ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Religion and Philosophy»
  • Exploring Religious Options

Why God Doesn't Exist - Consistency

Updated on October 29, 2012

(Comments have been disabled in all my hubs. If you wish to leave a comment look me up on YouTube.)

____________________

In the statement, “God exists”, the crucial word is not God, but the word exist. It is essential to define unambiguously those words that make or break a theory in order to use them consistently in a discussion.

____________________

Christians usually argue that God has always existed and, thus, the question “What caused God to exist?” is meaningless. God is beyond time or, in the alternative, God is the God of Time. God set the universal clock in motion when He created the world.

However, TVs didn’t always exist. There were no television sets in the 19th Century. Can it, then, be said that TVs ‘began to exist’ in the 20th?

If you answered yes, you may have a rocky philosophical road ahead of you. Was the television in the process of ‘coming into’ existence during the interval in which it was being developed? Is exist a dynamic concept?

When we put the word ‘television’ in this light, we are obviously not alluding to the object, but rather to the concept. We are not talking about a shape or image you can point to, but about the evolution of an idea. Therefore, we have to resolve whether it makes sense to say that concepts can exist. The objective criterion I’m going to use to answer this question is whether we can use the word ‘exist’ consistently. I will argue that we cannot use the word ‘exist’ consistently when we apply it to concepts.

Let’s assume we eliminated the color red from every object in the Universe. According to the Instantiation Principle, if no object has the color red, the color red itself ceases to exist.

Again the question comes back to haunt us: What does the proponent mean when s(he) says that “Red doesn’t exist?” Is this a rational statement? Is it the same to say that a concept such as ‘red’ doesn’t exist as to say that an object such as a crayon doesn’t exist? Don’t we have to define ‘exist’ before we can make such categorical statements anyway?

At face value, the existence of an object such as a chair seems to be qualitatively different than the existence of a concept such as a color. A standalone ‘thing’ like THIS chair exists all on its own. A concept such as the color red requires a physical object such as a chair to ‘carry’ it.

To complicate things, color is a dynamic concept: a measure of the frequency emanating from the skin of an object. Does it make sense to say that love exists, or is love an activity that living entities ‘do’? Is ‘red’ a noun, an adjective, an adverb, or a verb? Which if any of these is the ‘red’ that exists?

It would appear that, if at all, concepts exist in a different sense that objects do. Perhaps the distinction is that concepts may exist for the purposes of ordinary speech whereas objects exist for the purposes of rigorous scientific communication.

Nevertheless, what the foregoing arguments demonstrate is that whatever conclusions a proponent of a theory reaches will be devoid of meaning until s(he) defines the strategic word ‘exist’ unambiguously. Unless the theorist can define ‘exist’ so as to use this word consistently, the jurors will not be able to follow the theory. If God is an object, we may say scientifically that He exists all on His own. If God is a static concept such as beauty or a dynamic one such as Love, like the color red, ‘His’ existence would in the best of cases be contingent on the existence of a body. That would certainly subordinate the Almighty to a higher ‘authority.’ Man is the source of all concepts.

________________________

Comments

Submit a Comment

  • billgaede profile image
    Author

    billgaede 4 years ago

    "1) infinity + 0 = infinity... 2) infinity + 1 = infinity"

    In Science, we begin by defining the word 'infinity' so that the crowd can follow the presentation. If infinity + whatever = infinity, then infinity is an irrational term. Indeed, infinity is NOT a number. Therefore, it is irrational for the idiots of Mathematics to add or subtract quantities to/from it.

    .

    http://youstupidrelativist.com/01Math/06Numb/05Inf...

    .

    .

    .

    "an infinite God"

    .

    What meaning can such a phrase possibly have? What does 'an infinite God' mean?

  • profile image

    Simon 5 years ago

    Proof by contradiction that an infinite God either doesn't exist or that belief makes no difference.

    1) infinity + 0 = infinity

    2) infinity + 1 = infinity

    by 1) and 2), 1 = 0 (proof by contradiction that infinity is not real, unless infinity is taken to be axiomatic)

    if infinity is regarded as axiomatic: Then 1 must equal 0, difficult as it is for this to understand, requiring an act of faith, however, if 1 = 0 then believing in one god is equivalent to believing in no god, so if god existed nobody could be said to believe in it, and one act of faith is equal to zero acts of faith..

  • billgaede profile image
    Author

    billgaede 6 years ago

    "exist": to occur

    .

    Does your car 'occur'? Is exist an action verb? Does God need to move a limb in order to exist? God doesn't exist until he waves his hand?

    .

    .

    "real" : anything that actually exists"

    .

    Yes, real is a synonym of exist. But we still need to define 'exist'

    .

    .

    "Do concepts actually exist"

    .

    Not if we define exist as 'physical presence'. This definition excludes all concepts. If the proponent alleges that his 'God' is Love, Intelligence, Spirit, etc., (i.e., concepts) he has summarily rendered his God inexistent.

  • PieterTheProphet profile image

    PieterTheProphet 6 years ago

    Hmm..I get it. How about for "exist": to occur? Does the universe occur with out us? And for "real" : anything that actually exists? Do concepts actually exist (or occur) and if God is a concept, is God real?

    I would suggest that God is real because the concept of God is real (or: the concept of God "actually exists" and therefore God is real). Which gets into questions of substance of course, but to simplify: Are these events, concepts, and discussions, occurring or not? If they are then everything is real, albeit relative to what is tangible.

    Good science demands something measurable, concepts clearly exist outside of that but they are here none the less.

  • billgaede profile image
    Author

    billgaede 6 years ago

    "If concepts are real"

    .

    Oh, what do you mean by 'real', Piet?

    .

    "Does the universe exist"

    .

    What do you mean by 'exist'? Until we define 'real' and 'exist', the statements are meaningless.

  • PieterTheProphet profile image

    PieterTheProphet 6 years ago

    Man is the source of all concepts. "God" as concept? If concepts are real then "God" is real and we are the creator.

    Does the universe exist with out us?

  • billgaede profile image
    Author

    billgaede 7 years ago

    "maybe consistent isn't exactly the right word"

    .

    Aaaaaahhh, but in Science, the criterion IS indeed consistency of usage!

    But what you said is true. The fanatics of religion -- the mathematicians, the idiots running the Large Hadron Collider -- fall back exclusively on tradition and authority. A Relativist doesn't ask the Nobel Prize Winner to explain his theory. He asks him for his autograph!

  • profile image

    AKA Winston 7 years ago

    I don't know, Bill, the monotheists I've been around have been awfully consistent: "See?" Thump, thump, thump. "It says so right here!" Thump, thump, thump. "Right here in chapter whatsits of this particular holy book!" Thump, thump, thump. "Now, who are you going to believe, your own fallible human reasoning or these ancient words that were written by unknown authors over an unknown period of time, which are only translations of translations, the originals having been lost somewhere along the way or having never existed, but nonetheless THESE writings," thump, thump, thump, "have the blessings of a bunch of high holy somebodies who were voted into office by other high holy somebodies, and who authenticated the validity and reliability of all the words of the unknown somebodies who came before them, even if they never met them, don't know their real names, and the documents don't appear to be written in the known common language of the time described by the authors?"

    Well, maybe consistent isn't exactly the right word. :-)) Maybe conceptually consistent is the apt phrase?

  • profile image

    Gustav Weibull 7 years ago

    Very nice use of semantics