In chapter eight, verse six of Paul's letter to the Corinthians, Paul elaborates on the Shema, and this elaboration points out that God is the origin of all that exists while Christ is the means by which all exists.
there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one LORD, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
Here is the Shema:
Hear O Israel, Jehovah your Elohim are One
The first thing to note is that the origin of what exists cannot be the means of what exists. Secondly, if what exists, exists by means of existence, then the origin of existence cannot exist as that would necessarily negate it as the origin. This would produce what is known as an infinite regression. Paul has refuted that by pointing out that the origin and means are easily distinguished. He has also proven that God cannot exist except through existence (itself). I put it in parenthesis because existence has no self. Existence isn't anything.
The introduction to John's gospel also proves that God doesn't exist in that John doesn't begin with "in the beginning was God". Why? Because God is the origin of existence, and therefore cannot exist.
Here it should be noted that the terms "beginning" and "origin" are not synonymous. Things have a beginning, but existence has no beginning. Existence does have an origin, and that origin can be none other than non- existence. They are co-equal, and non-existence corresponds with transcendence which is synonymous with "god" that cannot be imagined, or articulated.
John points out that for all practical purposes, there is only 'the word'. By definition, words are not what they represent, mean, or define. They are essentially just symbols for what they signify.
When it comes to "God", the word signifies nothing, transcendence, or non-existence. There can be no referent for God other than the word itself, and this is why John's gospel is used by so many Christians as a means of proving the deity of Christ. The problem is that John doesn't play with the word so as to allow that interpretation. He only allows it insofar as there is no other way to worship God except by the word; in, with, and through the word.
It is only by creating a separate identity that one can worship God in the first place, but Paul has already pointed out that our identity is in Christ, and as icons of God, it makes no sense to worship God objectively. This is idolatry. There is no other alternative as one cannot worship transcendence. There's simply nothing there to worship.
When Paul states that Christ is "the image of the invisible God", the word he uses for 'image' is the Greek "ikon" which should never be conflated with "idol". If Paul had used the word 'idol', all of Christianity would then have all the reason necessary to worship Christ as God because an idol is worshipped as God.
On the other hand, an icon is never worshipped as God because icons are representations of God. Just as a representative of a country is not a country, so too the representative of God is not God. More importantly, what is Christ representing? He represents a complete anhiliation of oneself. We are told that he "emptied" himself of his divinity, and Christ himself points out that he only does what he sees the father doing. So it stands to reason that the father is emptiness (itself).
Christ suggests that we cannot see the kingdom of God through our powers of observation, and this is a key to understanding what's really going on. When we use our powers of observation to look into the building blocks of the world around us, we see nothing but empty space. Sub atomic "particles" are really just waves of intersecting energy which turn out to be empty space. There's nothing there.
It is literally something from nothing, and the things created are not God.
So while it is useless to seek God's kingdom through our powers of observation, it isn't the case TO our powers of observation.
Paul was trained in classic logic, and no slouch when it came to presenting an argument. He has simultaneously refuted and insulted the atheist and the idolater by showing that the origin and means can be distinguished. This places the atheist and theist on the same level playing field. The atheist has no infinite regression, and the theist has no one to worship or obey.
Again, in a nutshell, the word "God" isn't God. The word only signifies transcendence.
However, for those who choose to ignore the biblical commands, there simply is no other alternative than to objectify a god of one's own creation whether it be one with biblical attributions, or Reason, Science, oneself, etc..
Given that your own name is nothing more than a symbol that is associated with an identity which is also nothing more than an idea associated with a physical body, you don't actually exist either.
In order for identification to establish an identity, there must be the identifier as well as what is being identified with, but in our case, the one doing the identifying is usually identified with a body, but what is being identified with that body other than an identity?
Given that identities are nothing more than abstract constructions of the mind, and you are not an idea, you don't actually exist.
Associating an idea with a body doesn't establish who you are beyond identifying an idea with a physical body, and ideas are not physical bodies.
So who are you, if you aren't an idea or the body that has been assigned to 'you'?
