And, what was created? Again, there are many words for many concepts. Generally, each word has its own connotations. Rather than: Universe, world, existence, Cosmos, perception, etc., etc., the word chosen for that which has been created is: Reality.

Reality will be defined as that which exists; meaning something, theoretically, that can be "gotten" to, observed, and/or logically perceived.

These definitions are certainly not fully inclusive, nor exhaustive; however, some starting point must be selected. For those that have a need for nit-picking (A salutary undertaking that is not intended herein as pejorative.) the starting-point can always be "tweaked" later; without, I believe, changing the argument to any great degree.

Mathematical logic is, ultimately, the foundation of both the disciplines of physics and philosophy. The only question Gödel's postulation left remaining was that of whether the negative was possible of proof. That is: Can something be proved if you cannot disprove it? If the answer to said question is positive; and, it certainly appears that it is; this puts atheists in a difficult position that they have not been able to very successfully parry.

Science, Theology, and Philosophy should be a single discipline. After all, they are concerned with exactly the same fundamental issues: Where have we come from?; Where are we going?; and, How should we comport in between? Currently, Science, Theology, and Philosophy are entirely predicated upon theories and axioms. The dictionary definitions of what a theory and an axiom are best reflects the current credible state of these disciplines: theory is: speculation; an assumption based on limited information; conjecture; and guess; an axiom is: a self-evident principal; one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument.

Thus, concerning the questions of: Can it be proven that a god, or gods, exist?; or, Can it be proven that said gods do not exist?; the argument contained, herein, has dismissed the current disciplines of academia, and their endless ruminations, as a probable source for a definitive answer. This is not, entirely, the fault of the academicians; it is the fault of collegial structure as well as the academicians' limited insight.

However, the search for relevant answers should not end because of academia's dearth of alternative thinking beyond its paradigms. In fact, for those that are intuitive, the answers, already, may have become apparent.

But first, as an aside, at this point: there is some importance to emphasizing that Reality is infinite. It must be stated, without elaboration within this short discourse, that a finite Reality would moot any argument concerning Oneness.

The current theory for a finite Reality, usually, is based upon: the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe. This theory was first postulated by Abbé Lemaître [1894-1966] in 1927; it was subsequently developed by George Gamow [1904-1968]. It was not accepted as a standard paradigm until well into the latter half of the twentieth century.

The Big Bang theory has been accepted by academia only after the presentation of the poorest quality of logical proof of any of science's standard models. An abomination and absurdity that has been a tremendous setback for Intelligent Inquiry. In 1948, Sir Fred Hoyle, a world renown physicist, who, with many other eminent scientists continues to question the validity of the Big Bang theory, mirthfully and derisively gave the theory its name. A name which has withstood much effort at being changed to something with a more auspicious genesis.

The Big Bang theory has seen better days. With the advent of the Hubble Space Telescope the Big Bang theory will no longer present an obstacle to the recognition of an infinite Reality. A conclusion of Hubble's findings is that the stars are older than the "Universe"; this will not long endure. Observed high-energy phenomena and the acceleration of galactic recession has stunned the world-class community of theoretical astrophysicists; . . . and, most other academic, theoretical physicists as well. There is nearly an absolute paucity of explanation. Standard paradigms don't suffice. There has begun a rumbling that a "new" physics is required. The fun has begun.

Back to the questions at hand, now that the backdrop becomes more definitive; and, takes on some color: Can it be proven that a god, or gods, exist?; or, Can it be proven that said gods do not exist?

The most fundamental questions: Why motion?; and, What are the properties of this seminal motion?; are the concerns of the Unified Concept and are beyond the scope of this writing. For now, it is enough to know that the salient details of the Unified Concept involve sinusoidal motion.

Thus, Reality's limits are determined by speed. The slower the speed, the more immense is Reality. Humans are subject to speeds that are, cosmically, considered very slow; and thus, an immense Cosmos. Earth rotates at about 1,000 miles per hour at the equator. This rotation is one of the slowest motions that humans are subject to during our Cosmic travels. The Earth rotates in one direction; moves about the sun in another direction; the Sun moves about the Milky Way, in yet another direction; and, the Milky Way is moving with its local cluster of galaxies, and so on. Each movement is exponentially, progressively more rapid.

And, it must not be overlooked that whatever speeds are found in the Cosmos, there are similar speeds within the atoms and their phorbs. For that which can ride a light wave, the Cosmos is considerably smaller than for the lone person, at night, standing atop a mountain contemplating the stars. And what is the size of the Cosmos for the phorb moving at speeds of light, and beyond, within an atom within a molecule within a cell within a mite that rides the gnat on the mountain observer who is contemplating the vastness of intergalactic space?

The reader has, hopefully, gradually been moving toward an understanding of the domain of Reality; the domain of motion from near motionlessness to infinite speeds. Speeds above that of light, which many scientists, including Einstein, have been well aware of since the 1930's, are within the domain of hyperReality. HyperReality, an area within Reality, accounts for most non-local phenomena which defies explanation from within conventional paradigms. An understanding will require a Paradigm Shift ! in awareness as it is now known.

The essence of speed, beginning with the Unified Concept, goes through many transformations which are the subject of the Equilibrium Theory of Reality, which is the application of Conceptual Relativity.

As a feeling for Reality is being acquired, Oneness is being defined as best it can. And thus, in conclusion . . . the proof, as it is, has been laid out.

The argument is circular. Only indirectly, by going around, and around, in great detail, can that which cannot be proven give up some of its identity. By knowing what something is not, is knowing something about what something is. Never to the last nit can Reality, or its alter ego UnReality, be known; however, it is possible to know all of it that will be necessary, from time-to-time, to modify the behavior of daily living. Little else matters. What does matter is that: Intelligent Inquiry universally blossoms as opposed to the oppression of the blind faith postulated by fundamentalists.

It is important that Science, Theology, and Philosophy be firmly grounded in the concepts of the Equilibrium Theory of Reality and Conceptual Relativity. And, for the more technically minded: the Unified Concept.

Such is Conceptualism.