Why God Doesn't Exist - Belief
79
Whether God exists is not an issue to be resolved through belief or knowledge, but rather by defining the word exist. The definition of 'exist' contains no provision for faith or wisdom.
-------------------------
Theists, atheists, and agnostics have been debating the existence of God at least since the days of the Greeks. Have they attained consensus?
Broadly speaking, a theist is an individual who believes that God exists whereas an atheist is a person who believes the opposite. An alleged third party to these discussions, the agnostic, is a person who believes that we can never know for sure whether God exists because there is no experiment that we can run to test the hypothesis. Which of these views is correct?
Perhaps a more objective question is whether any of these views is rational. For instance, does THIS chair disappear if you refuse to acknowledge it? Does it make sense to attempt to prove the existence of a chair by sitting on it? And what does it mean to say that you ‘believe’ that this chair exists, anyway? Doesn’t the chair exist as a standalone object on its own before its light reaches your eyes, irrespective of your faith?
It seems to me that whether this chair or God exists is a question of definitions and has little to do with the nouns chair and God. We define the strategic word ‘exist’. If the noun at the center of our inquiry meets the requirements of the definition, then it exists. Otherwise, it doesn’t.
For instance, let’s propose the following definition:
exist: physical presence
The ‘physical’ part of this definition invokes an object, a word that I will presently associate with shape: an image or contour you can point to. The ‘presence’ part invokes location. An object that has location exists pursuant to this particular definition. ‘Physical presence’ is an objective definition because it enables us to use ‘exist’ consistently (i.e., scientifically) since it contains no provisions for belief or knowledge.
For example, THIS chair is an object (i.e., has shape) as well as location. It meets both requirements of the definition and, therefore, exists. In contrast, a circle has shape, but lacks location. The definition compels us to reject its existence. Concepts such as love or justice don’t even meet the minimum ‘physical’ criterion and need not be analyzed further.
Does God meet the requirements of this definition?
The answer depends on the individuals giving the presentation. Will the presenters introduce God as an object or as a concept for the purposes of their talk? Will they point to the anthropomorphic being of Old Testament fame or will they associate God with abstract concepts such as love or intelligence? The ball is in their court.
Note that I am not arguing that you have to accept this definition of ‘exist’. I am saying that it is premature to debate the existence of God until we first settle the meaning of the word exist unambiguously. If the existence of God depended on subjective opinions, God would be vulnerable to our wildest whims.
So? What is your definition of exist?
-------------------------
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
"like one saying they believe in something. Does that mean they accept it as true? Or does that mean they merely acknowledge that it is possible?"
I'm saying that neither belief nor knowledge plays a role in existence. Whether a chair or God exists is an issue we resolve by defining the word exist. The first criterion is that the noun under scrutiny be an object (i.e. has shape). This summarily excludes all concepts (love, intelligence, beauty, justice, energy, mass, time, etc). The second criterion is that the object have location. We can define location as the set of distacnes to all other objects. Thus, THIS chair exists BY DEFINITION if it has shape (which it does) AND location (which it does).
We can test this with any word. For instance, does Big Foot exist? Should we prove BF's existence by taking pictures or collecting tracks?
Neither! Big Foot exists (or doesn't) irrespective of whether we believe or saw him. In Science, it works in reverse.
Example:
Your friend explains his theory to you that Big Foot was the one who ate your candy bar last night while you were away. He begins his presentation. "Assume that Big Foot exists and..."
What did he mean by this?
He meant, "Assume that Big Foot is a physical object and that he has location in the Universe." Certainly, your friend cannot argue that love or justice ate your candy bar: "Assume that love is a physical object and has location in the Universe."
Again, this rigid definition of exist is not for ordinary speech. It is for scientific purposes. If the proponent claims that God made the Universe or that a black hole swallowed an astronaut, he must begin by stating, " Let us assume that... exists."
Well thought out hub, but I would like to respectfully make a few comments. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, as I am mine.
So many want to argue the existence of God based on not actually seeing this entity, and I can understand that mindset. I believe you make the comments about the chair and the statue arms based on two things.
