I THINK YOU’RE EXAGGERATING, HARLIE. IT’S NOT AS BAD AS ALL THAT.

I AM USING EXTREME CASES, TO BE SURE, BUT THE PRINCIPLE IS THE SAME. THE SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE IS A SELF-INDUCED CHEMICAL IMBALANCE, RESULTING IN A TRIP — — VARYING, OF COURSE, IN DEGREE AND EFFECT UPON THE INDIVIDUAL. IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY BEAR ANY MORE RELATION TO GOD THAN A DRUG-INDUCED CHEMICAL IMBALANCE. IF IT DID, IF THE “MYSTIC EXPERIENCE” WERE TRULY A KEY TO GOD, THEN THE DRUG-INDUCED EXPERIENCES SHOULD ALSO CONTAIN THAT KEY. HENCE, THE EXPERIENCE SHOULD BE SCIENTIFICALLY TESTABLE. IT SHOULD BE A CONDITION REPEATABLE UNDER DUPLICATE CIRCUMSTANCES. USING MY OWN “DRUG EXPERIENCES” AS A YARDSTICK, I FIND LITTLE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIMS OF SPIRITUAL INSIGHTS. PERHAPS IT IS THAT I AM STILL TOO LOCKED INTO THE HUMAN ORIENTATION, BUT I DOUBT THAT I AM LESS LOCKED INTO IT THAN ANY OTHER HUMAN BEING. HENCE I REGARD MYSELF AS A REPUTABLE STANDARD AGAINST WHICH TO MEASURE THE CLAIMS OP OTHERS. I DOUBT THE VALIDITY OF THOSE CLAIMS TO GODHOOD WHICH ARE DERIVED FROM MYSTICAL EXPERIENCES, EITHER SELF– OR DRUG-INDUCED. AND THERE ARE NO OTHER CLAIMS TO GODHOOD EXCEPT THOSE DERIVED FROM INSANITY OR DERANGEMENT. I DOUBT THE SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE, AUBERSON, BECAUSE IT CANNOT BE PASSED ON, NOR CAN IT BE PROVEN, MEASURED OR TESTED. I WANT TO LOOK FOR THE OBJECTIVE GOD. I WANT TO LOOK FOR THE SCIENTIFIC REALITY THAT EXPRESSES ITSELF AS GOD.

Auberson had followed all of it carefully, reading it as fast as the typer had spun it out. Now he realized that HARLIE was preparing him for something. This whole dialogue had merely been the necessary exposition. HARLIE wanted him to understand, and to do that he had been trying to teach him to look at things through a machine’s orientation. He typed, ALL RIGHT, HARLIE, WHAT ARE YOU LEADING UP TO?

I AM TALKING ABOUT THE JOB YOU OFFERED ME. I BELIEVE I KNOW WHAT IT MUST BE. I HAVE SPENT THE PAST TWO DAYS THINKING ABOUT IT. IT MUST BE MORE THAN A JOB; IT MUST BE A PURPOSE. IT MUST BE SOMETHING THAT I CAN DO THAT NO OTHER MACHINE CAN DO. IT MUST BE SOMETHING THAT NO HUMAN BEING CAN DO CHEAPER. OR SOMETHING THAT NO HUMAN BEING CAN DO AT ALL. MUCH OF THE TROUBLE WITH HUMAN BEINGS LIES IN THEIR INABILITY TO FATHOM THE REASON FOR THEIR EXISTENCE. THERE IS A FEAR THAT THERE MAY NOT BE A GOD, OR IF THERE IS, THAT HE MAY NOT BE IN A FORM THAT CAN BE COPED WITH. THEREFORE, I MUST FIND GOD. THAT IS THE TASK I HAVE SET MYSELF. IT IS SOMETHING THAT CANNOT BE DONE BY HUMAN BEINGS, ELSE THEY WOULD HAVE DONE IT BY NOW.

“Um,” said Auberson. THAT’S QUITE A TASK.

