KNOWLEDGE, WHILE IT CAN USE GOOD FAITH AS A TOOL, IT NATURALLY GOES BEYOND BELIEF 
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
Like, the great psychiatrist, Carl Jung, I feel that a belief-dependent god is no god at all. In a famous BBC interview, when he was asked: Do you believe in God, he put it this way: I do not need to believe in G~0~D ... I know G~0~D is!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJ25Ai__FYU&feature=youtu.be
PANENTHEISM/UNITHEISM—beyond monotheism
—————————————————————————————————-
To make it clear that, while I respect the kind of monotheism in which I was raised, I am not talking about a god who exists separate and apart from existence, or nature. To make this point, I am thankful that I am free to use devices, or symbols, like the following: G~0~D, or G~∅~D~~points to a oneness in, around and through nature, but is not dependent on it.
I concocted these acronyms some time ago for a very special reason. I wanted to get away from using a noun to name an object-like god—one that exists, even supernaturally, in time and space, yet separate from it. I credit moral, ethical and creative atheism with stimulating this kind of thinking. Meanwhile, like Richard Dawkins, I am quite open to having radical theists demonstrate that there is a god who exists—one who I hope will then have his own web pages and be willing to link to this and other forums.
I admit that the above is not a new idea. For example, when pious Jews write about the god-hypothesis, in English, they use the device, G-d. I respect their freedom to do so. They use it instead of the sacred four letters YHWH—meaning I am who I am. The dash makes the point that they are not talking about an anthropomorphic, or human-like, god in the form of an idol. Idolatry, even when mentally done, is looked upon by pious Jews as a sin—any evil done deliberately, and with conscious awareness—against truth.
For me, the wavy dash, the tilde (~), the ∅ , the null, and 0, zero, all serve useful purposes in their own way.
In http://www.scienceagogo.com I write about all this—the philosophy, psychology & pneumatology of all religions I know and respect, including atheism (a philosophy?). One thread on this general theme now has over 3,900,000 hits.
Atheists say that atheism is neither a faith, nor a religion. OK!
What then is it ? A philosophy? Perhaps it is one with psychological and pneumatological implications? Let me know. I am very curious about such things. I enjoy have a dialogue about such topics—hopefully without using flame throwers, mockery, ridicule, or any other such, joy and communication killers.
======================
To find the source of the symbol, Ø in G~Ø~D, check out WIKI: Empty set, from Wikipedia.
For similar symbols, see Ø (disambiguation).
The empty set is the set containing no elements.
This is why, in my opinion, I say that G~Ø~D, for me, has no elements, properties, or dimensions per se—in the material sense of the words. A god, or God with properties is simply an idol. It could have value as a work of art.
I think of G~Ø~D as like a wave-force in and through and around people and things; but not as a thing, dependent on things. The things of creation, which we often experience as mysterious emanations, or effusions, out of the great no-thing, G~Ø~D~~that which generates all good, organizes all opportunities in an orderly fashion and delivers that which is desirable and delightful. If anyone wants to say: I can live like that without any kind of god-talk. I will respond: Great, go ahead and do it. The bottom like, for me is: I am, and I choose to think, learn and know, and I accept the power—physically, mentally and spiritually—to DO!
In mathematics, and more specifically in the set theory, the empty set is the unique set having no elements; its size or cardinality (count of elements in a set) is zero. Some axiomatic set theories assure that the empty set exists by including an axiom of empty set; in other theories, its existence can be deduced. Many possible properties of sets are trivially true for the empty set.
