How To Measure God And Personal Power

However noble the concept of 'the encyclopaedia anyone can edit' may be, in practice Wikipedia falls down for that very same reason. 

The best cyclopaedias are written, overseen, proofread and edited by experts, pundits and leading academia in every category. Although the president of the local footy club may indeed provide keen insights into the regional competition they can hardly be regarded as the most reliable knowledge base of the global game. 

Likewise, Wonkypedia cannot be considered an authority on noumena (non-phenomena). Noumena is a Kantian term coined by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant to refer to 'the thing in itself', devoid of outward manifestation. Because science is based on observation and data collection, by such definition noumena is non-scientific. 

Therefore God, by a similar definition, is non-scientific. God is practically 100% noumenal, i.e. 'in the eye of the beholder'. There is a saying that God only appears in front of believers and hides His form from the non-faithful (the literal meaning of infidel). Atheists demand proof of God's existence, of course of which there is none; simultaneously reinforcing their beliefs yet at the same time strengthening the argument for noumena. As the saying goes, 'absence of proof is not proof of absence'.

The theosophical reasoning behind why it is necessary for God to hide goes as follows:

Let's say the kiddies are playing dress-ups. The eldest son pretends to be the father, the eldest daughter the mother, and the rest of the siblings and friends play the part of naughty children. This can only convincingly take place if the parents are absent - for if they were present, the child actors would cringe in their rôles. 

In the same way, for the individual spirit souls to play out the false dream of material life seeking happiness independent of any supreme authority, this can only be convincing in the absence of any such authority. So God hides, that we may continue with the fanciful delusion that we answer to no-one. Otherwise there is no meaning to 'independence'. 

Actually we are never truly independent. Whatever independence we achieve is an illusion granted by our Lord, just like the fanciful playing of children playing dress-ups. 

We depend on air to breathe but we have no control over the atmosphere. We need water but can't control weather. We need sunshine for warmth but can't control that either. None of the force majeure do we have control over. We can control little things, like how much sugar to put in our tea, when to turn up to work, which route to take on the roads, whether to return a phone call. 

If it is by those minutiae that we define our lives then our lives are indeed trivial. This is where Whakypedia comes in. Wankerpedian editors may war unendingly over moot points that really have little influence on the world outside their desk. They are, in effect, 'playing God' in their tiny little worlds, incapable of allowing opposing opinions to breathe precious air. Who made them 'God'? They did, themselves in a self-indulgent display of excess hubris. 

Look, if God wants to thump His chest saying "I am the best", I don't have a problem with that. It's when pissweak little Johnny down the road does it that I take offence.