This is a debate that I am getting into on another forum (Catholic Answers Forums; for the unabridged debate, click here) with an atheist called Ateista. (In the debate, I'm "Dmar198".) Although other people contribute, she (or he) and I are the main contributors; thus, I have copied the debate (and I hope to continue updating it) in chronological, statement-response form, restricting only the posters (to me and Ateista) and the unnecessary context. Ateista makes the opening statement, and the rest is just a series of responses to one another.

The debate is whether a deity can simultaneously be outside of time and exist as creator of the universe. Enjoy!

_________________________

Ateista:

The non-faith, non-revelation types of arguments [for divine existence] all state that the physical universe is insufficient for its own existence in one aspect or another. There are several ways to put this, be it a need for first cause, first mover, etc... They all result in the assumption of an outside source, which they name "god". This god may not be the God of Christianity, but a supernatural entity, nontheless.

Let's suppose - for the sake of discussion - that they are correct, and there is such an entity.

What can we say about this being?

Obviously, it cannot be a material entity. It cannot be just a concept, since concepts are "passive" things, they are unable to act.

This being is supposed to be able to act, and act on the material world. That already brings up a serious problem. How can an immaterial entity interface with a material one? Any action presupposes effectors or force or energy to create an action. Action without effectors is not something we are familiar with, we cannot even imagine anything like that.

For theists that is no problem; they simply chalk it up as a "mystery".

This being is obviously cannot be constrained by space and time, since space and time are not independent of matter and energy. We are not familiar with such existence. But we can say that a timeless existence can only be one thing: "total stasis". Without "time" there is only an unchanging existence.

Theists agree, of course. They never fail to point out that God is immutable, God never changes. What kind of existence is that? We cannot imagine.

For the theists this is not a problem, either. It is just another "mystery".

So far, so good.

Now comes the 64 thousand dollar question: How can an entity outside time be able to "act"? Any action presupposes a "change". Action without change is an oxymoron. And any change presupposes a time, a "before" the change (or action) and an "after" the change (or action).

Existence outside space and time is a "mystery". Action without effectors is a "mystery".

But the combination of these two is not a mystery. We can say with absolute certainty, that the combination of "timeless" and "active" existence is a logical contradiction, and since this being is supposed to have both of these attributes, it cannot exist, just like a "square circle" cannot exist.

So the existence of God (any god) is disproven.

---

Dmar198:

You seem to be making the argument from timeless causality. But your assumption is that the Christian faith holds that at one point the universe did not exist, and thereafter it did exist when God so desired. You betray this assumption in saying, "[God] is supposed to be able to act, and act on the material world." That is not Christianity.
Sure, semantics dictates that when speaking of God in layman's terms it is appropriate to say that He "acts" or "creates", which you accurately note implies the existence of time. But that is just that: semantics; anthropomorphisms intended solely to relay the supernatural point into natural terms for the layman's understanding.
As an attribute of the timelessness of the supernatural, God does not act in the sense of causality. The assumption that the universe did not exist at some point and at some later point came into existence betrays a contradiction in thinking that time existed before the universe, a component of which is time itself.

In other words, the phrase "before time" is a contradiction. You would have there be some point "before the universe". But as time is a dimension of the universe, in so saying you have made a contradictory assumption. That is what lead to your contradictory conclusion.

So if "before time" is a contradiction, as is evident by its very language, then it must be that time always was. There cannot have been a time when time was not. Time is therefore everlasting. Then, you can have the system we commonly think of as "the universe" come into being within that everlasting time dimension. God, existing outside of and independent of the time dimension, is still plausible; because His existence has the attribute by nature of existing at every possible instant in that time dimension. And so at any given instant the divine static will of God - which exists outside of the time dimension - can come into action on the time dimension, and so the principle of causality still stands.

God's existence is thus not prohibited by the thought that He "acts" while remaining static in essence, for when properly understood those attributes are non-contradictory.

---

Ateista:
Quote:

Originally Posted by dmar198 Great post! You seem to be making the argument from timeless causality. But your assumption is that the Christian faith holds that at one point the universe did not exist, and thereafter it did exist when God so desired.

No, I am not arguing the Christian aspect. In many posts there were arguments that the universe cannot have "always" existed, and that requires an external causative agent.

