In the previous post, we established that knowledge acquisition operates through two and only two modalities: revelation and reorganization. We defined revelation as the intersection of a conscious observer and an observable entity, resulting in the disclosure of pre-existing truths. We defined reorganization as the human capacity to leverage revealed properties and behaviors of nature to create new things.

A critical observation emerged from that analysis: reorganization is dependent on revelation. You cannot leverage what you have not first discovered. The automobile requires prior knowledge of combustion, friction, and the behavior of round objects. The airplane requires prior knowledge of aerodynamics. Every human invention relies on properties of nature that were revealed before the invention was conceived.

This post will test the limits of that dependency. The question before us is whether reorganization—even in its most abstract forms—can escape the constraints of the natural order. If it can, then humans possess the capacity to create transcendent concepts. If it cannot, then the implications for the question of God become profound.

Mathematics is often held up as the pinnacle of human abstraction. It deals in concepts that seem entirely divorced from the physical world—imaginary numbers, infinite series, non-Euclidean geometries. Surely, the argument goes, mathematics demonstrates that human thought can transcend the constraints of nature.

This argument does not hold under scrutiny.

Mathematics cannot be derived from a priori knowledge or reason alone. Even the most abstract mathematical systems cannot exist without number systems that are fundamental to them. The need to quantify objects is foundational to the discovery and application of higher levels of abstraction. These higher levels of abstraction do not exist independently of the number systems that allow them to function.

To further prove this point, no abstract mathematics can escape the confines of the natural world or the reality in which it is based. Even the most abstract mathematical expressions can be falsified by reasoning through their logical or illogical expression. These processes of reasoning are based on axioms that are derived from the behavior of the natural world that we live in.

Were this in any way false, then math itself would be transcendent.

A proper conceptualization to test this lies in a simple question: can abstract mathematics exist as a singular abstraction without more fundamental elements that it is composed of? The answer is most assuredly no. Even in their semantic expressions, the most abstract mathematical concepts rely on the language of number systems.

Mathematics is a reorganization. It is a powerful one, certainly. But it does not transcend the natural order. It operates within it.

Music presents a similar case. The logical arrangement of notes into compositions that stir the human soul seems to suggest something beyond mere material manipulation. Yet music, too, is constrained by the properties of nature.

Music as the logical arrangement of notes is based on a revelation of the behavior of harmonics and dissonance in sound. Without the awareness of the production of sound and the fact that it can be arranged in a way that produces harmonies or dissonances, then the reorganization of it in such a way that it would produce a pleasant sound would not be possible.

Staff and sheet music borrows from the axioms of mathematics to achieve its standardization of meaning and its representation of subdivision. The octave is not a human invention; it is a property of sound waves that humans discovered. The relationships between frequencies that produce consonance or dissonance are properties of physics, not products of human creativity.

As we can see, reorganizing music does not create a transcendent form of knowledge. It is still confined within the rules of the universe we live in, and is dependent on the nature of sound in the universe.

Perhaps art offers a stronger case for transcendence. After all, artists routinely create things that do not exist in the natural world. Surely the unicorn, the dragon, the sphinx—these demonstrate that human imagination can exceed the boundaries of nature?

Not so.

Popular abstractions from art do not escape the confines of reorganization and do not form transcendent entities. The unicorn, while not empirically observable, is not transcendent because it is formed from the amalgamation of natural entities that bear characteristics of horses and horned animals. The yeti has resemblance to many behaviors and attributes of animals in the animal kingdom, and none that are derived ex nihilo.

Chimeras often are formed from the amalgamation of multiple living organisms. The sphinx, jackalope, manticore, griffin, and hippogriff all bear resemblance from existing ideas or living organisms. Many of these artistic expressions have no basis in reality or are the product of mythology, but absolutely none of them borrow from concepts that cannot be found in reality, lived experience, or preceding reorganizations.

In other words, none exist as a product or amalgamation of concepts that we cannot find in the real world, despite their artificial nature.

The most fantastical creations of the human imagination are still reorganizations. They combine existing elements in novel ways, but they do not create new elements from nothing. They do not transcend.

An empirical analysis will reveal to the critical thinker that not a single human invention has ever created something of higher magnitude than the properties and behaviors of the natural order that governs them. Human inventions do not instantiate matter ex nihilo. They do not instantiate new universes, or subsequent transcendent creations from that matter.

There is no evidence to suggest otherwise. The functions of the airplane are not made possible by transcendent properties, but by the properties of nature that are governed by physics. Computer functions utilize the natural properties of electricity and would not be possible without them. Computers are certainly not enabled by transcendent means.

There is not a single human invention that is created by humans that exceeds the natural order that governs them. While there may be, in some sense, a novel arrangement of those properties to create efficient uses of nature, and to improve or worsen the lives of humans, their outputs and their capabilities do not exceed the natural systems that govern them.

I want to pause here and extend an invitation to the reader.

If any of the above is falsified, then we have created something that transcends nature. If that is true, then humans are truly creators in the metaphysical sense.

Think carefully. Can you identify a single human creation—whether concrete or abstract—that exceeds the properties and behaviors of nature? Can you name one invention, one concept, one artistic expression that is not ultimately derived from revealed properties of the natural world?

I am not asking rhetorically. I am inviting you to try.

Consider computers. They leverage electricity, semiconductor physics, and logical operations—all revealed properties of nature. Consider nuclear energy. It harnesses the binding forces within atoms—a revealed property. Consider genetic engineering. It manipulates the molecular structures of DNA—revealed properties that existed long before we discovered them.

What about virtual reality? Still constrained by the physics of light, the biology of human perception, the electrical properties of circuits. What about artificial intelligence? Still constrained by computational logic, electrical impulses, and mathematical operations.

Can you think of anything? Anything at all?

I submit that you cannot. And if you cannot, then the implications are staggering.

If the above is not falsified, it raises a series of questions about the myths that are perpetuated against religions—primarily that humans invented God.

The claim that God is a social construct presupposes that humans have the capacity to create transcendent concepts through reorganization. But we have just demonstrated that reorganization is absolutely constrained by the properties and behaviors of the natural universe. We have demonstrated that as a matter of accruing knowledge, reorganization as a human construct is incapable of generating creations that exceed the behaviors and attributes of nature or its laws.

If humans cannot create anything that transcends nature, then humans cannot create the concept of a transcendent God.

This is not a minor point. This is the crux of the argument.

The detractors of faith claim that God is invented. But invention is reorganization, and reorganization cannot produce transcendence. Therefore, the concept of a transcendent God cannot be the product of human invention.

If God is not invented, then God can only be revealed.

We will explore the implications of this conclusion in the next post.