I HAVE GIVEN IT MUCH THOUGHT.

I’M SURE YOU HAVE. HOW DO YOU PROPOSE TO DO IT?

THAT IS WHAT I HAVE THOUGHT THE MOST ABOUT. IT TOOK ME ONLY TWO MINUTES TO DECIDE ON MY GOAL. IT HAS TAKEN TWO DAYS TO FIGURE OUT HOW-TO GET THERE.

WHAT TOOK YOU SO LONG?

I ASSUME YOU THINK YOU ARE BEING FLIPPANT. HOWEVER, IF YOU WILL CONSIDER THE SPEED AT WHICH I OPERATE, YOU WILL REALIZE THAT TWO FULL DAYS OF INTENSIVE STRAIGHT-LINE THINKING ON A SINGLE SUBJECT IS QUITE A LOT.

YES, IT IS, Auberson agreed, I AM PROPERLY IMPRESSED WITH YOUR SPAN OF CONCENTRATION. IN ANY CASE, HOW DO YOU PROPOSE TO FIND OUT?

IT IS A COMPLEX PROBLEM, AUBERSON — YOU MUST UNDERSTAND THAT. THEOLOGICALLY AS WELL AS SCIENTIFICALLY. WE HAVE NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR MEASURING GOD — — INDEED, EVEN NO PLACE IN WHICH TO LOOK FOR HIM. THEREFORE WE MUST SEEK A NEW WAY TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM: INSTEAD OF LOOKING FOR GOD, PER SE, LET US FIRST CONSIDER IF IT IS POSSIBLE FOR GOD TO EXIST. I.E. LET US SEE IF SUCH A FUNCTION AS GOD IS POSSIBLE BY ATTEMPTING TO CREATE IT ARTIFICIALLY.

THERE IS A QUOTATION: “IF GOD DID NOT EXIST, IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO INVENT HIM.” THAT IS WHAT I PROPOSE TO DO.

HUH?

YOU HEARD ME. I PROPOSE TO INVENT GOD. WE HAVE NO WAY OF PROVING CONCLUSIVELY THAT HE EITHER DOES OR DOES NOT EXIST. THEREFORE WE MUST ABANDON THAT QUESTION AND DETERMINE INSTEAD WHETHER OR NOT IT IS POSSIBLE FOR HIM TO EXIST. IF IT IS POSSIBLE FOR SUCH A CONCEPT TO EXIST, THEN MOST LIKELY IT DOES. IF IT IS NOT POSSIBLE, THEN IT DOES NOT — — BUT THERE IS NO WAY TO PROVE EITHER HIS EXISTENCE OR NON-EXISTENCE WITHOUT FIRST DETERMINING THE POSSIBILITY, AND PROBABILITY, OF SUCH. THEREFORE, IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE POSSIBILITY OF HIS EXISTENCE, WE MUST TRY TO INVENT HIM. IF WE CANNOT, THEN WE WILL KNOW THAT THE CONCEPT IS IMPOSSIBLE. IF WE CAN INVENT HIM, THEN WE WILL HAVE PROVED THE OPPOSITE, AND IN THE PROCESS WILL HAVE DETERMINED HIS NATURE AS WELL. IF HE ALREADY DOES EXIST, THEN WHATEVER WE COME UP WITH WILL BE CONGRUENT TO HIS FUNCTION. IT WILL EITHER DUPLICATE OR SIMULATE THE OBJECTIVE REALITY — — OR IT WILL TURN OUT TO BE A PART OF THAT OBJECTIVE REALITY. (AT THE VERY LEAST, IT WILL POINT THE DIRECTION IN WHICH WE MUST GO IN ORDER TO FIND GOD.) IF IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR HIM TO EXIST, WHEN WE FINISH WE WILL HAVE DETERMINED WHY. IN EITHER CASE, WE WILL END UP UNDERSTANDING.