The first one is based on the 5 senses that MOST human beings have "touch, sight, smell, hearing and taste."
The second part of your argument is based on only three dimensions in our universe.
The fact of the matter is that there is more than 5 senses. There is a sixth sense which science acknowledges and so do some government agencies, especially police departments "CSI, missing persons, cold case investigations, etc." Some people have the ability to sense things that you might not be able to see. If you were blind, and didn't have the ability to see what I and others can see, you would have to take our word for it, or dis believe it. If you were deaf and couldn't hear someone talking, would you believe that something was said?
hundreds of years ago it was believed that the world was flat and if you sailed a ship to the edge you would fall off. Of course that was proved as not being accurate. So what I am saying is that seeing is not always what is real.
Let me ask you something. Do you believe in ghosts? Do you think that a spirit will leave the body after it dies and although you can't see it, it's still there.
Do you think it's possible that the people that wrote the books to the bible might have had more than 5 senses, or a spirit allowed them to see more than others? I wasn't there and I certainly can't say yes or no, but I do know that this world didn't just appear out of no where and there had to be something that started it in motion. I'm not saying that it was someone called God, but I am saying that SOMETHING did it.
Do you think that the world just came about somehow all by itself?
"you make the comments about the chair and the statue arms based on... the 5 senses... three dimensions"
You missed my argument entirely, rv. In Science, whether God exists has less to do with the word God than it has to do with the word exist. It is the word exist which we have to define. In the last 5000 years, no one, and I mean ABSOLUELY NO ONE has ever defined the word exist unambiguously. So when someone says that he believes that God exists (or doesn't), you can be absolutely certain that he has no idea what he is talking about.
Physics is the Science of Existence. Physics ONLY studies those things which exist. When an individual claims that a leprechaun exists or doesn't, he has crossed the line into Physics. He is no longer talking religion. The onus is on him to tell the audience what he means by exist.
The definition of exist makes no provision for senses, perceptions, beliefs, knowledge, experiments, or proofs. So much for your 'senses' argument. It doesn't matter if there are spirits who allow you to see or whether there are ten senses. The onus shifts to you to define exist in such a way as to include senses if you are going to argue that senses or perceptions have something to do with the existence of THIS chair.
The same argument is extended to 3D. It is the responsibility of the individual who claims that anything other than 3D objects exist to define the word object.
In Science, an object is 'that which has shape.' Objects may ONLY be 2D or 3D. Objects that are 3D which in addition have location exist pursuant to the definition in the article. If you claim that there are objects that are 0D, 1D, 4D, or greater, then you have the responsibility to define the word object in such a way that you can use it consistently (i.e. scientifically).
"this world didn't just appear out of no where and there had to be something that started it in motion"
This is a great myth. In Science, we resolve this issue quite easily. We do it again with definitions. We define an object as 'that which has shape' and space as 'that which doesn't.' There is no one who can imagine let alone illustrate how space spontaneously acquires length, width, and height or how an object may lose them. We're done. Matter cannot be converted to space nor space to matter. Matter has always been there and will always be when Man is no more. There was no 'creation', whether by way of God or through Big Bang. Religion and Mathematical Physics are both in error.
Bill you are obviously an intelligent person with your ability to speak and explanations, but you are mistaken about what the word "exist" really means. Just because you can't see something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
When someone calls me on a cell phone I can't see the radio frequency that transfers their voice through the air and I can't see them either when I speak to them, but I know they are there as I can hear them talking. I look around and there no wires, nothing that would indicate that there is a real person that I am talking to, however they can answer me when I ask a question.
Years ago we wouldn't have thought it was possible to be able to do this, but it is.
You might want to open you mind up to the possibility that man hasn't discovered every means of how to tell is something is real or not. The dimensions and senses do certainly fit into that argument. If I were to tell you that a spirit talked to me and he told me what color shirt I was wearing or proved to me that he could really see me, yet I couldn't see him, nor could you see or hear him, that doesn't mean its not real. It only means that you don't see or hear him.
