A religious nonsense

I found this blog whoexist.blogspot.in
This is one of the tricks of the religious to show there is god. This blog is different because of the low quality of the blog and the level of ignorance he displays. So let us take it as a comedy, I have added my comments in case any religious one is reading.

Blog: “Someone exist means

He is unchanging with time.”

Looks like this fellow has no idea what he is speaking, maybe he is drunk. Here he is equating exist to unchanging, that is he is saying that the definition of exist is unchanging.

A definition is a statement of the precise meaning of a term that limits the meaning. A word can have many meaning, but each meaning differ. A definition is used to remove any ambiguities and limit it to a single meaning so that we can avoid using it consistently in a discussion and avoid the fallacy of equivocation.

Let us take the word “exist”, the meanings given in dictionary are,

a :  to have real being whether material or spiritual 

b :  to have being in a specified place or with respect to understood limitations or conditions 

:  to continue to be 

a :  to have life or the functions of vitality 

b :  to live at an inferior level or under adverse circumstances

           

We can see that three different meanings are given. Let us analyze each

“1” has to parts ‘a’ says real and ‘b’ says location. Real is defined as ‘being a physical entity’. What does that means? So together it means physical presence (material presence), that is it has a shape (an object) with location (place). So what it says is that exist means physical presence that is being an object with location.

It also means exist, ‘is’ and real are synonyms.

“2” says ’continue to be’, means it is existing at the time we are referring to it. That means when we say something exist, the time we refer to the object is taken as present, or when we say ‘a exists’ it is as if we are in the time when ‘a exists’, exist is always present tense.

“3” is synonymous with living.

So it turns out that exist means 1) Physical presence and 2) living. So it is the job of the presenter to specify which meaning he is using before presenting his case.  For example when we say ‘chair exists’ we obviously doesn’t mean the chair is living.

But our blogger instead chose to bring an entirely unrelated word “unchanging” as the definition of exist. May be he has some agenda or maybe he is an ignoramus.

Now unchanging means ‘without change’. Even if we move our little finger it means change. If I move my little finger, your location in relation to my finger changes. That means you will not be able to use unchanging with anything. As god is something rather than nothing, we can’t use exist even with god. He has defeated his purpose with his new terminology.

This is what he says
Also unchanging is an adverb, so where is the verb that 'unchanging' qualifies? Without the verb the statement is incomplete. 

“If someone or something change with time we can't say that being or thing exist.”

If god opens his mouth, if he thinks he changes and by his definition doesn’t exist. “Someone” refer to a person, a living thing. A living thing by definition moves, changes. So by his definition god is not a living thing, or god doesn’t exist if it is a living thing.

 “Eternal is without beginning or end. 

Someone always present or exist should be eternal. 

But someone who exist

 is not only eternal he should be unchanging ,same yesterday today and tomorrow”

First part is ok, someone who is ‘always present’ should be eternal. Second part is ridiculous. There is no “unchanging” in the definition of ‘exist’. This fellow didn’t state the definition  of exist, doesn’t know the definition of ‘exist’ but wants “unchanging” to be in the definition, only because he is ignorant of the meaning of “unchanging”. He thinks with a slight of hand trick he can fool the audience.

“Material objects don't exist always.”

 Material, made of matter and object are synonyms, this fellow didn’t know that either! Now let as use the implicit definition he gave here and see, ‘material objects are “unchanging” always, can any other statement be more ridiculous? What the heck is “exist”, fella?

“Exist means always present”

Finally a definition, only problem, he does not know what ‘present’ mean either. Presence signifies location. Location is always for an object, so when we simply say presence, it means an object (implicit) with location, yup ‘exist’. So according to his definition ‘exist’ means “always existing”. He is nuts. This is what happens when one take too much whisky.

“Root meaning of exist is stand forth. If something or someone doesn't  remain always,according to core word meaning we can't say that thing or being  exist. “

So what does “remain” means here, if not exist. He is surreptitiously trying to use the word exist here hoping no one will see the circularity. Again he is saying that if someone doesn’t exist always he doesn’t exist. So much for a definition!!

“Concepts doesn't present always so don't really exist 

Material objects doesn't present always so don't really exist."

Another brainer!! A concept is conceived by a sentient being, a thought. No concepts exist.

We saw that ‘exist’ has nothing to do with ‘always’, we also know that objects exist. Time is not included in the definition of exist.

“Who exists?”

Please define ‘exist’ then we will know ‘who’ or ‘what’ exists!

“It is about a person. We know a person is made up of matter. But person is not matter alone”

He said god is someone earlier, so god is a person. Here he says a person is made of matter. By deduction, god is made of matter which means god is an object. Yet he explicitly denies that god is not an object. Did he take rum too?

“Matter present for a long time. But it may also undergo disintegration."

A great assertion but he forgot to state why. It also means god, as he is made of matter, also undergo disintegration. After this he contradicts himself stating that god is always “existing”.

“25 years before he existed as a person.”

This fellow do not know that exist has to be used in present tense. When he say his grandpa, he obviously is visualizing a shape with a location to point to, that is when he does for a moment he is treating it as present. The he say “Then we have to say my grandpa existed, now not existing,in the future he may exist again. But better term will be he was present,now not present and in the future he may resurrect or reconfigured.”, Why this fellow don’t use “lived”? has he never heard such a term?

A classical blog to teach children how not to write English. For adults, unless they are brainwashed morons, this will be comedy. I should thank the author for giving us a comedy.