2.0   A brief history of exist

    Most people are unaware that there is an intergenerational debate dating to the days of the Greeks regarding the two words that
    make or break any scientific theory:  object and exist. These are the two most important words in Science. Hume and Kant picked
    up the ball where the Greeks dropped it and zeroed in on the crucial question: What is it that we are adding to the word object
    when we say that in addition it exists.

    " the idea of existence ‘makes no addition’ to the idea of any object" [2]

    " By whatever and by however many predicates we may think a thing - even if we
       completely determine it — we do not make the least addition to the thing when we
       further declare that this thing is. ... If we think in a thing every feature of reality
       except one, the missing reality is not added by my saying that this defective
       thing exists. (Critique of Pure Reason, B628)" [3]

    Neither Hume nor Kant managed to answer the question, and those who came after did little better.

    " Frege argued that, in the proposition ‘Leo Sachse is’, nothing is being attributed
       to Leo Sachse" [4]

    " Socrates' existence could be a real property only if it added something to him,
       which it clearly does not." [5]

    Today, the morons of Philosophy have arrived at a temporary solution that seems reasonable to many of them. They concluded
    that there is a difference between 'is' and 'exists'. Some claim that these words are not synonyms as often claimed by dictionaries:

    " Why draw the ‘exists’/‘is’ distinction? Because it seems intuitively clear that
       ‘Pegasus’, ‘Zeus’, and ‘Hamlet’ are names of nonexistent, mythical, and fictional
       creatures. After all, ‘the logic of natural language seems to presuppose that it
       makes sense to refer to and talk about these creatures’... Consequently, there is
       indeed a case for not dismissing Pegasus and others as complete nonentities,
       but for admitting that they do have some kind of entity. One might even be
       tempted to say that they exist, except that this could be taken to imply that they
       were no less real than Aristotle, Plato and Julius Caesar, which few would be
       prepared to accept. To do justice to these considerations, therefore, we are
       urged to allow that Pegasus and Zeus truly are (or have being), but not to go so
       far as to accept that they exist (or have existence)." [6]

    The philosophers are suggesting that the definition of exist has to do with how we discover objects. Concrete objects we collide
    against (exist). Abstract objects we think about (is). The numskulls reach such ridiculous conclusions because they attempt to
    prove definitions. The members of the establishment believe that a definition is something you demonstrate by running an

    In Science, however, we do it differently. Before we can use a word or carry out an experiment in which it plays the central role,
    we must define it. In Science, definitions precede experimentation.

    The result is that today we have people on both sides of the divide using the word exist without ever having defined it or
    knowing what they are talking about. Fortunately, this leads to very amusing conclusions:

    " mathematical entities exist independently of the human mind. Thus humans do not
       invent mathematics, but rather discover it, and any other intelligent beings in the
       universe would presumably do the same." [7]

    [Intelligent beings? The mathematicians obviously have a very high opinion of themselves.]

    " Platonism is the form of realism that suggests that mathematical entities are abstract...
       all structures that exist mathematically also exist physically in their own universe." [8]

    [I guess we could call it 'abstract realism,' something like 'existing non existence'! The hero
    of the establishment, Plato, was a total moron! Unfortunately, most of humanity followed
    his line of thinking, presenting abstractions (e.g., numbers) as if they were real.]

    " The major problem of mathematical platonism is this: precisely where and how do the
       mathematical entities exist" [9]

    " since physics needs to talk about electrons to say why light bulbs behave as they do,
       then electrons must exist. Since physics needs to talk about numbers in offering any
       of its explanations, then numbers must exist. [10]

    " Where Quine suggested that mathematics was indispensable for our best scientific
       theories, and therefore should be accepted as a body of truths talking about
       independently existing entities, Field suggested that mathematics was dispensable,
       and therefore should be considered as a body of falsehoods not talking about
       anything real." [11]

    " mathematics is not universal and does not exist in any real sense, other than in human
       brains" [12]

    And so we sit back and relax, eat popcorn, and watch how the idiots of Mathematics and Philosophy make total fools of
    themselves talking in circles.

