For the purposes of debate, what the Rev calls "himself" knows that it acts as a microcosm of "God" hence it has no requirement for the word "faith".i.e. To that "self" has been revealed "the Truth".

The problem with that position is that it assumes that the integrity of such a "self" has persistence in the face of the common observation that self-integrity is illusory. (...consider, for example those characters to which we ascribe "ourself" who occupy our dreams...). It is my contention that it is the debate context, driven by the desire for security, which evokes such a "God-self" and that such debate continues internally within his "committee".

The Rev is well aware of the "committee nature of self" through his readings of Gurdjieff and may seek to ascribe "higher Self" to his "God-mode". But that claim would also involve much cosmological baggage which he may selectively avoid, or re-interpret with his pseudo-equations.

Outside the debate context, such a "God-self" is as ephemeral as a passing cloud, or as he might wish to put it, "a burst of sunlight", despite his efforts to perpetuate it through "God-like acts".