THEO. Hence the personified sum and order of known causes and effects; the total of all finite agencies and forces, as utterly disconnected from an intelligent Creator or Creators, and perhaps “conceived of as a single and separate force”—as in your cyclopædias? ENQ. Yes, I believe so. THEO. Well, we neither take into consideration this objective and material nature, which we call an evanescent illusion, nor do we mean by παν Nature, in the sense of its accepted derivation from the Latin _Natura_ (becoming, from _nasci_, to be born). When we speak of the Deity and make it identical, hence coeval, with Nature, the eternal and uncreate nature is meant, and not your aggregate of flitting shadows and finite unrealities. We leave it to the hymn-makers to call the visible sky or heaven, God’s Throne, and our earth of mud His footstool. Our DEITY is neither in a paradise, nor in a particular tree, building, or mountain; it is everywhere, in every atom of the visible as of the invisible Cosmos, in, over, and around every invisible atom and divisible molecule; for IT is the mysterious power of evolution and involution, the omnipresent, omnipotent, and even omniscient creative potentiality. ENQ. Stop! Omniscience is the prerogative of something that thinks, and you deny to your Absoluteness the power of thought. THEO. We deny it to the ABSOLUTE, since thought is something limited and conditioned. But you evidently forget that in philosophy absolute unconsciousness is also absolute consciousness, as otherwise it would not be _absolute_. ENQ. Then your Absolute thinks?