    1.0   The importance of definitions

    In one of his forgettable papers, the founder of the Church of Relativity, Pastor Al Einstein, wrote:

    "the existence of the gravitational field is intertwined with the existence of space" [1]

    The existence of space? What is dear Al talking about? Does it make any sense to say that space exists? What does exist mean
    in this context?

    Theists and atheists run into a similar predicament when they debate the question of whether God exists. The problem is not the
    word  God. The problem is the word exist. Unless the theorist defines the strategic word exist unambiguously, the claim that God
    exists (or doesn't) is meaningless.

    When a theorist attempts to prove the existence of God to you, he has crossed the line into Science. He is putting you on notice
    that he will attempt to rationalize his point of view. As a minimum, Science requires rigorous definitions of the key terms that make
    or break a theory, in the instant case, the word exist. There are two  reasons for this requirement. On the one hand, the  prosecutor
    needs to use his words consistently to make his case. On the other, the juror needs to understand the theory. Malleable definitions
    achieve neither of these objectives. The scientific method does not allow the speaker to fall back on definitions used in ordinary
    speech. It bars the proponent from introducing metaphor as a gimmick that delegates interpretation to the fancy of each listener. A
    prosecutor must tell the jurors exactly what the term 'God exists' means to him. This is his theory; not mine! He has to tell me what
    he means by 'exist' so that I can understand his theory! Otherwise, we are guaranteed to talk in circles for a lifetime, which is indeed
    the status quo in the ongoing dialogue between Christians and 'scientists' today. The theist says that he believes that God exists
    and the atheist replies that he knows that God doesn't. No one on either side clarifies what they mean by 'God exists.' So we have
    a dog chasing his tail. What have we learned?

    Indeed, one wonders how relativists, theists, atheists, and agnostics conceive of the creation of space. This question is relevant
    because I ask, 'What did Big Bang, God, or a leprechaun look like before space 'existed' (Fig. 1)?'

    What does exist mean in ordinary speech?

    If we look up the word exist in any dictionary, we discover that it enjoys two definitions:

    exist: 1. To have actual being; be.  2. To have life or animation; live.  To continue to be or
               live. [13]

    Of course, this just shows again that these folks are not aware that there has been an intergenerational debate around this
    strategic word and that the Philosophers have no clue what it means even today. You can easily tear down the being and life
    definitions. The word being is a synonym of exist:

    being: to exist or live [14]

    A synonym is nothing more than a circular definition. So much for being.

    The life or living definition is just as easy to debunk. I'll simply exemplify with a little anecdote. A cocky fundamentalist pastor
    once told me that to exist is to have life. I asked him if his car existed and he replied that it did. Then I asked him whether his car
    had life. That's when this pastor, a man who had spent his entire life convincing others that God exists, pondered the matter for
    a second and told me that he would take it as an action item to investigate the definition of the word exist.

    These two examples show just how tricky it is to define the word exist. Again, the issue is whether we can use whatever definition
    of exist anyone proposes consistently (i.e., scientifically). If we can't, we are guaranteed to discuss the existence of God and of
    space-time for an eternity, which is where we are today. The first order of any debate should be to get the strategic terminology

    4.0   The scientific definition of the word exist

    Let's now look at the scientific definition of exist and see if we can answer the question posed by Kant and Hume. The word
    exist means:

    exist: Physical presence.

    matter: A word that designates  the set or a subset of the objects that exist.

    The 'physical' part invokes an object. The 'presence' part invokes location. An object exists if it has location. The issue is now
    objective. An object exists by definition and not because I know or believe that it exists. Abstract objects have shape, but not
    location. Concepts have neither shape nor location. A concept is a relation between two objects. Space has neither shape nor
    location, but it is not a concept. These two words differ in that concepts are artificial (i.e., invented by Man). Space was there
    before any of us came on board. Neverthe-less, it would be irrational to say that we live within a concept created by Man.
    Having defined all the strategic words, we can now use them consistently in our discussions (i.e., scientifically).

