Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 01:45:09 -0500
From: Nicholas Pantelopoulos 
Subject: Sad

Dear sir(s),
Forgive me for saying, you are one bunch of sad and bitter individuals. Don't get me wrong, I mean it in a good way.
I start off my letter with the statement above because I find it the most suitable to you.
There is nothing wrong with doubt and disbelief but this is one thing. Publicly taking people's faith and principles and sticking it up one's "butt" is totally different ( I am referring to your website's content). That is sick! So if you are trying to convince anyone that God exists not, first prove that you are not sick or, in the least, neither sad nor bitter.
If you want to argue that God does not exist, then prove it! Not with rhetoric, nor with scholastic dialectic, but empirically! Put Him under the microscope and prove to us once and for all, that He does not exist. We will then repeat the experiment in our labs and if we come to the same conclusion, then we can make you god! You are probably thinking that this is impossible. Well you are right.
You may not realize it, but you should when I point this out to you. Your atheism is based upon the very same principles of western Christian / philosophical theism. You use theistic concepts to negate not the real God, but the conceptualization of God. Your atheism does not prove or disprove anything because what you are actually fighting are ideological notions of God and not God the Entity. Let me spell this out: Your atheism disputes the existence of the "idea" of God. So, in essence your are disputing an idea, and not God the Being. This is like saying that the idea "Bill Clinton" does not exist, when everyone knows that he does, and was at one time, the president of the US. In essence, without theism, or theistic notions, your "atheism" is a tin drum. Nothing! A big fat zero.
Now if you understand the above, let me explain to you what God can only be. If God exists, then He is an entity, a being (when I use the term "He", don't freak out. You will see further down that God cannot be male or female), and as such, not an idea(l), as metaphysics presupposes. If you recall, metaphysics is based upon Aristotelian and Platonic philosophy. This philosophy became the basis for all scholastic theology in the west, beginning with (some say) Thomas Aquinas. Today metaphysics is a dead letter, since the Heisenberg theory, and Einstein's theory of relativity, proved that there are no absolutes in the universe. 
That God is the Being, is a well known fact in biblical theology. Remember that God spoke of Himself thus "I am who I am" (in Greek "o oon"=the one who is). So when the Bible speaks about God, it's in ontological terms.
Early Christianity had a purely ontological understanding of God, because it based upon the very same biblical perspective. Early Christian writers had a clear concept of what God was not, and this is why they used negation to formulate dogma. This is called the apophatic method. Early Christians knew philosophy much better than you and I, and also knew the traps to avoid. They were not stupid. Unfortunately today, most of us are. It was clear to them that God is so radically different, ontologically, that there was an unbridgeable chasm between God, the Creator, and the universe, the creation. This is why they used the terms Uncreated to refer to God, and creature, to refer to the universe. This means that there is no chance in eternity to be able to conceptualize and "define" what God is.
So how can you prove even to yourself, that God is?  You simply cannot. But God reveals "Himself" through "His" energies. This is a motion originating from God and not man. God can reveal His energies to man, but man is incapable of discovering God for himself and by himself.  Man is limited to his universe, God's universe does not overlap man's. Then how does God interact with man? What is the basis for the Judaic-Christian religion?
Well, I said that the two "universes" do not overlap. Early Christian theologians of the first 4 C, but not excluding till up to the 8th and 9th C AD, all shared the same view: that God interacts with and overlaps man's universe, not through His NATURE, but through His ENERGIES. The NATURA of God is unapproachable, unattainable, un-, un....His ENERGIES do indeed overlap. So when a mystic says that he experienced God, he has not experienced GOD in His nature, but his energies (radiance, cloud, etc, which are all the same experiences accounted by the prophets of the Bible, and the saints of the Church).
I have said a lot. This is just for you, food for thought. Don't be arrogant. In proverbs you will find the following phrase: "A fool once said to himself, God is not"