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

Why God Doesn't Exist - Living

Updated on December 11, 2015

(Comments have been disabled in all my hubs. If you wish to leave a comment go to the Rational Scientific Method.)

____________________

Exist is not a synonym of living.

____________________

Descartes became quite famous for formulating his no-nonsense, practical definition of existence: ‘Cogito, ergo sum’ (“I think; therefore, I am”). He insinuated that as long as you are conscious of yourself, it is self-evident that you exist. We can more or less rephrase his proposal as, “I am aware of myself; therefore, I had better exist.”

But the logic of this version of the word exist leaves much to be desired. For instance, if we put God in the driver’s seat, we can say that ‘God thinks; therefore He exists.’ God also believes that the table exists, therefore, the table exists. So far, so good! However, this doesn’t seem to work in reverse. The table doesn’t think; therefore, the table doesn’t exist. And it follows that because the table doesn’t think that God exists, God disappears as well. What have we learned?

Descartes’ definition falls short of the mark because it circumscribes existence to living entities. Pursuant to his proposal, my car, my house, my clothes -- anything lacking self-propulsion -- would cease to exist simply because inert objects are denied the ability to think.

Yet even within living entities ‘Cogito, ergo sum’ struggles against logic. A snail is a living entity which does not enjoy the blessing of a high IQ. Is the snail conscious of its existence or of your existence? Does the snail ponder whether it or a table exists? If we accept Descartes’ operational definition, existence would be further circumscribed to humans. What would be the purpose of such an unwarranted restriction?

However, the ultimate problem with Descartes’ proposal is that it fails within a temporal context. Does it make sense to say that Napoleon existED? Did Napoleon begin to exist one day and cease to exist on another? Are ‘to exist’ and ‘to live’ synonyms?

Both living and exist are on or off, black or white types of concepts. You are either alive or dead, and the UFO either exists or it doesn’t. But living is a dynamic concept whereas exist is static. You need to watch a minimum of two frames of a movie to understand ‘alive’, ‘to live’ or ‘living’. You need to imagine but a single shape to understand ‘exist’. Living is to an interval what exist is to an instant. Living invokes motion; exist, location. If there is a single object in the Universe we may say that it exists. In order for it to be living, it would have to do more than just sit there. God does not need to breathe to exist. God does need to breathe or think or walk to be alive.

Note that nothing in this line of reasoning changes were we to replace the word God with the word rock. It is incongruous to say that the rock has always existed (past) or that it will continue to exist (future). The verb ‘to be’ is a synonym of the dynamic concepts to live, to occupy, to continue to remain, or to belong. It is not a synonym of ‘to exist.’ A statement such as, ‘The rock is there’ does not satisfy the intrinsic, static existence spec a standalone object meets all on its own. It addresses, instead, the dynamic ‘to occupy’, ‘to remain’, or ‘to belong’ notions that originate in the perceptions of extrinsic observers.

Therefore, it is incongruous to say that God has always existED or that He will continue to exist eternally. The proponent is saying that God lived, lives, and will continue to live, to be, to remain, or to occupy, but has so far said nothing about God’s existence

__________________________


Comments

Submit a Comment

  • billgaede profile image
    Author

    billgaede 6 years ago

    "What about the atoms within the rock?"

    In Science, we don't deal with mereology.

    http://www.youstupidrelativist.com/04Exist/01Z2Z7M...

    An object is NOT that which is made of atoms. An object is that which has shape.

    Regarding self-propelled motion, an atom cannot move of its own volition against the will of gravity. Only living entities have that ability.

  • profile image

    Kirui 6 years ago

    'a rock cannot'

    What about the atoms within the rock?

  • billgaede profile image
    Author

    billgaede 6 years ago

    "there is naturally no clear cut between alife and dead It is only us who can differentiate or define the difference, not nature"

    .

    This is not a question of being able to differentiate. This is not about observing. In Science, we don't observe, specifically, without understanding. This is strictly a conceptual issue.

    .

    The numskulls of Biology never defined the word at the center of their discipline: 'living' (or life). So that's where we must start...

    .

    life: that which moves against gravity of its own volition

    .

    Only objects have the ability to carry out motion. Concepts such as love and justice don't move Thus, 'fire' is not an object. Fire is a movie. So is 'wind'. So is (water) 'wave'. If 'a' fire climbs up a building, 'it' is not moving against gravity because fire is not an 'it'.

    .