    The philosophers with very little gray matter counter-argue that:

    " One well-known proposal is that an object is abstract if and only if it lacks a location
       in space. Thus justice is abstract because it seems impossible to say where it is. One
       potential problem for this proposal is that certain typically abstract objects, like the
       game of tennis, arguably do have a sort of spatial location (e.g. 'Tennis is alive and
       well in New York City'). Another problem is that some arguably concrete mental
       objects (e.g. Tim’s pang of concern for his eldest daughter) do not have spatial
       location." [15]

    " An abstract object is normally referred to something that does not exist physically. It
       is rational to say that abstract objects exist psychically, as opposed to physically." [16]

    The misconceived examples that these misguided authors allude to merely show that they have not defined the crucial terms
    that make or break their argument, in the instant case, the word object. It is irrational to talk about the location of justice because
    only physical objects may have location. The terms justice and game of tennis are nouns only for the purposes of ordinary
    speech. They are not nouns (i.e., objects) for the purposes of Science. The terms justice and game of tennis are concepts. An
    object is that which has shape. You don't explain an object. You point to it! Now, you stupid idiot: point to justice! What shape
    does justice have?

    Therefore, it shouldn't surprise you that these amateur philosophers end up concluding that justice, a game, and tennis have
    location. They say so because they have not defined the strategic words location, object, and exist that would enable them to
    get away with their ridiculous argument. And finally 'pang' is a verb for the purposes of Science and not a noun. Pang is not
    something we are. Pang is something we do. Pang is a process and not something you can point to.

    Even more hilarious is when the contemporary philosophers conclude that historical figures such as Socrates or Napoleon
    are concrete objects or concreta:

    " Concreta: Pete Sampras, A particular inscription of the word 'red,' Sandra Day
       O'Connor" [17]

    Again, there is no object, concrete or otherwise, in Physics or in Science called a 'Pete Sampras' or a 'Socrates.' It is the idiots
    of Mathematics and Philosophy who rely on such ridiculous language and end up talking in  circles.  In Science, and particularly
    in Physics, only those words which represent shapes qualify as 'nouns.' You point, say 'Napoleon', but the ET only sees the
    figure of a human. If you want him to understand the concept Napoleon, you will have to do more than just point! Ludicrous
    mathematical concepts such as energy, mass, time, field, space-time, black hole, dark matter, etc., are NOT a part of Science for
    this reason. You cannot point to energy or draw a picture of mass! You cannot make a movie in which you show 'energy being
    transferred'! Mathematical Physics is a religion because it relies exclusively on Ptolemaic explanations.

    5.0   This is just your particular definition of exist, Bill!

    You may not like my definition because you realize that it has the potential to destroy your religion. So now you argue that this
    is nothing more than my particular version.

    Let's again put your objection in the right context. The definition I am proposing can be used consistently (i.e., scientifically)
    in a discussion. When I say that this table exists, I am saying two things about it. I am saying that table has shape and that it
    enjoys a set of distances with respect to the remaining objects in the Universe   (i.e., location). The word exist refers to a
    surface and its separation from another surface. I can use this definition consistently in our discussion. Now we can talk
    intelligently (i.e., scientifically) about the existence of things. This definition summarily excludes concepts and space, neither
    of which qualifies as an object.

    I have no problem if you have a better proposal and, in fact, urge you introduce it into the record. Let's hear it! What does
    exist mean to you? Define it before we engage in a long-winded discussion because the entire dialogue is going to revolve
    around this formidable word. The key issue you have to watch out for is whether you can use your definition consistently.
    Bear in mind, again, that the idiots of Philosophy (who rank right up there with the mathematical physicists when it comes
    to ludicrous beliefs and irrational proposals) have been  unable to define the word exist in over 2000 years. So if you think
    that this definition is a simple matter, think again. You've got a lot of brainstorming to do and a lot of ideas to push to the

    You may argue, in the alternative, that you should be able to define a word in any way you want for the purposes of the
    instant dissertation.

