On the Presumption of Theism

The question of the existence of G-d is one that many people are quick to weigh in on, but it is vexed and misunderstood. One of the principle misunderstandings involves the inclination to regard G-d as a material object, and to argue for or against his existence by reference to whether there is evidence for G-d in the sense that there is evidence for the CEO of a large corporation. Perhaps there is a rumour going around that this CEO secretly watches employees at work, and will reward any employee observed to be hard-working with a large annual bonus, but no employee has ever actually seen this CEO... Do they really exist, or are they a myth promulgated to keep employees in awe, and towing the cooperate line? Well, if we hire a skilled detective to conduct an investigation, and sift through the documentary and other empirical evidence, we can soon find out one way or another. But what if the CEO is defined as "immaterial", and as both "immanent and transcendent"? Sherlock Holmes himself would be hard pressed to conduct an investigation into the existence of such an individual. More significantly, does it even make sense to say that something is "immaterial", and "immanent and transcendent" at the same time? In this note it is explained why it does make sense to say this, and it is argued that G-d, so defined, is a condition of the existence of everything else.