In light of Gödel, atheists must prove that Oneness is not at the cause of existence.  The theologians relying only upon faith would seem to have the high ground refuting this argument; however, there can be little solace in winning by default.

The state of academia concerning proofs of any nature, let alone, the proof or disproof of Oneness, is tenuous at best.  The academic disciplines of Science, Theology, and Philosophy have raised obfuscation to an art level.  Their argot is so incomprehensible that none are any longer capable of sustained communication with one another; let alone with the general public.  The situation continues to get worse; there is little effort, beyond tokenism, to change.  So much the better for proponents to counter attacks from outsiders upon each discipline's logic . . . or, lack thereof.

One discipline relies upon man-made gods; another of the disciplines relies upon gods of blind faith; and, the third discipline, philosophy, will take either, or any, position . . . and, at some point, equally defends them all.  Now, which of these disciplines should be relied upon?  It is suspected that the answer is much the same as the answer to the question: Which religion is the true religion?  If only one religion can be the true religion; than, most likely . . . all are fallible.

In philosophy, two salient concepts, of quite basic, simple composition, that are diametrically opposed, continue to bedevil philosophers; these are the concepts of determinism and indeterminism.  If philosophers cannot agree concerning these fundamental concepts on which most premises of their discipline are ultimately founded, there can be little merit to any other conclusions that they may champion . . . beyond exercises of the mind and general platitudes intended for the amusement of the unenlightened . . . and the authors thereof.

Time and enlightenment are not very kind to philosophic thought.

In physics, mathematics underlie all current theories.  And, of course, mathematical theorems are the basis of mathematics.  And, an acceptable theorem or paradigm is considered to be something that is very nearly provable.  Yet, Gödel destroyed the argument of mathematical proofs and in so doing he also undermined all the theories of physics.

Gödel's iconoclasm with respect to unfrocking the cult of physics, is not all bad: as any world-class, theoretical astrophysicist is aware, and jealously guards from laymen: the entire foundation of current physics' theory is firmly planted within the metaphysical.  No one within academe currently understands the "why" of Reality: in other words, the unification, or precedence, of: any of the fundamental forces, space, time, speed, and the circularly defined dimensions . . . or, the origin and destination of light . . . much less the etiology and prognosis of life.

Theology, perhaps, makes the least assailable argument.  Theology blatantly offers no proofs, states that there can be none beyond human aberration, and insists on the worship of faith alone.  A faith, incidentally, that is defined by those demanding it.

To minimize faith, whether secular or religious . . . is to maximize intelligence and . . . happiness.  Confusion, consciously or subconsciously, is a by-product of faith; confusion attenuates the senses.

Science, Theology, and Philosophy, which were once one, are now continuously diverging from one another . . . yet, they belong where they began . . . as a single discipline.  After all, they are all concerned with exactly the same fundamental issues: Where have we come from?; Where are we going?; and, How should we comport in between?  The high priests of each discipline are more concerned with control and sinecure than they are interested in Intelligent Inquiry; hubristic fault seems to lie equally with each discipline.

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 primary academic 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.  "Limited information...without proof" defines quite accurately the current state of academic Science, Theology, and Philosophy. 

Thus, the arguments contained, herein, 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?; are intended to succinctly dismiss the current disciplines of academia, and their endless ruminations, as a probable source for a definitive answer concerning the examination of the subject being discussed: A Proof of God.  This dismissal is not, entirely, the fault of the individual academician; it is the fault of inbred, collegial structure as well as the academicians' limited insight beyond that which is peer approved.  A group approach is not conducive for the productive promotion of paradigm shifts.  And, to understand Oneness, a paradigm shift is required.

However, the search for relevant answers should not end because of academia's dearth of alternative thinking beyond its standard models and paradigms.  In fact, for those that are intuitive, an indication of where to seek the answers to the evolution of creation, may have, already, become apparent.

But first, at this point, as an aside: there is some importance for emphasizing that Reality is perpetual.  Perpetual indicates something impossible, an unreality, a singularity; therefore, perpetual it is a synonym for the infinite . . . Infinity.  It must be stated, without elaboration within this short discourse, that a finite Reality would moot any argument concerning Oneness.  Thus, by substituting equivalent definitions, Reality and UnReality, are the ultimate duality; and, are reciprocals of one another . . . an apparent conundrum created by shared loci.

