Atheists, do you agree with Descartes' definition of substance: that which r

Question: Atheists, do you agree with Descartes' definition of substance: that which requires nothing but itself in !?

order to existWww@QuestionHome@Com

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:

It seems controversial on the face of it!. What could be unambiguously excluded from that category!? Any argument based on that premise would be suspect because maybe nothing at all requires anything but itself to exist!. That would require a whole separate argument to establish!.

So, short answer: No!. All by itself like that, it's ambiguous!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

to me, substance carries a different definition!. the types of definitions you would find in a dictionary!.

if i had to put a name to 'that which requires nothing but itself in order to exist!.' that name would be 'energy'!.

Descartes could not have shared my opinion since he predates the discovery of relativity!.

i'm not sure what this has to do with being atheist or not though!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

I think you can define anything any way you want!. I find this definition a little too hard at 2:30 in the morning!.

Besides I do not believe in substance because I believe life is all a dream!.Www@QuestionHome@Com