Is it possible to name God? Surely, that's what I've just done? Slapping a label on something doesn't exactly tell you what that something is. The other problem is that the label must be attached to something that is definable. Here's where we come unstuck. To name God we must define God otherwise we're just playing word games and getting nowhere. What I mean by this is that we can band around "God" as if we knew what is being talked about; but in actuality not having defined what God is, we don't actually know what we're talking about - this is a problem. Ok, let God be defined as everything. Very good, nice and simple and we can state that whatever we choose to focus on, that is God. So then there's the small problem of parts or whole. If God is everything and we concentrate on a small part of that everything, say an apple, is that apple God or not? If not, then if we take two apples, is that God? If we go on taking larger and larger numbers of fruit and throw in cows and sheep and people and and and... is that God? Clearly there's something fishy going on. Ok, let's change our minds, let's say an apple is a part of God. Is that God? No. God is everything (that's the definition), an apple is an apple. Ok let's shift our definition. Let God be composed of parts that when taken altogether go to make up God. Good. God is the set of all parts taken together. So is God one thing or many things? What else is like God? Hmm. How about consciousness? Yet another label, yet another definition. So substitute "consciousness" for "God" in the above and rinse and repeat. Where does this get us? Well if God is everything and consciousness is everything, then surely they must be identical? They are two labels pointing to the same definition. Notice that the problem here is not the labels, but the definition. Everything means everything without exclusion: objects, thoughts, memories, smells and so on. Included in that definition however, is the concept of everything itself (now we're on really shaky ground), this is because all concepts are included in everything. We can indeed have a definition that includes itself (for example a fractal). But it's not at all clear that our direct experience of consciousness includes itself (you know what I'm talking about eh, or do you?). This is were the map is not good enough to describe the territory. The concept of everything is simply not up to the task of describing our supposedly concious experience. Consciousness cannot describe consciousness (!). It is possible to name God. But what we think the word refers to is only a map to an indescribable territory. Words are not powerful enough.