I might be able to use my 6th sense and it could as far as you know actually work, and you might not be able to exorcise that ability.
Science agrees that there a many more dimensions that 3, and therefore they don't have all the tools they need to disprove an existence of a God. I am not saying that there is a God so to speak, just that something created the planets, space and matter. It's hear and had to come about somehow. Just saying that it's always been here and always been is not calculating in mine or zillions of others minds
"you are mistaken about what the word "exist" really means."
Be my guest, rv, and define the word so that we can carry out a meaningful exchange. Unless I understand what you mean by 'exist', we will not be communicating intelligently.
"Just because you can't see something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist."
Oh, I agree. Whether THIS chair exists is not an issue outside the purview of the blind man. That's just the point, rv. Senses have nothing to with whether THIS chair or God exist. THIS chair exists (or doesn't) by definition. And God exists (or doesn't) by definition. That's why your next statement doesn't follow:
"I look around and there no wires, nothing that would indicate that there is a real person that I am talking to, however they can answer me when I ask a question."
The word 'real' is a synonym of 'exist'. Therefore, whether the guy you are talking to exists is not an issue you are going to resolve by touching him or talking to him any more than you are going to resolve it by seeing him. God does not exist because you saw Him or shook hands with Him. God exists (or doesn't) solely on the basis of your definition of 'exist'.
So again, what do you mean by exist?
"If I were to tell you that a spirit talked to me and he told me... yet I couldn't see him, nor could you see or hear him, that doesn't mean its not real."
And again, this is not an issue of seeing or hearing or using any of your senses because this would render existence subjective. You see your right hand and claim that it exists. I don't see it and claim that it doesn't exist. Who is right?
In Science, we define exist and resolve the issue objectively. Is your hand a physical object?
If it has shape, it is an object.
Now, does your hand have location wrt the remaining matter in the Universe? Is there distance between your hand and the chair?
If so, your hand exists by definition (i.e. it is 'real'). You are now able to use the word exist consistently (rationally, scientifically) to explain a theory.
"I might be able to use my 6th sense"
Use any sense you want, rv. Until you define 'exist' or 'real' you will not have communicated what you mean by 'exist' to the jury.
"Science agrees that there a many more dimensions that 3"
It is the religion of Mathematical Physics which makes this irrational claim, not Science.
Mathematical Physics is an irrational religion which invokes reification. It converts concepts into objects. So you should put little weight on the outrageous claims the mathematicians publish in their 'peer' journals. I argue with them every day on YouTube (look up bgaede).
The onus shifts to the mathematician to illustrate for us anything above 3D and below 2D. If he can't, he is just peddling snake oil. An object is that which has shape. If it has shape, no one on Earth has any excuse not to illustrate it in a single image. If he can't, it is not an object. He can call it a concept, but not an object.
The mathematicians may want to make their God 4D to put this 'object' outside the reach of the skeptic, but in Science, we are required to define the words that make or break our arguments BEFORE we use them. If the word in question does not meet specification, then it should be summarily discarded from the category. There are no objects 4D or higher if the mathematician cannot illustrate the shape. The category called 'objects' only includes 2D and 3D shapes.
"Just saying that it's always been here and always been is not calculating in mine or zillions of others minds"
This is not a matter we resolve at the ballot box, rv. This is an objective issue. If space (nothing) cannot spontaneously acquire length, width, and height and become something, and an object (something) cannot spontaneously lose length, width, and height and become nothing, then matter has always been there. There is no chance for creation because we cannot even conceptualize such a monster.
The proponent of Creation has the responsibility to answer where Big Bang or God came from. If he cannot answer this fundamental question, he is by default stuck with eternity as well. Science treats any lame excuse as an attempt to elude the question. (e.g. "If I knew, God wouldn't be so great", "We don't know what happened before BB because the laws of Physics break down at the singularity", etc.)
lol
Excellent hub. Although - you are going to come in for some flack for saying anything that sounds like "god does not exist because we cannot define exist."