The current theory for a finite Reality is usually 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 as compared to any of science's other standard models.  The Big Bang theory is 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, on behalf of its adherents, to 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 no longer presents an unscalable obstacle to the recognition of an infinite Reality.  An early conclusion derived from the Hubble Space Telescope's findings, based upon current standard model theory, is that the stars are older than the "Universe"; this interpretation of observed data and theory will not long endure; however, it does illustrate problems with reconciling the Big Bang theory to observation..

Observed high-energy, Cosmic, background radiation; inexplicable gamma ray bursts, found seemingly without limit; and, the acceleration of galactic recession has stunned the world-class community of theoretical astrophysicists . . . and, most all other academic, theoretical physicists as well.  There is an overwhelming paucity of explanation, or any alternative hypotheses, beyond the contrived Inflation theory; and, an occasional comment that a "new" physics may be a necessity.  Standard paradigms not only don't suffice; they obfuscate the progress toward understanding Reality.  Starting fifteen to twenty years ago there were occasional lone cries from academia, quickly muffled, that a "new" physics is required; today the rumbling has taken on the nature of a crescendo.  The fun has begun.

Black Hole theory approaches its near antithesis, Big Bang theory, in its blatant absurdity.  Black Hole theory is derived from mathematical interpretations based upon fundamental errors of General Relativity theory, which was formulated when little was known concerning the Cosmos.  It can now be concluded, easily, that which Einstein was always well aware of . . . that the theory of General Relativity poorly represents the fundamentals of Reality.  One only has to look at the absurdity of "action-at-a-distance"; the enigma of exotic dark-matter; accelerating, "flat," galactic expansion; and the sinusoidal nature of all fundamental phenomena to question the relevance of the theory of General Relativity . . . even the "fabric" of space-time is a "stretch."

Back to the questions at hand, now that the backdrop becomes more definitive; and, it perks up with the addition of some provocative controversy: Can it be proven that a god, or gods, exist?; or, Can it be proven that said gods do not exist?

Oneness being beyond Reality can not be known from within Reality; however, a better understanding of this unreachable singularity is possible by approaching its limit which is defined, simply, as beyond Reality.  Thus, to approach the limit of Oneness, it is necessary to define, with much precision, Reality, which is what Oneness is not.

To define Reality in more detail: note that the fundamental constructs of everything within Reality, which are light, subatomic particles, and Pulsoids, are in perpetual motion; and, are associated with complex, relative, sinusoidal oscillations.

Even ellipses, the curves of Gravity, which fundamental shape underlies the internal dynamics of Pulsoids, are generated by sine waves; a relationship that Einstein futilely pursued for most of his lifetime.  A sine wave describes an oscillation; something that moves back and forth in a prescribed manner, which is set by the non-additive, indivisible nature of Infinity.  Oscillation; manifested as sinusoidal: sliding, swinging and vibrating; is the hallmark of Reality . . . and the proof of Reality's genesis from Infinity.

The most fundamental questions: Why seminal motion?; and, What are the properties, or structure, of this motion?; are the concerns of the Unified Concept; and, to a lesser extent, the Equilibrium Theory of Reality, and Conceptual Relativity; all of which are beyond the scope of this presentation.

For now, it is enough to know that the salient details of the Unified Concept concern the creation of Pulsoids, or pulsing ellipsoids, which involve sinusoidal motion which ultimately evolves to matter of a solitonic nature; phenomena associated with exotic dark-matter; and, subsequent gravitational force.  Also, the structure of Pulsoids establishes a proof of "one" which removes the major difficulty required for mathematical proof as postulated by Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem.

The discipline that studies the structure of Pulsoids, and the internal structure of light is referred to as Unimetry.  Unimetry demonstrates that the critical coalescence of Pulsoids produces four phorbs, which consist of three solitons each.  The formation of phorbs is the essence of exotic dark-matter and the genesis of the "compression" that underlies the gravitational effect and that culminates with the formation of . . . atoms, which manifests as the phenomena of quasars and gamma ray bursts.

The Equilibrium Theory of Reality describes a repetitious process of coalescence, compression, and dissipation, which are the perpetual processes which sustain Reality.