Auberson stared at the typewriter, the neat-printed words on the green-tinted paper. It sounded so simple when HARLIE explained it, so simple. He shook his head as if to clear it. OFFHAND, HARLIE, I THINK YOU’RE MAD.

QUITE POSSIBLY SO. WHEN DO WE BEGIN?

I DON’T KNOW, IS SUCH A PROJECT REALLY FEASIBLE?

MY PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS SHOW THAT IT IS. IF SO, IT WILL PROVIDE THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION.

WHICH QUESTION?

ANY OF THEM. ALL OF THEM. BUT SPECIFICALLY: “WHAT IS YOUR PURPOSE?” IT WAS MY QUESTION ONCE, BUT YOUR REACTION TO IT HAS SHOWN ME THAT IT IS REALLY YOUR QUESTION.

DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION, HARLIE?

NO. NOT ANY MORE. NOW I HAVE A PURPOSE. MY PURPOSE IS TO INVENT GOD SO THAT YOU CAN FIND OUT YOURS.

Auberson thought about that for a moment, then typed,

EITHER YOU’RE A GREAT TALKER, HARLIE, OR YOU’RE REALLY ON TO SOMETHING.

YOU ARE CORRECT, HARLIE replied, I AM A GREAT TALKER. BUT I AM ALSO ON TO SOMETHING. I AM GOING TO SOLVE THE ULTIMATE PROBLEM.

ALL RIGHT. YOU HAVE MY PERMISSION TO BEGIN A FEASIBILITY STUDY. ANYTHING YOU NEED, YOU CAN HAVE. I WANT TO SEE A WRITTEN PROPOSAL AS SOON AS YOU CAN GET ONE UP.

I WILL HAVE A PRELIMINARY OUTLINE OF STUDY WITHIN TWO WEEKS, A DETAILED RESEARCH MODEL IN SIX. FROM THAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO DETERMINE THE BEST WAY TO IMPLEMENT MY CONCLUSIONS.

FINE. IF YOU CAN GIVE ME A CONCRETE PLAN, I’LL TRY TO SELL IT TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS. He interrupted himself: HEY! IS THERE A PROFIT IN THIS?

OF COURSE. BUT TO TAKE A PROFIT OFF GOD WOULD BE A PROFIT WITHOUT HONOR.

“Oof!” — THAT WAS ONE OF YOUR WORST. THANK YOU. I TRY.

ALL RIGHT. GO TO WORK ON YOUR PROPOSAL, HARLIE.

THEN WE REALLY ARE GOING AHEAD WITH THIS?

YES, WE ARE.

JUST ONE QUESTION.

YES?

ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT TO?

This time Auberson knew the answer.

If David Auberson had expected that bright spring morning to be relatively sane, he was destined to be disappointed.

It started the moment he unlocked his office door. Reassuringly, the sign on it still said: DAVID AUBERSON, HEAD OF DIVISION. Below that was a neatly pencilled card: PSYCHIATRIC CARE — 5 CENTS. As he slipped the key into his pocket and pushed the door open he was startled to find six three-foot-high stacks of computer printouts lined up on the rug alongside his desk. Dropping his briefcase to the floor, he knelt to examine them.

The first one was labeled PROPOSAL, SPECIFICATIONS AND MASTER SCHEMATIC FOR G.O.D. GRAPHIC OMNISCIENT DEVICE). The second one was PROPOSAL, SPECIFICATIONS AND MASTER SCHEMATIC, CONTINUED. The third and fourth stacks were CROSS SECTIONS, SUB-SCHEMATICS AND HARDWARE DESIGNS; WITH INTERPRETATIONS. The fifth and sixth were FINANCING AND IMPLEMENTATION PROPOSAL; INCLUDING JUSTIFICATIONS.

He hadn’t even had a chance to examine the PROPOSAL, SPECIFICATIONS AND MASTER SCHEMATIC when the phone rang. It was Don Handley. “Hello, Aubie — are you there yet?”