Author: Julian Miles, Staff Writer

“Sorry to disturb you, but the board are having conniptions over your expenses claim for this month.”
“Not unexpected.”
“They want justification for the seven-figure spend on ‘special developments’.”
“I needed some ancient and esoteric components; they never come cheap.”
“For that?”
“Yes.”
“Don’t think I’ve ever seen that much computing power hooked up to what looks like a fishtank full of soup.”
“I’d be surprised if you had.”
“So, what unprecedented thing are you seeking this time?”
“A god.”
“Doesn’t He already exist?”
“Depends on who you ask.”
“Then why do we need another?”
“Seen the outside world lately?”
“Isn’t that happening because we’re not following the rules? – Or is it because another god is messing with the rules? – I’ve never been clear about that.”
“Again, it depends on who you ask.”
“Okay, theological niceties aside: explain your aims.”
“No matter how much we try, there are elements of science, backed by a substantial body of verified evidence, that indicates vast areas of what we accept as reality remain effectively unquantified. In a few cases, it has already been tacitly accepted that some phenomena may never be explained.”
“Interesting preamble. Go on.”
“I propose that these unquantifiable areas are like the mathematical anomalies that led to the discovery of Neptune. They indicate the presence of an influence we have heretofore ignored.”
“I’d call that tenuous, but accept the premise for now.”
“As did I, until I exhausted the usual channels of explanation. I reluctantly concluded that the capricious variabilities observed in some but not all cases indicate an occasional conscious influence. Some undefined entity is affecting our reality in unusual ways. Why it is doing so, and to what ends, are the motivations for the experiment I’m nearly ready to run.”
“You’re trying to conjure up the entity that’s interfering with our science? Novel idea. I’ll skip the derision and delusion arguments to go straight to the first thing that occurs to me: if this being is possessed of such powerful and exotic abilities, I can understand you describing it as a god. However, whether we ascribe to monotheistic or polytheistic views, I’d have to opine this entity is likely in somewhat of an oppositional stance to the grand scheme humanity plays a large or small part in. You’re not hunting for a god. You’re hunting an anti-god.”
“An interesting distinction, although I’m not convinced. Your view is – by necessity – limited to the scope of this conversation. I’ve spent years researching the matter.”
“Which, by clumsy segue, brings me to my chief concern.”
“How?”
“‘Matter’. If divine beings exist, the beneficial ones – and arguably the inimical ones as well – all improve humanity, although for varying goals. What you seek is the rogue element, the opposing force, and we know what matter and antimatter do when they come into contact.”
“That’s an amusing interpretation. But I’m only aiming to manifest a single entity, so it’s ultimately irrelevant.”
“Okay, let me frame it in a monotheistic context: you are about to technologically manifest and thus scientifically prove the existence of The Devil. How can God ignore that? Basic science: how can an equal and opposite response not occur?”
“I remain unconvinced, but you do raise an area of risk I’d not considered. While I think it through, please inform the board that not all the esoteric components will be consumed by the experiment, and those remaining will offset eighty percent of their expense when sold after the experiment is completed.”
“Or you’ll have started Armageddon and money will have become irrelevant.”
“Get out.”