An Atheist Proves The Existence of God

I live in many houses, under many roofs, on many floors. I live with the windows that see out of the house, and the blinds that pull them shut. I live with the brand new paint fumes, and the peeling wallpaper rustling as the air conditioner whirs to life. I live with the best up coffee tables, plasma screen TVs, and the mold eaten shower curtains. I live with the yogurt stocked in the fridge, and the extra toilet paper in the hall closet. I live with the photographs of past trips to Mexico, and the books left unread on the night stand. I live with many people. I live in many houses.

I throw things I live with into bags when I move houses— only necessary things I only have only one of, and cannot replace. Things used to be of more importance. I had bags of makeup, bags for extra clothing, bags for shoes, and other types of things that can be found in any of my houses. If there's one thing that can be said about kids who come from separated  families, we are very good at packing up our lives into small bags. 

Over the years I learned that I can survive in any house, with any things, and any people so long as I carry with me things that I perceive to be wholly necessary for my existence, that I can only get in one place or have only one of. This begs two immediate questions. Namely, what is wholly necessary for my existence? And more simply, what can I only get in one place or have only one of? 

I will answer these questions first in a way that is compatible to my moving houses analogy. 

I have one pair of glasses, that I always pack in my bag because I have poor eyes, and they improve my vision. But I am not blind, and glasses merely help me see, but are not necessary to sight itself. Sure, my vision is improved with glasses, but I'm not deprived of sight if I forget to wear them. The fact that I can technically see without glasses makes them a luxury, and not a necessity. I have one cell phone, but the houses that I go to both have similar things, or other things that provide the same function such as computers, landlines, and iPads. If my house can't afford such technology, there are always libraries and community centers that can substitute for the function of my phone.  Therefore, if I consider the functions of my phone to be a necessity, I have other alternatives, making the phone itself unnecessary even though I only have one.

I could go through most trivial items in this way, and prove that their functions are not fully unique, because other items serve a similar or the same purpose, making no one item essentially unique and therefore necessary for my existence.

It also stands to reason that I must make acknowledgment of the other people who live in my houses. I have one father, one mother, and one brother. My mother and father, although I consider them necessary to my physical existence (ie: birth) are not necessary in my current physical existence because I am able to live separate lay from each one. My brother, now 23, is not legally  obligated to switch houses with me. Given that I must live in both houses, and he does not, I cannot count on him moving with me even if I command him. I  can only take myself to both houses. 

Likewise, familial roles such as that of a parent, can be filled by parent-like influence in a child's life. Simply completing the function of giving birth does not make someone a mother, as a child adopted at birth can consider his adopted mother to be his true mother even though she did not give birth to him. This child would technically have two mothers, making the role of mother not fully unique, as another person can serve the same function. Following the same hypothetical, an adopted child can have multiple fathers, and multiple step and biological siblings, making none of their roles explicitly unique, and each one of them technically unnecessary because the function of father/sibling can be filled by another. 

Friend relations are similar in the sense that I can technically have as many friends as there are people I can physically meet. Therefore the idea of a friend is completely unique and no one friend is necessary, because there are billions of potential friends to come in contact with. 

Given that no physical thing I can bring with me, and no person who's role is intimate with my life is unique, and therefore necessary, I still have not answered either one of my questions. If both inanimate things and other people are unnecessary, what is? 

If I switch houses with the absence of material things, I go alone. If I switch houses without other people, I am alone. But I cannot switch houses without myself. I cannot have more than one of myself, because I am of singular mind, and singular train of thought which makes me a singular being. I cannot exist separate from myself, and there is nothing that could fill my mind if it wasn't my self. Therefore, because nothing could fill the function of operating my thoughts, I am unique to that function and therefore my self is necessary for my own existence.

One may argue that there are other things necessary for my existence, in terms of my survival. Given that my body is a physical thing, it needs food and water to function; this is true. In order to function, my physical body has needs, but my self is separate. I could leave the house, remove all my clothes, cut off my hand, and I would still be myself. My self would remain entirely in tact, even if I deprived my physical body, or mutilated it beyond repair. I will continue to be myself no matter what circumstances, or needs aren't met for my physical body to function. This is because my self is not physical, and in no physical way can I remove it from myself. My self interacts with the physical world through my physical body, and is not a "part" like a limb or organ. 