This causative agent (usually called god) is nonmaterial, exists outside of time, and created the physical universe. I am not even arguing against the "nonmaterial" part. I just say that "outside" of time (which I consider nonsensical, but accept for the argument's sake) and any "activity" are contradictory terms. Quote:

Originally Posted by dmar198 In other words, the phrase "before time" is a contradiction. You would have there be some point "before the universe". But as time is a dimension of the universe, in so saying you have made a contradictory assumption. That is what lead to your contradictory conclusion.

I agree that "before time" as related to our "space-time-matter" universe is nonsensical. But god is supposed to be outside of this realm. Time and again (excuse the pun) it has been argued that god is not bound by space and time. And that leads to the contradiction. I do not argue that god is bound by our time. But if god "acts", then action (no matter how incomprensible that is) presupposes change, and that presupposes some kind of "time".

And if one accepts that there is "time" in the realm where god dwells, then the very same arguments that are brought up against our "time" - namely infinite past - can be brought up against it.

Static existence and action are contradictory, no matter how you want to view it.

---

Dmar198:
Quote:

Originally Posted by ateista [God] is nonmaterial, exists outside of time, and created the physical universe. I am not even arguing against the "nonmaterial" part. I just say that "outside" of time (which I consider nonsensical, but accept for the argument's sake) and any "activity" are contradictory terms.

You would be correct, if the word "activity" was used in its usual context; i.e. time-constrainted change from one condition to another. But that is not what is meant when the word "activity" is applied to God. We maintain that He is the source of the universe's existence, whether it be an infinite or finite existence; in order to explain that to Layman, words such as "activity" and "creation" have been used. But they are not meant in the time-constrainted context. God does not cause one condition to stop being and another to be [from His position] outside of time. All condition-changes of which God is the source involve time.
He cannot cause any condition to change to another independent of time; that would be a contradiction. You are correct about that.

But you make it seem as though we believe that God does cause one condition to change to another independent of time (namely, that God causes the universe to exist where it first did not). We do not hold such an idea.

For the universe's existence to be "caused" in the above sense by God, you would have God at one point existing as a Being Who has not caused the universe to exist, and then afterward as a Being Who has caused the universe to exist. That would contradict His immutable nature.

So what I'm trying to say is that God always has existed as the Being Who has caused the universe to exist. It is just that the effects of this event - here meaning the matter which became this world -, even though created in eternity-past, came into their being at a specific point on the same everlasting time-dimension.

So we can still say that the same God Who exists outside of time caused the universe to exist in time. When it is properly understood in that context, there is no contradiction.

---

Ateista:

First, a clarification. I am not talking about the Christian God, with its usually declared attributes. I am talking about the alleged "necessary being", the existence of which is postulated to explain the percieved "inadeqacy" of the natural universe.

From that assumption it follows only that this being cannot be material, and it cannot be constrained by our space and time. This is fine, no problem. Since this being is not material, it is acceptable that it has no spatial attributes.

However, it is not acceptable that it has no termporal attributes - if this being is allged to act in any sense of the word. The word "act" must have some meaning if one wishes to postulate that this necessary being effected the contingent universe. It is not important to know the wherewithal of this action, its ways and means can be totally outside our knowledge.

But if the word "action" or "creation" is to be used, and it is supposed to have a meaning, then it must have a temporal attribute - and thus it does lead to the contradiction I delineated above.

The only way to negate it is to deprive the word "action" or "creation" of any meaning whatsoever, rendering the sentence or proposition: "god created the universe" totally meaningless.

Your choice: either accept the contradiction, or admit that the word "action" or "creation" is simply gibberish or gobbledegook, without any meaning. You could say that "god hifsdyu the universe" and declare that "hifsdyu" is something that we all totally unfamiliar with, something that is totally incomprehensible to us. That proposition does not lead to a contradiction, but it has no meaning either. As I said: it is your choice.

A side note: I have had the same type of conversations about other alleged attributes of the Christian God: love, mercy, justice, omnipotence, omnisicence, etc... The final result was always the same: the apologists always declared that these words have a totally different meaning when applied to us and when applied to God.

A second side note (this time about the Christian God): what you say is in contradiction with the Bible, where God actually makes covenants, walks in the Garden of Eden, gives out the Ten Commandments, in other words "acts" within our space and time and "acts" in a meaningful manner. It is also alleged that God performs miracles, that is he interacts with our physical existence. All these are spatial and temporal activities - and as such they lead to the aforementioned contradiction.