I agree that we have been unable to define "exist" - we have also been unable to define "god"
That does not seem to stop people from forcefully arguing that He Does Exist! and He Has Some Rules written down for us! lol
"you are going to come in for some flack for saying anything that sounds like "god does not exist because we cannot define exist."
Aaaahhh, my dear Mark! But I have defined 'exist' in a way that we can use it consistently (i.e., scientifically):
exist: physical presence
The physical part requires an object. The presence part requires that the object have location.
If God wants to exist, He will first have to qualify as a physical object (i.e. shape, form). The definition summarily eliminates all concepts (e.g., love, intelligence, grace, soul, justice, beauty). The proponent cannot claim that God is intelligence (as Deepak Chopra does, for example) and that his God also exists.
Assuming God passes the first test, the next one is that He must also have location. There must be distance between the surface of THIS chair and God's chest or hand or whatever. If God meets both conditions, He exists by definition. Belief plays no part in the entire matter.
Therefore, a proponent of a theory, for instance, that God created the Universe, may begin his presentation by hypothesizing that God exists. He cannot begin his presentation by saying that he BELIEVES that God exists. This would be irrational.
But a belief in a god IS irrational......
I am quite happy with a definition of "exist" that involves some sort of physical manifestation.
But - seeing as god chooses not to make any such thing - or at least recently - this means there is no god. Which means some of the religionists are going to be unhappy. Which means you cannot have any morals and do not have any meaning to your life.
What a shame......
"I am quite happy with a definition of "exist" that involves some sort of physical manifestation."
And what definition is that, Mark?
"seeing as god chooses not to make any such thing"
This issue does not involve God any more than it involves leprechauns or Big Foot. It also has nothing to do with making people happy. At stake is the definition of the word exist. If someone is going to claim that God created the Universe, he must tell the crowd what the term 'God exists' means for the purposes of HIS theory. If he doesn't know, then certainly he cannot communicate his theory to someone else.
dude just read about the string theory , physics science can prove you mathematically the existence of invisible multiuniverses and they are not made from matter like ours , so if don't believe that god's universe is heaven and god the father is spirit(body made by another kind of matter caused by atoms vibrating at a unknown frecuency)not even caring to listen the brighest brains like einstein and others that made this great discovery possible making you change otherwise,I am afraid nothing will, and by the way did you know that quantum mechanics teaches that there are invisible atoms and matter called "dark matter " and it makes up most part of the universe .
conclusion!!!! who says that because you dont see or not understand god he doesn't exist?
you know ,from my personal experience I didn't believe in god,but someone asked once me these questions that made change my mind, and they were:
have you ever been dead before? i answered of course not
then he said since you have not ever been dead can you assert 100% heaven or hell don't exist? I said no , because nobody knows forsure what's on the other side,
and later he told me if by your admission really don't know for sure
why don't you just repent from your sins and start obeying jesus christ commandments on the bible from now on just in case , because you don't have nothing to loose if you have done so and it was all true , but if god forbids you, you die today and later you realize everything i told you was in fact true and you didn't follow it you will regret from it burning in hell forever rather than enjoying an eternity with christ and his father up in heaven.
richard,
Yours was an amusing post. I have a hard time coming to terms sometimes with the fact that there are people in the 21st Century that still think like you.
"string theory , physics science can prove you mathematically the existence of invisible multiuniverses"
String Theory cannot even prove the existence of strings. What does a 1D string look like? Please draw anything that ONLY has length.
"quantum mechanics teaches that there are invisible atoms"
Please draw an invisible atom. What does it look like?
"god the father is spirit (body made by another kind of matter caused by atoms vibrating at a unknown frecuency"
And what is this 'spirit' thingy? Please draw a spirit and we'll both know if it is a 'body'. A body is that which has shape, so you have no excuse not to draw a spirit, God, spacetime, 1D string, virtual particle, or any other nonsense proposed by traditional, supernatural religions or the contemporary, irrational religion known as Mathematical Physics.
