Who/What is God? Does he even exist? Can we even know if he does or not? and if so, what's the point of knowing either way?

These are the main questions that this website is aimed at trying to answer. The reason I called it a house of prayers is because I'm not sure if there is anything more befitting to describe what I believe "prayers" are supposed to be - especially if you at least agree on a more general definition of  "prayer" as any practice believed to get a person closer to God. I don't know if you'll agree on everything my prayers will conclude at but I believe many if not all will at least come to agree on somethings as a better foundational understanding of the basic concepts governing our reality and our way of thinking about this topic. Hence, one of the early ideas we'll establish is what I believe was/is the intended meaning behind the phrase "God Is" in lieu of answering the question whether or not God exists. Because as we'll learn together, existence was always understood as a consequence of God's Existence (using "existence" loosely here). That is to say that we will show that a purer version of what "GOD" means that is closer to its original form is one of "necessity" rather than a subject of a person's belief or choice. 

Once we come to an agreement on what the concept of GOD is, at least as our starting "meeting ground", the question becomes whether this "GOD" who "IS" , i.e. whose existence isn't questionable, is actually involved in our daily affairs or at all beyond serving as the necessary idea needed for our understanding of existence in a meaningful way.

Because, FATE itself becomes understood as God's Will, or what "he's written". This and many other well known religiously sounding phrases will take on a more concrete meaning compared to what they often sound like today which is sadly towards the "unsubstantiated claims of religious institutions/doctrines". And without getting into my own religious beliefs or opinions on the present day religious institutions, we can derive our own secular understanding of these phrases based on what our newly agreed upon definition of GOD above will entail.

Hence our attention will then shift towards trying to answer whether or not God is "conscious" of us. As in whether or not he's capable of understanding us at least in a similar way to how we understand each other. That doesn't mean he's limited to this understanding or that this understanding humanizes him some bit. What this is asking is whether or not some of his "attention" translates into an awareness of us that can be "emulated" by our minds to be similar to how you and I understand each other. Hence, it's a question of whether or not he authored a dimension into the story where he acts like a human(ish) mind with respect to us individually and collectively. For example the question of whether he's listening to our thoughts and understands them the way we intend for them to be understood. That means questioning if he understands the English of our internal monologue eventhough he's not some person who learned or speaks in a language that would be comparable to English.

While this step is comprehensive , it would be only the first condition before even proposing the question of whether or not he intends to or wants to or cares enough to "guide" us in the way that would actually be beneficial to a person who adheres to such law. In otherwords, if he can or does communicate with us, is it possible to interpret whatever we prove to be divine "speech" from our perspective into a LAW or RELIGIOUS LAW that would be effectively and proven to be a GUIDING FORCE, i.e. a path that parallels what religious schools teach as the Righteous Path. And if so, what would this Path actually translate into in the context of human affairs. Clearly the concepts of righteousness, morality, uprightness and pretty much all ideas currently confined to religious settings don't mean their literal interpretations.

And once we can prove that in fact he's always in the state of guiding all events of creation, including human affairs, we can use the same methods of proving that to show that there is a more unique, less variable path that in a technical sense of the definition means what we would consider the righteous path to be if we believed in any religion that preaches some version of it. Hence, there is a path that god has outlined within his Creation story that's meant/predestinedd/walked by the Mind that certifies its Identity as the one that that fits the definition of a Chosen One. And like many of the concepts we've mentioned, this "straight path" that is walked by what is considered "chosen" is an Absolute Idea. As in everyone believes in some definition of this path with a relativistic conceptual description of what it means when someone is on it. Hence, it's basically the path of those you envy or consider as Role Models in life in hopes you would be "lucky" like you believe them to be. Now this can be yourself obviously, but that's still based on someone else's ideas of success which is also a relative version of a pure abstract identification of that version of success. For example material wealth would be an example that a lot of people cosider the Lucky path of the ighteous (loved by God, successfully adhering to his law in the way that earns them happiness). Thus role models would be people like Rockefellars, Elon Musk, warren buffet etc.... while even these role models are elative embodiments of the idea of Amassing Great Wealth, which I'm sure has many corresponding Deities in many religions. That means the task is simila to many other instances along this pilgramige, requires us to discern the IDEA of the RIGHTEOUS PATH that is Least Vaiable in terms of Unpredictability of the Law we derived it from. Hence, ensuring that the Interval we're considering and Source of this Happiness we associate with Righteousness are actually the versions accurately defined by the Law that is we consider Most Certain/reliable etc...And the Law we'll be discussing, if we get to, is the one based on the ideas that are exclusively unanimously agreed upon. Hence, it's a type of religious law designed from the ground up to be as free from relativity/assumptions/uncertainty as possible.

And the reason I said if we get to is because I have reasons to consider that the idea of "Least Vaiability" is meant to be exclusively evaluated and identified with respect to the "Masculine" portion of our Mind. There is a threshold for this desire for complete CERTAINTY that conflicts with the original intended desire that set us off on this journey to get closer to God (by learning his law/mind/name/etc..) in the first place which was the desire to be Happy which comes from the desire to Love ourselves which translates into knowledge/belief that we're on the best path to make the most people love us the most out of all alternative paths/decisionsequences. And that is just a longer, bit more technical way of saying that the satisfaction of the Feminine side of our mind becomes less CERTAIN the more CERTAIN we are that we're following God's Law. That's the part of our mind with different types of Belief System and who experiences the version of Happiness/Joy that we normally consider as the Successful/Lucky state of Human beings. And hence I am at a point where Less Variability may be interfering with the main reason and the intended beneficiary of our efforts that made the sacrifices to seek the LAW of God worthwhile in the first place. Because greater understanding meant greater certainly (less uncertainty/less variability) that our priorities and decisions are the best relative to ourselves in the story and hence what will lead to the most happiness possible as a ratio of the sacrifices.

That makes pursuing this Law just to simply prove myself and who I am to you despite the absent desire for it on your/everyone else's part would make the Certainty of Happiness impossible if I proved my identity with the Certainty afforded by completing the Law of God on my own. And that comes with a very different attitude and perspective which may or may not include continuing my work mentally and/or as attempts to converting my ideas into prayers others may comprehend.