Another possible refutation is inside the idea of birth. In order for my to exist, I had to have been born. (Note: reproduction is a goal of every living thing. Plants exist to seed, and most animals reproduce to continue the species. The reproductive system is built into living things, and the reproductive system's function is to reproduce. Pregnancy and birth is a function of being a physical human being.) But my mother, whose role is not unique, logically is not capable of producing something that is entirely unique like my soul. In order for something to create another thing, it must bear some resemblance to it's maker, and my soul is entirely unique. I do not argue that my mother has a self, but selfs are not physical, and therefore are not able to produce something that exists in the physical world. Because birth is a function of the body, and the self is not part of the body, the mother's physical body could not have created a non physical self.

I have new questions to answer now. If my self isn't a part of me, what is it? And if my mother didn't create my self at birth, then why does it exist?

A self is a complex thing of thought, and necessity. A self seems to be realized at the moment of birth by the body. A self would seem to end at the moment of death, but because selfs cannot be impacted by the physical functions of the body not being met, a self cannot die because death is something that happens to physical things when they stop functioning. And the self's only need is itself. If the self can't be created, and can't be destroyed in the physical world, the self is seemingly infinite, but we are only aware of it during our physical life. 

There are an infinite amount of physical lives possible in the universe, and an infinite amount of selfs realized for each physical life. However infinity never truly can exist in the physical world, because there cannot be an infinite amount of time between two points, so to get to now there must have been a beginning to the physical world, and likewise there will be an end. And selfs are not perfect, because they are all realized in a unique physical being, and serve a unique need for that particular being. There are an infinite amount of possible selfs, but because the physical realm can't hold infinity and we understand the concept of infinity — infinity must exist somewhere. 

However, infinity cannot exist in the realm of the self because if the selfs function is to fill need, something must have created need. And before the creation of need, and because the essence of self is need, something must have created the need for need. This something will have no need. It is the thing by which all need depends, and dependent on nothing itself because it is needless. Because it needs nothing in order to exist, it must have always existed, not out of necessity, but simply it is existence itself. It will be measured by time, but will be considered infinite because it stretches past the physical understanding of time. 

I could sit here, a rational being, with a rudimentary understanding of the Big Bang theory. I could start arguing for the absence of God, but the fact of the matter that the Big Bang could not have created "need" or "necessity" as I understand it. At most, it could have created cause and effect relationships. Likewise, an inanimate physical occurrence like the Big Bang could not possess the ability to give other things functions. It could not create anything other than other physical things, because it was physical. Functions stem from purpose, from need, and if the function of the Big Bang was to create the universe, then it too was created in order for its function to be necessary. 

If God gave everything function, is that not God's function? No, because God is pure existence and pure function, with the absence of need. God is a concrete grounding for existence for both the self, and the physical being. 

All selfs, and all physical beings existence stem from God. Because God is infinite, the idea of possible infinite selfs and possible physical beings originates from God. And because the self and the physical being are realized/tied together, they are finite. My physical being is not unique, and is contingent on my self which is entirely unique. Because my self does not come from the physical realm, it must come directly from God, who is infinite. But God is pure function, and cannot dump my self into a physical body at my birth. If my body is dependent on my self and my self is dependent on God, and my body is tied to my self, then my self must be tied to God. 

So perhaps the physical world of beings, the world of self, and God are all interwoven as one. All physical beings, and all selfs are a unique piece of a needless God, and the father the tie from God, the less unique. It would go: God, self, physical body (animate), physical body (inanimate), intimate physical bodies being the least unique because they are the farthest from God. 

To answer my question, my self is not part of my body, my self is part of God. All selfs are part of God whose existence is infinite, as are all other physical beings whose existences are finite. Their existence are finite because they have needs, and are not necessity themselves like God is. 

Back to my analogy about moving from house to house. I need a lot of things, my body needs things to survive, and my self depends my body to stay alive to complete its function of being pure need. I like to think that I can go on depriving myself of my physical needs, and that I'll be fine because I'll still exist. But there is little meaning in just purely existence, and this is why as an atheist, I find little meaning in the existence of God.