    No problem! Just make sure that when you summarize your conclusions you do not invoke attributes you have not alluded
    to in your definition. For instance,  Hawking provides an example of what he means by the word object:

    " time is not completely separate from and independent of space, but is combined

    Strangely, though, he confesses that he cannot draw this alleged object or point to it:

    " It is often helpful to think of the four coordinates of an event as specifying its
       position in a four-dimensional space called space-time. It is impossible to imagine
       a four-dimensional space." (pp. 23- 24) [19]

    In other words, Hawking is not alluding to shape when he says that space-time is an object. He tacitly insinuates form, but is
    actually telling you that space-time is merely a convenient mathematical concept that comes in handy when explaining
    something about the Universe.

    Then, out of nowhere, he unjustifiably invokes form as if he has already covered this ground during his introduction:

    " when a body moves, or a force acts, it affects the curvature of space and time – and
      in turn the structure of space-time affects the way in which bodies move and forces
      act. (p. 33)  We thus have experimental evidence both that space-time can be warped...
      and that it can be curved in the way necessary to allow time travel" (p. 166) [20]

    Where did Hawking get the idea that he could warp and distort space-time? Before we allow him to warp space-time,
    Hawking will have to first establish that space-time has shape. Only when we see a surface can we visualize warping or
    bending. We can only warp or bend that which has form. Hawking states for the record that he can't even imagine
    space-time. So how is it that he now visualizes the surface of a star coming in contact with the surface of space-time?

    Whether he was aware or not, Hawking implicitly ran with the gross misconception that an object is that which we can
    talk about or name or use as the subject of a sentence. He even bypassed the erroneous 'touch and see' criteria so
    widespread in Philosophy:

    " anything that is visible or tangible and is relatively stable in form" [21]

    Certainly, you cannot touch that which you cannot even imagine.

    Therefore, if Hawking introduces space-time as an object because he claims that he can talk about it or name it, he is
    later denied the right to treat space-time in the context of shape or touch. He cannot claim that stars and planets weigh
    down the space-time canvas because this implies that space-time has form and that celestial objects have the ability to
    distort its shape. Hawking did not define the word object as that which has shape. Remember? He didn't even define it
    as something we can touch. He specifically stated that space-time is something he can't even imagine. He insinuated
    that it is an abstract mathematical concept, a term, a word he can talk about and use as the subject of a sentence.
    Hence, Hawking has no business using space-time as a battering ram or as a couch.

    Likewise, if you define the word exist as a synonym of living, for example, you are guaranteed to run into trouble. You
    cannot later amend your definition retroactively to incorporate rocks, water, and stars. It is the bad habit of relying on
    useful, but malleable definitions that leads to such idiotic statements and conclusions as the ones Hawking has
    throughout his book. It is by resorting to ordinary definitions that the religion of Mathematical Physics has rendered
    itself unfalsifiable.

    6.0   Of God and space-time

    The definitions of object and exist instantly destroy the arguments and proposals of traditional religions and of the
    religion of Mathematical Physics (General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and String Theory). The traditional religions
    cannot get away with saying that God is a concept -- a relation -- and that God also exists. If God wants to exist, He must
    first be a physical object. God cannot be an abstract concept and also exist. At least not for the purposes of a rational
    explanation (i.e., scientific). Here we're talking about rationalizing God and not about personal opinions and beliefs.

    If the proponent opts for an anthropomorphic God, the next step is for God to have location. If the Good Lord meets
    these two conditions, He exists by definition and not because of belief. Again your personal opinions, beliefs, and
    knowledge are irrelevant.

    In like manner, Einstein and his disciples cannot get away with ridiculous statements such as that space, space-time,
    black holes, point particles, dark matter, 1-D strings, or numbers exist. If space-time wants to exist, it must first have
    shape. Then it must have location. Otherwise, it doesn't exist, and we're talking about an abstract concept.

    7.0   Do you believe in or can you prove the existence of space-time, or of God, or of a Yeti?

    Indeed, it is this misconceived 'belief' issue about exist which is at the root of endless debates between theists, atheists,
    and agnostics.

    A theist is a person who says that he believes and/or knows and/or can prove that God exists:

    " a belief in the existence of a god or gods " [22]

    " The purpose of this brief study is to offer a logical, practical, pragmatic proof of the
       existence of God from a purely scientific perspective." [23]

    " we can show that it is highly probable that God exists" [24]

    " St. Thomas... and after him many scholastic writers advance the five following
       arguments to prove the existence of God" [25]

    " The Existence of God Logically Proven! Over thirty-seven years ago, I learned of
      absolute proof that God exists. My studies lasted 2 1/2 years." [26]

    [2 1/2 years, huh? Oh man! Is there a Nobel Prize for this intellectual?]

