But does that mean l'exitence précède l'essence? Are we here merely repeating an existentialist point of view? Has this all been a summary of existentialism? Not quite. There are differences between the two ways of thinking. In our theory both can be the case i.e. l'exitence précède l'essence and vice versa. As explained before, the conscious being can fix his essence and be influenced by the external. He has this option. In existentialism, however, one has no choice but to be free. (Here I mainly refer to the philosophy of Jean Paul-Sartre. I do not consider Heidegger an existentialist for I have certain reasons to believe he takes the essence as fixed. This can be especially seen in his later works.)Now understanding as επι-στημη i.e. instehen is dwelling in what currently is i.e. Wesen en todo que esta rather than Wesen en todo que es. This is one way of under-standing being. Understanding nothingness belongs to a different discussion. Now that this has been covered we can get to the epistemological problem with God.
Existence of god:
If we take case of Quantum physics or Anaxagoras we will see that both refer the power of mind as what causes things to be. Quantum physics uses the still ambiguous term "consciousness" and Anaxagoras uses the term νους. According to Quantum physics the only possible answer to the collapse of the wave function is a conscious observer. Thus, if we agree to this theory and the uncertainty principal of Heisenberg, the world must have been a collection of waves distributed everywhere and "every when". For the world to come into being there must have been a first conscious being, a being higher than other beings to cause all the "waves" to become particles to make the non-beings into beings.
Yet, here we might encounter another problem. The transcendent one cannot be a being, i.e. it cannot have Being. This one is a something without being which exists apart from us in a metaphysical realm. A piece of clay cannot be made into a sculpture by another piece of clay, rather by something with a different kind of Being. Now the one who has shaped all different types of beings, i.e., the one who has control over every kind of being there is cannot be of any type of being for it is above all that is. As a transcendent one, it cannot appear in a form perceivable by beings but can only be experienced by the rational being who has the ability to bring forth the memory of being shaped by the transcendent one.
Non-existence of god
God is, but a phenomenon by which man can interpret the world. The rational being thinks in causal forms and in doing so he needs a starting point. The rational animal has the sense of Time and thus, it is much easier for him to think of infinity in terms of the future than in terms of the past. For him the past is "what has been" and hence, not alterable. For this reason he has called the essence "that which has been" (Hegel: wesen ist was gewesen ist) for the unchangeable history has already created the essence of man, i.e. history is the essence of man for you are what you are because of your past or as Aristotle would put it you are the collection of your habits and behaviors. Yet, by this way of logical speculation one cannot possibly understand the deeper truth underneath all the appearances. It is only in dwelling in nature that man can truly stand at the truth of all that is and be eternal, i.e. out of time and space (aeternalis). In being out of time and space man will be the transcendent one. If one is not chained by the concept of time and space (in particular time) one will no longer look at the world in causal form or as a line with a beginning and an end. He will be able to see the world a becoming which grows and decays.
That is actually what the word φυσις means. The words is from the root φυο (which actually shares the same indo-european root -bheu with the English word Being. Ironically Being actually means becoming.) which means to grow and what happens to that which grows? It decays and what does decaying mean but the change of attributes? Yet its being remains the same and this same cycle goes on. Those familiar with Spanish language are aware that the language differentiates between attributes and being. For example the statement ella es bonita would literally mean her being is of beauty which contains her essence and hence cannot change over time, whereas ella esta bonita means her current condition or attributes consist of beauty but can change for those attributes are nothing but temporary appearances. I do not want to go into details about this for the sake of time but, I just want to conclude that the world is a changing cycle in the midst of fixity rather than a fixed line which has started from a certain point and will eventually end at another point.