Moses

In all the Old Testament the most convincing evidence for God’s existence and for mankind’s actual encounter with God is the answer given by the burning bush to Moses’ question, “What is your name?” It answered, “I am I am.” Consider the implications of that reply. It implies that there is only one God, because otherwise God would need to have a name to be set apart from other gods. Consider Moses' motivation in asking the question. If he knew there was only one God, he would surely have known He would need no name. Instead he actually assumed that "I am I am" (Yahweh) is this god’s name as have generations after him. They believe this so sincerely that saying the name Yahweh was forbidden for a very long time because to say the name of a God was to summon Him and could have dire consequences (even today using the word God carelessly is considered a curse and is not acceptable in polite company).
Consider the original author of this story of Moses and his encounter with the Almighty. Could he have meant for it be a comedic representation of a person’s confrontation with his Creator (aside from Moses' credulity in accepting a bush as a god)? The first human response would naturally be to try to gain control of the situation despite any protestations and gestures of submission he might make. What better way to take control of the situation than to determine the identity of the deity one is dealing with and, through that link, to establish some measure of continued control, even if it is only the ability to get the attention of that particular deity by calling His name? In the story Moses assumes he has learned God’s name, when in fact God had said something like, “Moses, I know who I am. You do not need to know who I am. You only need to know that I am the only God there is. I don’t need a name.”
In olden times a favorite form of humor and of justice was for the guilty to condemn himself by inadvertently judging himself. A good example would be David’s admission that he had wronged the husband of Bathsheba. Moses condemned himself (as we still condemn ourselves to this day) by admitting he did not really believe in only one god. Instead of proclaiming the existence of one God without a name, he returned to Egypt asserting that he knew the name of a god and that that god had revealed himself as the God of the Forgotten, of the slaves of Egypt. The humor is in the arrogance of Moses (humanity) in assuming to have outwitted God by acquiring His name.
The depth of perception of the original author of this revelation is in the recognition that God, of course, knows who He is but it is next to impossible for Him to communicate that information to our petty, self-serving minds. The Christian New Testament suggests that Jesus, when asked who he was, answered, “I am I am,” when he was taken into custody just before his execution. It is interesting that a human could sincerely and correctly make such a statement. “Who am I?” is a question we ask ourselves daily, and we really think we know. Let’s explore that humorous assumption.
Rene Descartes said, “I think, therefore I am.” The immediate question is “Who or what is this ‘I’ that is doing the thinking? The answer gets complicated even more by what we think we know than by what we actually do know and what we actually do know is confusing enough all by itself. Philosophers have pretty much agreed that our “self” (our “I”) exists apart from our physical bodies. Some even suggest it is all that exists, and that what we perceive as physical reality does not exist. What we see probably is shaped by our personal point of view and so does not really exist, but there does seem to be something out there around which we wrap our perceptions. However, philosophers seem to see our “self awareness” either as sparks or as emanations from a common source (theologians would say God, but philosophers would probably not be so specific).
If we are godlike sparks of self awareness, then we have volition and can be held accountable for our actions, for we are separated from God. (Theologians speculate that these sparks within us are striving to return to the source from whence they came and offer suggestions as to how we might facilitate that return.) If we are, however, Godlike emanations or tendrils of self-awareness rather than sparks of divinity, then being directly connected to the source (God), our volition is from God and our perception of self is an illusion. (Some theologians call these emanations souls which are separate from our awareness of ourselves, and they maintain that, though all of us are self aware, only some of us have been chosen (are connected to God by these tendrils) to return to the source of our souls [God].)
Science suggests something quite different, and consequently has sparked a desperate reaction from the religious community these past few years. Scientific discovery suggests that the something around which we wrap our perceptions is all that exists, and that we (our “self awareness”) do not exist. We are therefore figments of our own imagination; our “self awareness” is a virtual reality generated by the body’s ability to store information and to organize that information for the purposes of survival (appropriate responses to external stimuli). Consequently, when the body is no longer able to store, or even maintain, memory (there would as a result of our body’s death be no stored information left to organize), our “self awareness,” which never really existed in the first place, ceases to function (from our perspective, “ceases to exist”).
Quite frankly, I have to go with science on this one. I do not believe that God exists, nor do I believe that we (the self) exist. On the bright side, it would seem we have something in common with God after all. Neither of us exists. I understand that this, in a sense, jerks the carpet out from under anyone who takes this quandary seriously, but I have never been obsessed with whether or not God exists, though I did have some hopes for myself and am consequently a little disappointed. However, as a person of faith I leave the resolution of this problem to God. I will continue to find out as much as I can about how what has already been created works and pursue means by which I can adjust it somewhat (to my advantage, of course).