    An atheist is an individual who believes or claims to know for a fact that God doesn't exist:

    " One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods." [27]

    " the lack of theism... Basic atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief. There is a
       difference between believing there is no god and not believing there is a god --
       both are atheistic, though popular usage has ignored the latter  " [28]

    " Atheists lack belief in the existence of any gods" [29]

    " Many self-described atheists... cite a lack of empirical evidence for the existence
       of deities. [30]

    " Proof That God Doesn't Exist" [31]

    " What we have found is that there is no evidence for God's existence." [32]

    And an agnostic is an individual who says that he doesn't know whether God exists or whether we can prove or know for
    certain whether God exists. But he has been conditioned by the establishment to accept nothing less than proof:

    " a person who holds that the existence of...  things are unknown and unknowable"  [33] [34]

    " Agnostics claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge
      of the existence or non-existence of God" [35]

    " whoever asserts the existence of something has the burden of proof" [36]

    What these three seemingly different groups have in common is the gross misconception that belief, knowledge, and
    experiments have something to do with existence.

    " because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed" [John 20:29]

    " What is observed certainly exists... [37]  There is a 50-50 chance that the cat is alive
       or dead" [38]
    " it makes no sense to talk about an elementary particle until it is observed because it
       really doesn't exist unless it is observed." [39]

    " These tracks constitute the most readily assessable form of evidence for Sasquatch " [40]

    With the following kindergarten dialogues I hope to show that people who make such arguments don't know the first thing
    about the scientific method. It is just as idiotic to say that you believe that God exists as it is to say that you don't believe
    that God exists as it is to say that you don't know whether God exists because no one has yet ran a successful experiment
    to prove it to you. Belief and proof have absolutely nothing to do with existence! It is irrational to believe in or to attempt to
    prove existence!

    Dialogue 1

    Bill: “Does your left hand exist?”

    Baby: “Yes, it does.”

    Bill:  “Can you prove to me that your left hand exists?”

    Baby: “Sure!” (Baby lifts his left hand and shows it to me.)

    [One point for baby. Zero for Bill.]

    Dialogue 2

    Bill: “Does your mother exist?”

    Baby: “Yes, she does.”

    Bill: “Can you prove to me this very minute that your mother exists?”

    Baby: “No. Not this very minute. Well, wait a minute. Maybe I can. I'll do it through a syllogism…”

    Major Premise: “All humans have mothers.”

    Minor Premise: “I am a human.”

    Conclusion: “Therefore, I have a mother.”

    Bill:A little far-fetched, but okay. I'll concede the point!

    [Two points for baby. Zero for Bill.]

    Dialogue 3

    Bill: “Does your crib exist?”

    Baby. “The one I have in my bedroom?”

    Bill: “Yes.”

    Baby: “Yes, it does.”

    Bill: “Can you prove to me that it exists this very minute?”

    [Now baby cannot prove through an experiment that his crib exists like he
    did with his hand, and he certainly cannot demonstrate through logic that
    there is a necessity for its existence of his crib like he did with his mom.]

    Baby: “No, I guess I can’t.”

    Bill: “Does this mean that your crib doesn’t exist?”

    The point is that whenever we talk about proving or believing in existence we are not using the scientific definition of the
    word exist. A scientific definition of a word is one that can be used consistently. For the purposes of science, a crib exists
    or doesn't by definition (object + location) and not because the proponent has an opinion about its state of being. Any use
    other than that specified by this strict definition places the proponent's statement squarely in the realm of ordinary speech.
    Whenever two individuals discuss existence in the context of belief and proof, they are in for an exciting circular debate.
    There is no provision for faith or wisdom in the definition of exist ! The definition of exist doesn’t say that a leprechaun
    exists if you see him, believe in him, know for sure, or can prove the fact through an experiment. If you black-out and are
    no longer conscious of your right hand, does it vanish? Does your hand cease to exist until you recover your senses?

