already reached the middle of the discussion. Let's continue, and now discuss the second definition, because the first definition defines God-like Being or God-like Being, while the second definition discusses essence. What is essence? Maybe this sounds like something simple or trivial, but people are often confused when asked to explain its definition. Essence is the core or nature of something or concept. Okay, back to our main topic. So what is meant by essence? This notation states that a positive property is a property that is essential for object x, previously we already know that x is an object with God-like Being properties or God-like Being. Essence in this context affirms that the property or positive property is something fundamental or basic from the object with God-like Being properties. If, yes there is if, because there is a biconditional implication symbol or double conditional. So there is another variable that corresponds with the property of object x, if object x has a positive property and only if every or all other properties of x are necessary, including in all possible worlds or Possible Worlds."
"What is Possible Worlds?" I asked full of ignorance and wonder, then he answered, "Didn't I explain before? About 'Possible Worlds', right."
Still full of ignorance I asked the same thing with emphasis, "I think yes, but I don't understand it well." He sighed and said, "Alright, I'll make it clear once again"
Feeling enthusiastic I moved forward wanting to thank him by hugging him—I knew this was a bit childish, especially with an elder. "Hey, stay in your seat! No need to hug me if you want to thank me. Yes, God." While shaking his head, he rejected my thanks, I realized why he rejected it.
"I'll give an explanation about Possible Worlds first, then I'll continue discussing the second Definition, 'Possible Worlds' or Possible Worlds is a semantic device in modal logic one of them, to understand the concept of Possible Worlds, imagine like this—I don't fully know the background of your family condition—but suppose you are sweeping the house, then you see kittens chasing each other and almost making a flower vase fall. Then your mother shouts when she sees the vase almost falling. What happened at that time has happened in the real world or Actual world. And the possibility that the kittens chasing each other do not make the vase almost fall or directly fall and break, and the possibility that your mother does not see that incident. That happens in 'Possible Worlds'. So, the logical systematics of Possible Worlds is to represent what might happen, what should happen, and what someone believes to be real and so on. Understood, right? If already, I continue the explanation of the notation of the second Definition." I nodded as a confirmatory sign.
"Okay, alright. Earlier where did we last stop, yes?" I myself also didn't remember up to which explanation about the second Definition earlier, too focused on the Possible Worlds explanation, so I was confused what to answer, "Ah, yes, I remember!" It seems he already remembered. "So, I continue the part where property φ with property ψ is a necessity to exist, in the real world, as well as in possible worlds. And all other properties of object x should and generally for all objects are part of property φ. Notation the same length as the first axiom."
"Axiom four, already approaching the last axiom, so let's speed up, but still clear and comprehensive. So, like this the definition of the fourth axiom; If there is a positive property (in one world), then it should be positive (including in all possible worlds)"
"The third theorem, same as before, this is already approaching the last theorem, where the focus of this notation is; If God-like Being, then being 'God-like' is an essential or basic property for him. The point is, a God-like Being cannot be less than God-like properties. Because it is already fully perfect. Oh, yes. In the next notation there will be the last symbol that has not been discussed, and after that, all mathematical logical symbols in Kurt Gödel's argument for proving the Existence of God."
"The symbol E, looks like a normal letter indeed. But has a different function from just an alphabet. Before I discuss its function, as before I will explain the notation of the third definition first; Object x 'must exist/be' if every positive property that is essential or basic or fundamental of that object, in every possible world, for some object y. Oh, I forgot to explain what the third definition defines, so the third definition defines Necessary Existence or existence that must/be required. Well, that's why the symbol E is here, not as a symbol that marks ordinary necessary existence, but definitive existence."
After he finished explaining the third definition, I immediately asked my ignorance about something he had explained, "I don't understand, precisely I don't understand the meaning of the function of the symbol E in the third Definition and the fifth axiom, even though the fifth axiom has not been discussed, but I know there is that symbol there. According to what is on the whiteboard."
Smiling faintly, while saying, "Maybe my explanation about the symbol E is quite ambiguous, but I will explain as clearly as possible, as clear as glass reflects light, so you and I can reflect its meaning each in our minds. This symbol E simply is a property. Briefly like that, but still needs to be clarified again, what property? Well, its property is 'Existence', not just ordinary existence, that just exists without further clarity. Because this symbol E is more profound or deeper. Object x with property E means that object is not just Necessarily Existence or Required Existence that exists in all possible worlds, but more than that, because object x with property E must really exist in all possible worlds, and it is very impossible if object x does not exist or exist in one or some of the possible worlds. Understand, right?"
"Quite understand!" While nodding my head, "Okay, continue to the fifth axiom," he replied, "The fifth axiom can be said to be relatively quite simple, where the Property 'Required Existence' is included in positive properties. Yes, that's all the explanation. Directly to the fourth theorem or the last theorem or also the final conclusion,"
"Conclusion; therefore it is certainly true (including in all possible worlds) that the 'God-like' being exists. Exists or exists including in our world. Finally finished, so what do you think, has it satisfied your curiosity? And has your skepticism toward God dissolved? Do you want to tell your opinion? I'm just curious." I was confused how to express it with words. So, I tried to refuse gently, "Ah, but I'd rather write it in my own journal book, you can read it later if you want."