So you guys are not in an enviable position: either accept the contradiction, or accept that the whole Bible is a myth, or retreat into a world where words have no meanings when they are applied to God. Which one will it be?

---

Dmar198:
Quote:

Originally Posted by ateista First, a clarification. I am not talking about the Christian God... I am talking about the alleged "necessary being", the existence of which is postulated to explain the percieved "inadeqacy" of the natural universe. From that assumption it follows only that this being...cannot be constrained by our space and time.

Actually, no, that does not necessarily follow. It is perfectly reasonable to believe that a god exists temporally. Only Abrahamic religions claim that God the Creator is eternal. Your argument would not apply to Hindu gods, for example.
Quote:

...it is not acceptable that [God] has no termporal attributes - if this being is allged to act in any sense of the word. ... The only way to negate it is to deprive the word "action" or "creation" of any meaning whatsoever, rendering the sentence or proposition: "god created the universe" totally meaningless.

You fall where you ignore the use of anthropomorphisms. Normally, the words "act" and "create" involve an object being changed by the subject from one condition to another over a period of time - indeed that is what those words were invented to indicate.
The Christian God does not "act" or create" in that sense: He does not cause the universe to cease being non-existent and start being existent over a period of time. But our language does not have adequate words to describe God, therefore, we must use inadequate ones such as "act" and "create" and clarify - when objections like this arise - that they are not used in the human, temporal sense.
God is the source of the universe. That is the Christian claim, when we delete such inadequate buzzwords as "act" and "create". When an objection to this formulation comes along, confirming its inadequacy, then another formula will be provided that debunks the objection. The formulae are all pointing to the same Truth; they simply use different words to express different aspects of it. To take the formula "God created the heavens and the earth" and assume that it is supposed to express the whole Truth adequately - as you have done - is a horribly mistaken understanding of a formula's purpose. Quote:

Your choice: either accept the contradiction, or admit that the word "action" or "creation" is...without any meaning. You could say that "god hifsdyu the universe" and declare that "hifsdyu" is something...totally incomprehensible to us.

The entire intent of formulae like these is to express meaning to the hearer. Even though with the proper qualifications it could be defended as accurate, the formula "god hifsdyu the universe" would not express any meaning, and so is useless.
You are correct on only one point: as regards God's existence as pertains to temporality, the words "action" and "creation" have no meaning. But that is my point! These words are not intended to carry such meaning. They are intended solely to express that we are contingent on Him. They serve that purpose. But when applied to His eternality, they are totally inadequate. You can't use those words to express His position inside or outside of time because that is not the purpose of the formula.
Quote:

apologists [have] always declared that these words have a totally different meaning when applied to us and when applied to God.

Yes! Words invented for use in this world - this nature - are inherently inadequate to explain the otherworldly - the supernatural. No one claims that they adequately do so; they are simply anthropomorphisms for the purpose of expressing a higher Truth to a lower creature. Quote:

[In] the Bible, ...God..."acts" within our space and time... It is also alleged that God performs miracles... All these are spatial and temporal activities...

Those events are anthropomorphisms and/or revelations of the Humanity of God the Son, usually the former. Miracles are established parts of the Creation since Creation - they were always going to happen, from eternity past, having been fully imparted to the Creation by the eternal Creator. It was only a matter of when we caught up to that moment in time.
Such events as portray God letting people "see His back" (e.g. Exodus 33:19-23) are revelations that God (in the Person of the Son) also has a Human nature, which He took on for our sake at the Incarnation. Quote:

either accept the contradiction, or accept that the whole Bible is a myth, or retreat into a world where words have no meanings when they are applied to God.

I choose none. You have not proven your thesis, which is that such language reveals a contradiction in Christian doctrine. There is not really such a contradiction; only one that arises in your mind from a mistaken understanding of the formula "God created...".

---

Ateista:
Quote:

Originally Posted by dmar198 Actually, no, that does not necessarily follow. It is perfectly reasonable to believe that a god exists temporally. Only Abrahamic religions claim that God the Creator is eternal. Your argument would not apply to Hindu gods, for example.

No, it would not. Nor would it apply to the Roman or Greek or Egyptian gods. However, no one believes in those gods any more, so you show their nonexistence is an unnecessary exercise. Quote:

Originally Posted by dmar198 You fall where you ignore the use of anthropomorphisms. Normally, the words "act" and "create" involve an object being changed by the subject from one condition to another over a period of time - indeed that is what those words were invented to indicate.

You say exactly what I say. The gods are anthropomorphic inventions of humans, who invented them to "explain" the currently unexplainable. Quote:

Originally Posted by dmar198 The Christian God does not "act" or create" in that sense: He does not cause the universe to cease being non-existent and start being existent over a period of time. But our language does not have adequate words to describe God, therefore, we must use inadequate ones such as "act" and "create" and clarify - when objections like this arise - that they are not used in the human, temporal sense.

Then you do not have the epistemological right to use those words, because you create confusion. Words are supposed to have meanings, to convey understanding. If there are no proper words to describe something, then there must be silence. One can "invent" new words, for sure, but they will be meaningless, until there can be a common understanding as to what they mean. Quote:

Originally Posted by dmar198 God is the source of the universe.

That is just as meaningless as the other words. Quote:

Originally Posted by dmar198 That is the Christian claim, when we delete such inadequate buzzwords as "act" and "create". When an objection to this formulation comes along, confirming its inadequacy, then another formula will be provided that debunks the objection.

In other words, we are engaged in a game of "hide and seek". Believers make an assertion, the atheists show that it is meaningless, and then the believers abandon their words, and try to use another one... How would you describe this process? I would say that the believers have no idea what they are talking about. Quote:

Originally Posted by dmar198 They are intended solely to express that we are contingent on Him.

That is what is supposed to be the outcome, not a premise. That is why the different "proofs" of god were invented. Quote:

Originally Posted by dmar198 Yes! Words invented for use in this world - this nature - are inherently inadequate to explain the otherworldly - the supernatural. No one claims that they adequately do so; they are simply anthropomorphisms for the purpose of expressing a higher Truth to a lower creature. Those events are anthropomorphisms and/or revelations of the Humanity of God the Son, usually the former.

Sorry, you are back to mysticisms, revelations and the like. Those have no place in a philosphical discussion, though they are adequate in a theological one. Quote:

Originally Posted by dmar198 I choose none. You have not proven your thesis, which is that such language reveals a contradiction in Christian doctrine. There is not really such a contradiction; only one that arises in your mind from a mistaken understanding of the formula "God created...".

In my eyes you did. You did choose the last one: "humans cannot say anything substantial about god". And if that is case, then we engaged in a futile exercise.
I give you a challenge: choose any one of God's alleged attributes, which can be properly expressed in human terms. Let's see if we can have a meaningful conversation about it.

---

Dmar198:
Quote:

Originally Posted by ateista Quote: Originally Posted by Dmar198 Your argument would not apply to Hindu gods ...[For] you [to] show their nonexistence is an unnecessary exercise.

You claimed that you weren't speaking of any specific deity, however your statements only apply to the Abrahamic deity. I was pointing that out, so the exercise was not futile. Quote:

...gods are anthropomorphic inventions of humans, who invented them to "explain" the currently unexplainable.

I disagree. The language used to describe God is anthropomorphic, but God Himself is not. The "God of the gaps" (the god who is appealed to solely to explain something unknown) is attractive to those who want to discuss the origin of the universe, but the God of the gaps is not the God of Abraham.
God is not an invention made to explain how the universe exists. Even the earliest concepts of God betray an assumption that He already exists; people thus believed in Him long before they started trying to understand how the world came to be. Quote:

you do not have the epistemological right to use those words ["create" and "act" etc.], because you create confusion.

I am not using them epistemologically. I am using them anthropomorphically. Thus I didn't even claim to have a right to use them epistemologically, so your objection is moot.
Words like "create" etc. are used in a context, and in their proper context they are not confusing. E.g., "Create" as applied to God was used in the context of teaching that we are contingent on Him for existence. In that context, it is not confusing. It is when you strip the word of its proper context and apply your own - as you have done - that it becomes confusing.
So really it is your fault: words like "create" are all used in their respective contexts, none of which have to do with God's atemporality. When you applied them to His atemporality and noted that they lead to contradiction, you were simply stating the obvious: those words don't belong in that context. Quote:

Words are supposed to have meanings, to convey understanding. If there are no proper words to describe something, then there must be silence.

The phrase "God created the universe" does have meaning and does convey understanding: that we need God. They are thus proper to explain that Truth.
But when you misapply those words to His atemporality, then they lose all meaning and stop conveying understanding, and must be discarded from that context. That is what I've been trying to do: show you that you misapplied those words to a context that had nothing to do with the formula which they were originally used in. Quote:

Originally Posted by Ateista Quote: Originally Posted by Dmar198 When an objection to this formulation ["God is the source of the universe"] comes along, confirming its inadequacy, then another formula will be provided that debunks the objection. In other words, ...Believers make an assertion, the atheists show that it is meaningless, and then the believers abandon their words, and try to use another one...

No. The formula "God is the source of the universe" is adequate in the context that we are speaking of. But it is surely inadequate in another context, and when an atheist applies it to that other context it must be discarded from that context. Both formulae, however, are proper to their original contexts. Atheists merely confirm that these formulae are meaningless in the wrong contexts. Quote:

Originally Posted by Ateista Quote: Originally Posted by Dmar198 [Those specific formulae] are intended solely to express that we are contingent on Him. That is what is supposed to be the outcome, not a premise. That is why the different "proofs" of god were invented.

No, contingency was assumed when those formulae were originally used. It was later that those assumed formulae were backed up. Quote:

Sorry, you are back to mysticisms, revelations and the like. Those have no place in a philosphical discussion, though they are adequate in a theological one.

You brought up the Bible as revelation and miracles are mysticisms. I was simply pointing out that these are consistent with the Abrahamic view of God. Quote:

You [claim]: "humans cannot say anything substantial about god". ...[so] we engaged in a futile exercise.

I suppose I did say that any choice of human words is inherently inadequate to fully express the attributes of God. Sorry for that oversight. However no choice of words can adequately express love as well, and yet people understand it. All we have are human words that can never express our meaning to their full extent - but it is certainly within the bounds of linguistics to use those words to explain what we mean to a limited extent. After that comes faith. Quote:

I give you a challenge: choose any one of God's alleged attributes, which can be properly expressed in human terms.

There is no such attribute.

---

Ateista:
Quote:

Originally Posted by dmar198 You claimed that you weren't speaking of any specific deity, however your statements only apply to the Abrahamic deity. I was pointing that out, so the exercise was not futile.

There is no reason to argue about it. The non-faith, non-revelation, purely philosophical types of arguments posit a "neutral" deity, who is arguably the cause of the universe. Quote:

Originally Posted by dmar198 I disagree. The language used to describe God is anthropomorphic, but God Himself is not. The "God of the gaps" (the god who is appealed to solely to explain something unknown) is attractive to those who want to discuss the origin of the universe, but the God of the gaps is not the God of Abraham. God is not an invention made to explain how the universe exists. Even the earliest concepts of God betray an assumption that He already exists; people thus believed in Him long before they started trying to understand how the world came to be.

Correct me if I am wrong, but does not the Bible start with the Genesis? Sure it is more than that, but that is how it begins: a description of how God "created" the universe. "Let there be light" - said God. Quote:

Originally Posted by dmar198 I am not using them epistemologically. I am using them anthropomorphically. Thus I didn't even claim to have a right to use them epistemologically, so your objection is moot.

I though that we are conducting a philosophical discussion, where epistemology ("how do we gain knowledge&quot is a perfectly suitable framework. Quote:

Originally Posted by dmar198 Words like "create" etc. are used in a context, and in their proper context they are not confusing. E.g., "Create" as applied to God was used in the context of teaching that we are contingent on Him for existence. In that context, it is not confusing. It is when you strip the word of its proper context and apply your own - as you have done - that it becomes confusing.

The phrase "contingent on him for existence" is only syntactically different from "create". Stripping the verb "create" does not alter it at all. Quote:

Originally Posted by dmar198 So really it is your fault: words like "create" are all used in their respective contexts, none of which have to do with God's atemporality. When you applied them to His atemporality and noted that they lead to contradiction, you were simply stating the obvious: those words don't belong in that context.

If asking for clarity in a discussion is "fault", then I will gladly declare myself "guilty". Quote:

Originally Posted by dmar198 The phrase "God created the universe" does have meaning and does convey understanding: that we need God. They are thus proper to explain that Truth.

