on realities; the base of the omnipotent

what is truth to a creature that derives meaning where none exists?

i begin my argument facing a terminological quandary: the definition of reality.
i choose to talk separately of a "universal reality" and a "personal reality", although for most people these concepts are inseparable and inviolate. universal reality consists of facts, whereas personal reality consists of interpretations.

to illustrate the difference, let us take the example of the word "painting".
as a physical artifact, the word describes a material with colour on it. in a world of facts, we cannot distinguish forms and colours, nor the intent with which those colours were placed. colour itself is the interpretation of a returned wavelength, rendering the visual quality of any item imaginary. what we are left with in universal reality is an item that humans may or may not look at.

to clarify: the object "painting" has no meaning in the absence of a personal interpretation with which to derive it.

i feel i must specify here that nowhere in this text will i imbue the word "meaning" with "higher purpose". this is not a discussion of spirituality.

we are objects, flesh and bone, and interact with other objects.
in universal reality, these interactions occur without narrative. two humans making noises at each other does not indicate communication - we can see this in the case of two humans speaking different languages. a human who gets on a bus is not necessarily going anywhere - from the perspective of universal reality there can be no concept of past or future, only a continuous stream of physical states.

universal reality is not something humans beings can be comfortable conceptualizing, so we're going to move our focus onto magic and miracles instead.

the human brain performs two very important functions that form the basis of personal reality. the brain filters the infinite barrage of noise that we are constantly bombarded with to produce pictures, sounds and sensations, and does this through learned interpretation of key signals and symbols that exist in both the universal and personal realities.

once the input has been reduced to manageable parts through the filtering process, the brain compiles the data and interprets a picture of the universe. it is this interpretation that develops a subjective entity ("self" - i ignore memory here, and refer to an instantaneous "self". think amnesia.) and a complete universe to go with it.

the interpretive and filtering functions are "history": learned patterns that provide the ability to understand the present.

let us redefine a Very Big Word without actually changing its meaning: the complex mechanism that each of us possesses to construct our personal realities is god. god created your universe, without god there is no meaning. without your personal reality as an overlay to the universal reality, there can be no meaning to your existence nor any experience of it.

this is not to say that one's personal reality isn't "true": quite the opposite, one's personal reality is completely real and always true and accurate, regardless of its intersection with the universal reality, and with no obligation to intersect in any way with the personal realities of others.

the wonder of god is that the entire process is completely transparent, authentic and believable. the only "truth" that can be argued over justifiably must be fact based - in other words, must demonstrate a complete disregard for meaning. conversely: any meaning, by sheer virtue of its nature, must be true.

for convenience's sake, i have used the word god - but any concept of godhead fits the bill.
what is important to note is that once a human being has a sense of self, he cannot honestly consider himself an atheist. the statement "there is no god" is derived from the confusion between the universal and the personal.
god exists, god exists only in the personal, god is the personal.
one's personal reality is one's entirety, essentially inseparable from one's world-view. one's reality is real, and god is involved every step of the way.

in order to successfully communicate there must be - if not real, then at least perceived - overlap between personal realities. not having overlap makes for a frustrating and futile experience; to create overlap requires cognitive contamination.

this poses both a problem and its solution. when we doubt something, we automatically seek confirmation from external sources. any external source with regards meaning is inherently subjective, and so we either prove or disprove higher-order concepts based on levels of cognitive contamination and majority rule.

it is impossible to force change in another's personal reality via communication, and so we resort to communication on the level of universal reality, which almost invariably manifests as violence.

on the other hand, we are blessed with an imaginary utopia in which we can communicate perfectly, and debate and negotiate all our conflicts away.

to take a step back, however, would allow us to realize that neither of these scenarios is necessary. the realization that one's personal reality is accurate and fully real while simultaneously acceptably at odds with universal reality would afford one the understanding required to be truly tolerant of any lack of overlap between personal realities.

of course, if one of two people does not share this understanding, then we can anticipate both cognitive dissonance and a readiness to enforce his personal reality via any means necessary. in this case, tolerance from the one who does understand becomes counter-productive and contest becomes mandatory.

a world in which all humans have very similar personal realities would be utopian, boring and extremely dangerous. we all seek constant confirmation of the accuracy of our perception, and would be forced to either control others' perception (in spite of theirs being entirely valid) or hide our own (again, in spite of ours validity).

this is the outcome of confusion between the two realities, this is the underlying cause of all damage done by both religious and anti-religious institutions.

humans beings will create their own realities, choose their own perceptions of godhead, and this is a miracle and a gift to be celebrated. free will may be debatable, but freedom of choice in perception must be protected at all costs (ideally, provided it harms the least number of other humans).
it is impossible to define sanity or insanity, truth or lies, right or wrong in a universal reality, and understanding that from within our own personal realities might help make the world a better place. or it might not, i most certainly am not in a place to tell the future according to my personal universe.

i can only say for sure that my world is a better place for grasping this, because i've finally found god. and i will fight to my very last to defend my right to choose what i believe.