Why God Doesn T Exist Essay Checker

The answer to this question has changed over the years. The current answer is here at the top, followed by the various answers over the years in chronological order:

Current Answer

You can use :

It was deprecated for several years, but no longer is. From the docs:

Note that is deprecated, but is not. (The callback parameter to accepts parameters that are inconsistent with other Node.js callbacks. does not use a callback.)

You've specifically asked for a synchronous check, but if you can use an asynchronous check instead (usually best with I/O), use (since is deprecated).


Historical Answers

Here are the historical answers in chronological order:

  • Original answer from 2010
    (/ or /)
  • Update September 2012
    (/)
  • Update February 2015
    (Noting impending deprecation of /, so we're probably back to / or /)
  • Update December 2015
    (There's also / , but note that if the file/directory doesn't exist, it's an error; docs for recommend using if you need to check for existence without opening)
  • Update December 2016
    is still deprecated but is no longer deprecated. So you can safely use it now.

Original answer from 2010:

You can use or (docs link), which give you an object. In general, if a synchronous version of a function is available, it will have the same name as the async version with at the end. So is the synchronous version of ; is the synchronous version of , etc.

tells you both whether something exists, and if so, whether it's a file or a directory (or in some file systems, a symbolic link, block device, character device, etc.), e.g. if you need to know if it exists and is a directory:

...and similarly if it's a file, there's ; if it's a block device, there's , etc., etc. Note the ; it throws an error if the entry doesn't exist at all.

It doesn't require a , but gives you no information about what the thing is, just that it's there. was deprecated long ago.


Side note: You've expressly asked how to check synchronously, so I've used the versions of the functions above. But wherever possible, with I/O, it really is best to avoid synchronous calls. Calls into the I/O subsystem take significant time from a CPU's point of view. Note how easy it is to call rather than :

But if you need the synchronous version, it's there.

Update September 2012

The below answer from a couple of years ago is now a bit out of date. The current way is to use to do a synchronous check for file/directory existence (or of course for an asynchronous check), rather than the versions below.

Example:

Update February 2015

And here we are in 2015 and the Node docs now say that (and ) "will be deprecated". (Because the Node folks think it's dumb to check whether something exists before opening it, which it is; but that's not the only reason for checking whether something exists!)

So we're probably back to the various methods... Until/unless this changes yet again, of course.

Update December 2015

Don't know how long it's been there, but there's also / . And at least as of October 2016, the documentation recommends using to do existence checks ("To check if a file exists without manipulating it afterwards, is recommended."). But note that the access not being available is considered an error, so this would probably be best if you're expecting the file to be accessible:

Update December 2016

You can use :

It was deprecated for several years, but no longer is. From the docs:

Note that is deprecated, but is not. (The callback parameter to accepts parameters that are inconsistent with other Node.js callbacks. does not use a callback.)

How to Prove that God Doesn’t Exist

There are a couple things I can appreciate about the “Who designed the Designer?” argument.

Although it is rooted in a caricature of the kalam cosmological argument’s first premise ("Whatever begins to exist has a cause"), it is a positive argument for atheism, and it does attempt to deal with the God hypothesis in the only arena where God’s existence may be decisively confirmed or refuted: the arena of philosophy.

The God defended by Christian theists is a transcendent, eternal, and spiritual being. He is the one creator of all physical reality and existed before all of time, space, matter, and energy. Being “outside” the natural world, God cannot be discovered nor refuted by science alone. For this reason the arguments for and against God’s existence must be, in the end, philosophical.

For instance, if the skeptic could expose an error in the formulation of the popular kalam argument—say, that its major premise “Whatever begins to exist has a cause” is false—then this would force one of theism’s most compelling arguments to the chopping block. Indeed, such a refutation has been attempted by astrophysicist Lawrence Krauss, for example, who tried to claim in his book A Universe from Nothing that the universe indeed can and did arise from nothing.

Krauss was critically rebuked in the New York Times by fellow atheist David Albert for equivocating on the word nothing. Of course, even if Krauss had been successful, and the validity of the kalam argument had been seriously maligned, this would still not prove definitively that atheism is true; it would only disprove one theistic argument.