"Need"? As in emotional need? Or "cause"? Quote:

Originally Posted by dmar198 I suppose I did say that any choice of human words is inherently inadequate to fully express the attributes of God. Sorry for that oversight. However no choice of words can adequately express love as well, and yet people understand it.

Surely we understand "love". It is an emotion, a state of mind, which expresses feelings toward someone or something else. It is supposed to be expressed in actions, otherwise it is an emtpy phrase. Quote:

Originally Posted by dmar198 There is no such attribute.

Well, I think that the offical Catholic teaching is totally different. Many times have I seen that the teaching of the church is that God is knowable by rational means.
But, be as it may, a timeless existence is stasis. Nothing "happens" in a timeless existence. As a matter of fact it is not distinguishable from nonexistence. So the two possible propositions: "God exist in a timeless manner" and "God does not exist" are functionally identical.

---

Dmar198:
Quote:

Originally Posted by ateista There is no reason to argue about it. The non-faith, non-revelation, purely philosophical types of arguments posit a "neutral" deity, who is arguably the cause of the universe.

Agreed. Quote:

Correct me if I am wrong, but does not the Bible start with the Genesis? Sure it is more than that, but that is how it begins: a description of how God "created" the universe. "Let there be light" - said God.

You will notice that it mentions God before it mentions the creation; He is assumed before any mention of Creation. Many translations make this even more explicit: the NAB (for example) says, "In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth...", showing that He is assumed before any talk of creation. Thus the concept of the "God of the Gaps" is unnecessary for the God of Abraham; He was not invented to explain how the world got here, because His existence was assumed before it talks about that. Quote:

I though that we are conducting a philosophical discussion, where epistemology ("how do we gain knowledge&quot is a perfectly suitable framework.

Epistemology is the study of knowledge, especially its limits. You were making an epistemologically-based imperative when you said that Catholics ought to refrain from teaching with such words as "create" and "act" because they mislead students into thinking that God is temporal, and thus are not conducive to gaining knowledge.
But we do not use them with the purpose of studying their utility towards learning, and neither do we use them to limit what we can know about God. Rather, they are used simply to say that our existence is contingent on God, i.e. we would not exist if it weren't for Him.
So there can be no substantial epistemological objection to their use. Quote:

The phrase "contingent on him for existence" is only syntactically different from "create".

It is quite different: it allows for the possibility that the greater universe is non-temporal, which is one of the Christian claims. Something can be the source for another thing without "creating" it in the temporal sense; imagine, for example, that a light-bulb has been turned "on" for eternity. Assuming the bulb is functioning properly, the light which it produces is co-eternal with itself, because a light-bulb cannot both function properly and be "on" without producing light. However, even given this non-temporal state, the light is still contingent on the bulb for its existence.
I am claiming that the universe (in only one dimension: time) is co-eternal with God, but still has Him as its source (kind of like the light and the bulb). Thus we may say that we are contingent on God for our own existence, without rejecting the doctrine of His immutability, as this allows us to affirm that God exists from all eternity as the Being Who has "created" the universe. Quote:

If asking for clarity in a discussion is "fault", then I will gladly declare myself "guilty".

My mistake. I thought you were objecting to the use of such terms as "create" and "act" as applied to God; apparently, however, you were merely asking for clarification. I'll make note of that. Quote:

"Need"? As in emotional need? Or "cause"?

As in contingency. We need to consider Him as existent in order to consider ourselves as existent. Quote:

Surely we understand "love". It is an emotion, a state of mind, which expresses feelings toward someone or something else. It is supposed to be expressed in actions, otherwise it is an emtpy phrase.

"Love" is not quantifiable; it goes deeper than we can objectively verify. You cannot adequately describe the loving emotion in human language; it is ineffable. Quote:

Well, I think that the offical Catholic teaching is totally different. Many times have I seen that the teaching of the church is that God is knowable by rational means.

That is perfectly compatible with my statement. I was not speaking of existence as if it were an attribute. Quote:

a timeless existence is stasis. Nothing "happens" in a timeless existence. As a matter of fact it is not distinguishable from nonexistence. So the two possible propositions: "God exist in a timeless manner" and "God does not exist" are functionally identical.

This is ludicrous. A .jpeg file exists in complete stasis; would you say that it's existence is indistinguishable from nonexistence?