References
[Editor’s notes are in blue. Readers who prefer to ignore the links in the text and follow the notes on a separate page, may open a separate page with the references here.]

* The title refers to Nathaniel Branden’s lecture “The Concept of God,” from his lecture series “The Basic Principles of Objectivism.” That lecture is fully transcribed in his book The Vision of Ayn Rand: The Basic Principles of Objectivism (Gilbert, Ariz.: Cobden Press, 2009), chapter 4. Partial and perhaps complete audios seem to be available throughout the Internet. See also R.A. Childs, “The Epistemological Basis of Anarchism,” Note 19.

[01] A. Rand, “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology,” 5/7/5g. [July 1966] [References of this form refer to The Objectivist Newsletter, so that volume 5, number 7 would be July 1966. After volume 4, the name of the publication was The Objectivist. The page numbers for the latter are those of the original format, not those in the bound volume.] and IOE 11 [Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. (And the reference here is to the original paperback monograph reprinting the articles from the periodical. However, James has erred in his pagination, and the correct page number is 15; the corresponding page number for the Expanded Second Edition containing additional material by Harry Binswanger and Leonard Peikoff (New York: NAL, 1990) is 10.)]
  A concept is a mental integration of two or more units which are isolated according to a specific characteristic(s) and united by a specific definition.

  A. Rand, “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology,” 5/7/7a [July 1966] and IOE 11 [corrected page 16; the corresponding citation for the Expanded Second Edition is pp. 11-12.)]
  The same principle directs the process of forming concepts of entites — for instance, the concept “table.” The child’s mind isolates two or more tables from other objects....

  A. Rand, “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology,” 5/7/8c [July 1966] and IOE 16 [corrected page 18; the corresponding citation for the Expanded Second Edition is 13.)]
  All concepts are formed by first differentiating two or more existents from other existents.

[02] A. Rand, “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology,” 5/12/4c. [December 1966] and IOE 77 [corrected page 54; the corresponding citation for the Expanded Second Edition is 58.)]
  Since axiomatic concepts are not formed by differentiating one group of existents from others....

  A. Rand, “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology,” 5/12/4d. [December 1966] and IOE 77 [corrected page 54; the corresponding citation for the Expanded Second Edition is 58.)]
  “Existence,” “identity” and “consciousness” have no contraries — only a void.

[03] AS [Atlas Shrugged] 960jj-mm [paperback] (1035p-s) [hardback].

[04] I am indebted for this distinction to Prof. Leonard Peikoff, who used it in “Certainty without Omniscience,” a speech given before the First Regional Conference on Objectivism, University of Virginia at Charlottesville, April 30, 1967. On that occasion, he contrasted the statements, “It is possible, for Gandhi to murder” (nothing restrains him) and “It is possible that Gandhi will murder ” (we are not certain that he will not). I do not know whether he has repeated this illustration in any published Objectivist text. [This talk is listed here, but the link takes the user to a page that tells us (as of December 2019) that the publication is “Not yet available.”
  In 1970, Jarret B. Wollstein, president of the Society for Rational Individualism (the forerunner of the Society for Individual Liberty [SIL], which later became the International Society for Individual Liberty), published notes he had taken (expanded and organized into full sentences) as a five-page, single-spaced, typescript outline entitled “Notes from ... ‘Certainty without Omniscience’” and made the outline available for sale. The Gandhi example as James quotes it appears on page 4 of those Notes, and because James was acquainted with Wollstein, it is very likely the source for his quotation. It should be noted that Wollstein says at the beginning of his Notes, “In no case should [it] be assumed that the below notes are exact quotations.”
  There is an entry with the title “Certainty without omniscience” in Leonard Peikoff’s online course “The Philosophy of Ayn Rand” in Part II, Lecture 9: Reason, which perhaps contains the Gandhi illustration. His book Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (Dutton, 1991) contains no obvious parallel, but there is this passage on pages 117-18: “‘It is possible for man...’ does not justify ‘It is possible that this man...’. The latter claim depends on the individual and on the specific circumstances. It must, therefore, be supported by data that are equally specific.”]

[05] N. Branden, “Volition and the Law of Causality,” 5/3/13g-14/b. [There is a parallel passage in The Psychology of Self-Esteem: A New Concept of Man’s Psychological Nature, page 63 (New York: Bantam, 1971). James did not cite material Branden published after his break with Ayn Rand (May 1969), even when it was presented in terms identical to his earlier work, but only material presented before that break, the idea being that he didn’t want to create an opening for the objection Branden’s later work did not correctly state principles of Objectivism.]

[06] COG, lines 44-50. [“The Concept of God”; James is citing the lines of his transcription. The lecture is available here, and the passage cited begins at 2:40 and ends at 3:07. It may also be found in The Vision of Ayn Rand, page 94.]

[07] One critic has objected that the parallel between God and the novelist is imperfect (in that, for example, the novelist uses a pen or a typewriter, while God presumably does not). But I am not claiming a perfect parallel. My point is simply that the writer’s freedom does not imply a chaotic product.