    Therefore, if there is a difference between object and existence it is certainly not predicated on knowledge or belief. Just
    think of the ominous consequences this would otherwise bring upon the unfortunate being at the other end.  The poor
    Lord would appear and disappear at random like a flickering virtual particle depending on whether it is a religionist or an
    atheist who is pondering the question. If God's existence depended on my belief or knowledge of His existence, God
    would be subject to my every whim. Hopefully, if the devil’s advocate refuses to believe that your hand exists, you will
    not end up with a stump (Fig. 3)!

Fig. 2

The non-existence of Socrates:
circular reasoning in contemporary

"I am Socrates, I am,
but I don't exist."
Yes, Bill ! I 'am' Socrates, but I
don't 'exist.' I 'existed,' but that
was 2000 years ago. Let me prove
it to you. Give me your hand. What
do you feel? Now tell me. Do you
really believe that I exist?
Existing Bill

Fig. 1   The creation of space
Theists, atheists, and agnostics have
no idea what they're arguing about!
Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist

    8.0   Conclusions

    In order to use the word exist consistently (i.e., scientifically) it cannot be a synonym of living and it cannot be introduced in
    the context of proof. We don't prove that Big Foot exists by pointing to a footprint or by watching a movie. If Big Foot exists,
    he exists irrespective of evidence or of our knowledge or opinion. There are only two ways to introduce Big Foot in a scientific
    context. Either the proponent includes this entity as an assumption in his statement of the facts or he presents Big Foot in
    person during the exhibits phase. A footprint is not evidence that Big Foot exists. A footprint is at best another piece of
    evidence in the theory that a large primate made it. The object 'primate' is not a part of the theory or of the subsequent proof.
    Prove, you prove through an experiment. What experiment can a proponent carry out in the context of existence other than
    to bring Big Foot in? The object 'primate' is exclusively a component of the hypothesis.

    Some lamebrains without much imagination attempt to make a last stand by arguing that God may exist for you but not for

    So again, what does this mean? Can we use whatever notion this particular version of exist represents in a scientific context?
    Can we use this proposal consistently? If this chair exists for the atheist, but not for the Christian, how are they going to carry
    on a rational debate about the existence of God? They have not defined the key word at the center of their debate. Predictably,
    they are in for a long discussion. We should apply to both the same rule: ‘If you can’t define the word and your entire theory
    hinges upon it, you can’t use it.’
You see what you did with your
unwarranted and extreme skepticism,
Bill? Now I don't want the whole
Universe to vanish like my leg did.
So please promise me that you will
believe in the existence of Big Bang !

Fig. 3   

Please believe in the existence
of space... for Steve's sake!
created space, it didn't exist. Now,
thanks to this  ground- breaking
invention, both God and ourselves
have something to cover our
shame with and to provide us with
contour. Without space, God loses
His most precious super-power:
shape. Therefore, space precedes
God, and it makes no sense to say
that God created it. Likewise,
without a contouring medium, Big
Bang is absolute poppycock!

So what did relativists do to get
around this insurmountable con-
ceptual problem? They developed
the argument that space-time is not
question in the first place. The mathematicians are brainwashed in college to repeat like zombies that
this is a question for philosophers. They are told to say that the issue of what lies beyond our
Universe doesn't concern Science because we cannot test the proposal with an experiment, so why
bother. It's just your opinion, Bill! (In §
7.0 below, I show that only Einstein's idiots prove existence
with an experiment!)

The mathematicians should learn the
scientific method before uttering such nonsense. Whether
space (i.e., Big Bang) can be contained by something is a conceptual issue lying at the root of the
presentation they just finished giving. The mathematicians concocted these convenient loopholes
because the question inherently destroys their theory. If relativists wish to use the words
space, and exist in a dissertation they must define them scientifically (i.e., in such a way that the
words can be used consistently throughout the presentation). Only then will the participants  be    
able to talk intelligently about the subject.

Inexistent Bill


                                  Home                    Books                    Glossary            

        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008