"the brighest rains like einstein and others that made this great discovery possible"
Einstein received the Nobel Prize in 1921 for his alleged 'explanation' of the photoelectric effect in 1905. Mathematics ONLY describes. It does not explain. Einstein merely provided an equation that reinforced Planck's proposal 5 years earlier that suggested that light comes in discrete packets. Lewis eventually named these packets 'photons'. The irrational members of the 5th Solvay Conference in Brussels waved their magic wand in 1927 and decided for all of us that a photon is BOTH 'a' wave AND a particle. Since then, the idiots of the mathematical establishment have passed on from generation to generation that light is a 'wave-packet', simultaneously a discrete as well as an extended object of sorts.
Of course, no one can draw 'a' wave-packet for you any more than anyone can draw 'a' spirit. There is no such 'thing' as 'a' wave-packet. The infamous wave-packet is an amusing attempt to blend a dynamic concept (wave) with an alleged physical object (particle). The mathematicians have blended a verb with a noun.
To summarize, light does not consist of particles as Einstein proposed. Light does not come in discrete 'packets'. Einstein has to return his Nobel medal.
As for his other ridiculous contribution -- that space is warped -- he first needs to draw a picture of space. Then, he can proceed to warp it with Mercury or the Earth. Everything that Einstein contributed to 'science' is bunk!
The punchline is that Einstein died an atheist in his own religion. The founder of the Church of Relativity died saying:
""All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken... I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."
"matter called "dark matter " and it makes up most part of the universe"
The irrational mathematicians of Harvard and Cambridge had to invent ad hoc dark matter to explain the galaxial rotational problem. Dark matter debunks Einstein's General Relativity, which posits warped space. If we include this dark matter fudge factor within the Solar System, Einstein's equations go down the drain. Just sprinkle a little bit of inordinately heavy, conveniently invisible dark matter between the Earth and the Moon, and the gravity well between these two rocks would be as deep as that of a black hole.
They'll never find dark matter at the end of a telescope any more than they'll ever find a black hole or God or a spirit at the end of a telescope. The idiots of Mathematics and religion are looking for ghosts that ain't there.
"who says that because you dont see or not understand god he doesn't exist?"
Just define the word exist and we're on our way. We will both know whether God exists by understanding first what YOU mean by 'God exists'. Does YOUR definition of the word exist say that you must see God in order for God to exist? Does the Moon exist because you see it? Does the Moon not exist if the blind man can't see it?
"since you have not ever been dead can you assert 100% heaven or hell don't exist?"
Do you prove the existence of your house by living in it? Does your house not exist if I don't visit it?
We don't prove the existence of THIS chair by looking at it or sitting on it (i.e. through an experiment). The chair exists BY DEFINITION if it is a physical object (shape), which it is, and if it also has location, which it does.
Now, do the same with God , a leprechaun, Big Foot, or Cinderella. The definition of the word exist determines whether any of them exists.
"you don't have nothing to loose"
This is known as Pascal's Wager. Blaise Pascal was one to rationalize this argument, and it is not only irrational, but quite funny, too.
The reasoning fails for several reasons, but the most amusing one is that if there is a human-like 'spirit' 'up' there beyond the clouds, who knows everything about you, He also knows whether you truly believe in Him or not, correct? God might decide to pusnish you for faking your belief, for speculating, for thinking that you had nothing to lose.
Your argument of 'believe anyways' has the purpose of pleasing other humans, not to please God.
"you will regret from it burning in hell forever rather than enjoying an eternity with christ"
I'm not sure which of the two would be the worst punishment, but I think I'll take my chances with 'burning in hell forever' if it is up to me to choose. I mean, after I'm dead, I guess charring my skin a little won't hurt me that much. But listening to Christ for the rest of eternity... hmmm ... I dunno...
Chef Jeff says:
2 months ago
I think you've covered the definition pretty clearly, there, Billgaede, and it's like one saying they believe in something. Does that mean they accept it as true? Or does that mean they merely acknowledge that it is possible?
Cheers!
Chef Jeff