    Hence, either the system moves of its own volition or it doesn't. Either the thing struggles against gravity or it doesn't. If the object in question can move on its own against the pull of gravity, it is alive according to Mother Nature. Otherwise, it is inert. The definition does not include artificial objects such as robots or toy trucks run with batteries.

    .

    A human is alive because he or she can move against gravity. A plant is alive because it grows against gravity. And so on. Gravity pulls on your hand, on a plant, and on a rock downwards. The hand and the plant may fight against gravity and move in the opposite direction. A rock cannot.

    .

    .

    "anything eternal amazes me and I respect it/him as God!"

    .

    Why call God 'Him'??? Does 'He' have balls between 'His' legs??? Does he sleep with a 'She' and have little baby gods?

    .

    And if 'it' is eternal, what does it mean to 'respect' 'it'? Do you salute your door on your way out? Do you talk to walls? Do you bow down and pray to stones?

    .

    In order to be eternal, it has to be an 'it'. Living entities are not eternal, not even this alleged 'Him' God of yours. The matter in the U was not created as the idiots of traditional religions and the religion of Mathematical Physics will have you believe. And you don't need a PhD to understand that atoms and the EM ropes that interconnects them are eternal. Here's the reasoning...

    .

    object: that which has shape

    space: that which doesn't

    .

    We cannot even imagine space spontaneously acquiring length, width, and height (i.e., IN ZERO TIME) and we certainly cannot conceive of an object suddenly losing LWH in zero time. Matter cannot turn into space and space cannot morph into matter. Since space does not have shape, atoms cannot leave space. There is no bag or container which to leave! Not even Almighty God can step across that which has no boundary! 'He' is just another prisoner, trapped in this U just like the rest of us.

    .

    Conclusion: Matter is eternal. It was never created and cannot be destroyed (i.e., converted into space). The U is the only imaginable perpetual machine. The U was never born and it will never die. The nonsense that the idiots of Relativity propound -- that the U had an origin a few bya -- is utter poppycock! Yet, it's what most people in the world believe.

  • profile image

    L.K.kirui 6 years ago

    The interconnections in em theory looks like a giant leaving being, Bill. I define a leaving being as a moving thing so there is no genuinly dead thing. In another language, there is naturally no clear cut between alife and dead. It is only us who can differentiate or define the difference, not nature . I have no problem, anything eternal amazes me and I respect it/him as God! I define God as the eternal one. Now it doesn't matter even if it is the matter itself. After all if the matter has the characteristic that can make me conscious and see the day, what else do i need? But big bang? Everything creating itself from nothing? Terrible! It terrifies me to think that there is nothing eternal. To me that is the genuine non existence of God! That the u is just a bubble gas! Nevertheless the explanation is bunk anyway! It take no effort for someone who genuinely think about it to debunk it. There absolutelly have to be something eternal. I agree that at least some form of matter is the thing.

  • billgaede profile image
    Author

    billgaede 6 years ago

    "if God doesnt exists then he is not living?"

    .

    Certainly, existence is a precondition for living. But existence is not the only requirement to be alive. A rock exists. It is not alive.

    .

    .

    "where did the rock came from thats the big question"

    .

    It's a trivial Q! People simply have never rationalized it properly.

    .

    object: that which has shape

    space: that which doesn't (quick and dirty version)

    .

    We cannot imagine let alone explain how length, width and height appear spontaneously from a total void IN ZERO TIME. Likewise, we cannot imagine how length, width and height spontaneously disintegrate and morph into nothing IN ZERO TIME!!!

    Not even God can create something (that which has shape) from absolutely nothing (that which doesn't have shape). What will He use for starting material?

    So, no. The issue of 'where' the rock came from may allude to transportation of a rock from A to B. It cannot possibly have to do with 'creating' a rock from the void.

  • profile image

    Lucian 6 years ago

    So does this suggest that if God doesnt exists then he is not living? So God has to be then if he doesnt exists so he existed before didnt he? The rock will remain intact until something happens to that rock but where did the rock came from thats the big question

  • PieterTheProphet profile image

    PieterTheProphet 6 years ago

    Hello again billgaede, right now I'm pondering the movement of my fingers. If I'm doing this right, I am letting you know that I'm reading on. Your existence, indeed you life, has made the universe more interesting for me. Thank you.

    Great read!

  • profile image

    agentmarmite 6 years ago

    Great article Bill, right to the meat of the matter as always.

  • billgaede profile image
    Author

    billgaede 7 years ago

    Must have emptied your brain to type that entire comment!

  • profile image

    sane person 7 years ago

    nutter