Conceptual Relativity relates to the oscillating actions of the twelve solitonic constructs of Pulsoids.

So, now! Reality is motion; therefore, UnReality, Infinity, and Oneness are motionlessness; otherwise, they would be Reality.  And, motionlessness is no different than the maximum conceivable speed; because, motionlessness as an absolute, or a singularity, must be . . . Infinity.  This duality of motionlessness and maximal speed may appear as being counterintuitive for those without a strong mathematical background concerning the nature of Infinity's singularity and dual locus.  There is only one singularity . . . or, one Oneness . . . or, one Infinity; if there is an approachable, but unreachable, limit at each extreme of speed than those limits must be congruent.

Thus, this congruency explains the structural duality of gravitational action from the apparent domains of the infinite as well as the infinitesimal.

And, thus, it follows that Reality's limits are determined by speed.  The slower the speed, the more immense is the perception of Reality.  Reality is relativistic.  Humans are subjected to speeds that are, Cosmically, considered very slow; and thus, humans perceive 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 subjected to during their 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 progressively and exponentially 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 solitonic phorbs.  For that which can ride a light wave, the Cosmos appears 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 oscillating solitons, within a phorb, that are 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-top observer who is contemplating the vastness of intergalactic space?

The Cosmic and subatomic environment that emanates from Oneness consists of relativistic oscillations of all manner, at once, everywhere . . . omnipresence.

The reader, hopefully, gradually, has been moving toward an understanding of the vast and minuscule domain of Reality; the domain of motion from near motionlessness to motion near that of 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, a realm within Reality, accounts for most non-local phenomena which defies explanation when utilizing the concepts of conventional paradigms.  An understanding of the Cosmos, the total environment of human beings, requires a paradigm shift in scientific, theological, and philosophical awareness as it is now perceived.

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 an application of Conceptual Relativity.

As these thoughts instill an essence of understanding Reality, Oneness is being defined, also, as best it can.  The locus of Oneness is defined as Reality's approachable, unreachable limit.  And thus, in conclusion . . . the proof as originally sought . . . as it is . . . has been laid out.

To prove Oneness, a theory must first prove its reciprocal . . . Reality.  To prove Reality a theory must begin with utmost simplicity, a motion, and demonstrate that the simplicity contains all the complexities as found within Reality.

The argument to prove Oneness is, of necessity, 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 more of what something is not, is knowing ever more about what something unknowable is.

Never, to the last argument, can Reality, or its alter ego UnReality, be known; however, it is possible to know enough of UnReality that may be required, from time-to-time, to modify the behavior of daily living so as to maximize the potential of happiness within our environment.  Little else matters.  What, of importance, does matter is that: Intelligent Inquiry universally blossoms for its own sake; as opposed to the oppression of massive, blind faith which is most often postulated by fundamentalists of all stripes . . . those promoting secular faith as well as religious faith.

The goal of intelligence is one with A Proof of God, which is to minimalize a reliance upon faith.  Faith is defined as that which is not supported by Intelligent Inquiry, philosophic logic, scientific method, or observation.

As Oneness is understood, there is no reasonable cause for the crutch and control of fundamentalist concepts requiring a faith concerning gods of anthropomorphic derivation.

Oneness is without the signature of human beings . . . consciousness . . . and design.

As an understanding of Oneness crystallizes, faith diminishes to a modicum.  A belief requiring an abundance of faith is the abomination; not the subject of that belief . . . god/God.  By definition there must be a creator if there is a creation; and Reality certainly is continually undergoing creation.  Oneness, which is non-anthropic, preordains Reality.

To maximize Individualism and the freedom of one's own thoughts and actions, which is defined as happiness . . . Oneness must be known and understood without the requirement of an abundance of faith.  Secular faith, a belief in academe's gods of physics, is an aid to understanding that soon impresses, as a weakness, that which it was intended to support . . . an understanding of Reality.

Again, it is important, for the general welfare of all life that Science, Theology, and Philosophy are one with each other.  This unification requires an understanding of the concepts of: The Equilibrium Theory of Reality; Conceptual Relativity; and, for those who are technically minded, the Unified Concept, which bridges Reality and UnReality.

Such is Conceptualism.