Fifth Sequence: The Peak of Enlightenment and the Destruction of the Chains That Bound
A court clerk standing behind and to the right from the Chief Judge's perspective in the high court explained the trial information. He read out the details of this hearing. I sat in the middle of the courtroom, on the defendant's chair. To my left was the public prosecutor.
Five days ago I had been sitting on a place of worship bench; now I sat on the courtroom chair, as the defendant in a case of blasphemy against belief. They said that the criticism and satire I had poured into a newspaper magazine published by a major publisher—even though it wasn't long—for some reason the publisher had placed my criticism and satire on the front page. I mean, it had become common knowledge that many traditional elders read the newspaper.
Throughout the trial I refuted every accusation thrown by the prosecution. I explained that even the constitution of this country grants fundamental rights. Because clearly this country's constitution is the basis of law, so lower-domain laws are subordinate to the constitution. In one article of the constitution it is stated that freedom of expression, speech, association, and expressing thoughts—whether oral or written—is guaranteed by the constitution.
The parties suing me were not only from the traditional elders and their fanatical, blind followers, but also from the security forces, who should protect objectively and fairly without bias or tendency toward one side. I presented my contention to the Chief Judge: "Your Honor, if the security forces are also suing me on the grounds that public security is disturbed by my words, doesn't that indirectly violate two provisions of this country's constitution? As I have explained before, in article XXXX paragraph XXXX it is stated that freedom of expression, speech, association, assembly, and expressing thoughts in oral or written form is regulated in the constitution…" I paused speaking for a moment because my throat was dry. "Sorry, Your Honor, my throat was dry just now. I have no other intention. If permitted, may I continue my explanation, Your Honor?"
With a firm tone the Chief Judge gave affirmation to allow me as the defendant to continue my explanation. "Very well, Defendant [REDACTED], please continue your explanation."
"Thank you, Your Honor. So, besides the constitutional article on freedom of expression, the security forces should also judge objectively, not based on their own subjective bias toward their beliefs. Isn't the reason for the Goddess Themis—who represents justice in the legal world, the Goddess of Justice herself—wearing a blindfold as a sign that the Goddess does not favor anyone? The security forces, as instruments of state law tasked with upholding the law—once again, enforcers of the law—should be aware of their position as law enforcers: they must be objective and show no favoritism toward any particular group."
The debate between the prosecution and me as the defendant proceeded very heatedly. They threw arguments without basis, whether legally or rationally. Strangely, they could bring me to the green table even though they didn't even understand the basics of legal science—how bureaucracy works, they probably didn't understand either.
I presented counterarguments against their claims. Not only explaining through articles, I also explained applicable legal principles and their philosophy to support my defense.
Someone tried to attack me from behind with a sharp weapon, but the guards managed to secure the person and the courtroom became conducive again—at least for now, there was no physical threat.
After the exhausting debate in which I defended my own rights without a lawyer or legal advisor, I was escorted by court guards away from the crowd of people in the courtroom who were furious with my words. And in the end, they could not convict me.
Then, I walked toward the city forest park to rest. It wasn't too far from where this court was located—perhaps 10 minutes on foot—with cynical stares from people.
But who cares? I was only using the rights granted by the state as a citizen.
When I finally arrived at the city forest park, I looked for a seat under the shade of a dense tree so as not to get too hot. After that debate, it was better to find a place that wasn't hot to cool my mind.
However, while I was sitting relaxed on the park bench, I didn't realize someone was approaching me. Suddenly, when I became aware, I was already in a weakened state. He ran from the scene. Because this location was far from crowds, I couldn't call for help. No one passed by—only a few if any.
I staggered toward the tree behind me, to lean against it and see the beauty of nature for the last time.
Final Sequence: Ignorance at the Peak of Knowledge
Oh, God. I have found You. How naive I was before—could You possibly accept this criminal of faith? The one who erased Your existence from his heart and mind. God. Oh, God. This pain is already unbearable. If only I could go back and redo everything I did in the past week, perhaps I could have explained Your existence. Alas, a thousand regrets—what I knew, all the information stored in my neurons and all the connections between them, will never be heard again. The electrical signals flowing through my brain—from the frontal lobe to the occipital lobe—are slowly fading. Those signals will never be heard again, forever.
Is this the last seven minutes they spoke of…? It is so beautiful, so very beautiful. Mother… I hope you can see this. The extraordinary pain vanishes in an instant. A warm, gentle light envelops my body. Like a mirage in the desert, I try to reach for that warm light, even though it blinds my eyes because it is so bright. In flashes, I see the people I met during this short life of mine.
Father, forgive my selfishness and naive attitude from a week ago. Now I understand, and I have retraced the paths in the light of knowledge and finally found the old road I had been searching for all this time—through other paths.
Elder from the neighboring village, thank you for the knowledge, the contentions, the debates, and the information you gave me. I might never have opened a new perspective without you.
My beloved teacher, forgive me if I burdened you all this time—both when I was still in school and after I graduated—and thank you for the knowledge you have taught me.
To my beloved readers, perhaps by the time you read this, I am no longer with you. Thank you for taking the time, O Seekers of Knowledge. I could not give much, so I apologize if I—this nameless one—have disappointed you.
Respectfully,
[REDACTED | The Nameless One Whom Savoir-Faire Sought]