How then can the atheist go the full distance and prove theism false? He can show that a divine attribute (e.g., omniscience) is internally contradictory in itself; he can show that two or more of the divine attributes contradict one another; or he can show that God’s attributes contradict a known fact about the world we live in.

Let’s consider three of God’s best-known divine attributes: his omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence.

First, let’s work out our definition of God a bit more. As noted, God is pure spirit—an immaterial “mind”—who exists outside of time and space. We may also say that he is the perfect act of being itself, and thus all perfections are in him. In other words, God cannot be perfected further because he is infinite perfection.

Because God has no parts, is infinite in being, and is therefore absolutely “simple,” we can say that God’s infinite power is his infinite goodness, which is his infinite knowledge, and so on. Thus in the end, it is much more profitable for us to speak about God inanalogies(all-powerful, etc.) and to speak about what Godis not(spaceless, etc).

Omniscience

Now let’s consider God’s omniscience. God knows all truths and accepts nothing false as true. But could an all-good God know what it is like to sin? Yes, for God knows all truths; but he doesn't know all truths directly from personal experience. God knows what it is like to sin by knowing what it is like for us to sin.

Now, if God is all-knowing—if he knows everything every person will ever do—what does that mean for our free will? Is such causal liberty an illusion? Not at all. I can know my influenza-stricken, gagging child is about to vomit without causing her to vomit. Foreknowledge does not equal causality.

Omnipotence

This brings us to the claim of God's omnipotence. Is there any philosophical contradiction that can be drawn out of God's infinite power? As we have noted, God cannot sin because he is morally perfect, the perfect standard of what it means to be good. Thus God has the power to do all logically possible things; that is, he has the power to do all meaningful things. That is why he cannot create a four-sided triangle (which is really nothing at all).

Nor can God create a rock that is too heavy for his all-powerful self to lift. Such a notion is meaningless, because it fails to acknowledge how God really is. A bachelor cannot forget his wife’s birthday because he is a bachelor; God cannot be overpowered by any creature because he is omnipotent.

Omnipresence

Finally, what about God’s omnipresence? How can this be so? Well, as long as God is unbound by time and space there is no contradiction. Not only has God created all things, but also his presence is necessary to sustain them in being, just as the presence of hydrogen atoms is necessary to sustain water in being. God is present to all beings, but he is not all beings (that’s pantheism). He is present to all things, and the existence of all things is dependent on his presence, just as the caller of a square dance is present to the dancers on the floor and the existence of the square dance depends on the mind (and voice) of the caller.

Thus God, who contains all perfections within himself, can rightly be referred to as all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing, etc. We cannot say (by the way) that God is a “pre-eminently peerless stinker”contrary to the charge of Dr. Dawkins—because stinkiness is a privation of a good; but God is perfectly good. Such an assertion of God’s infinite stinkiness is an amusing bit of rhetoric but it does not in the least follow logically from the given philosophical definition of God. It betrays Dawkins’s misunderstanding of who God is.

It suffices to say that philosophical proofs for or against God’s existence will not be sufficiently worked out without rigorous intellectual groundwork. Indeed, the finite limits of human reason that force us into analogies and negative statements about God can sometimes lead to frustration and headaches. But I side with G.K. Chesterton, who acknowledged “the riddles of God are more satisfying than the solutions of man.”

Written by Matt Nelson

Matt holds a B.Ed from the University of Regina and a Doctor of Chiropractic degree from the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College in Toronto, Canada. After several years of skepticism, he returned to the Catholic Church in 2010. Now alongside his chiropractic practice, Matt is a speaker and writer for FaceToFace Ministries and Religious Education Coordinator at Christ the King Parish. He currently resides in Shaunavon, SK, with his wife, Amanda, and their daughter, Anna. Follow Matt through his blog at ReasonableCatholic.com.

Note: Our goal is to cultivate serious and respectful dialogue. While it's OK to disagree—even encouraged!—any snarky, offensive, or off-topic comments will be deleted. Before commenting please read the Commenting Rules and Tips. If you're having trouble commenting, read the Commenting Instructions.

0 thoughts on “Why God Doesn T Exist Essay Checker”

    -->

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *