Spinoza argued for substance monism. For the purposes of this article, I will discuss Spinoza's argument for substance monism. I will then explore how Spinoza's view of substance monism is relevant to absurd claims that there is no meaning to existence. I will then raise a question relating to Spinoza's seventh axiom. I will then conclude by explaining why Spinoza's substantial monism is not entirely convincing, largely because of his definition of God and his seventh axiom. Substance monism is the claim that an infinite substance is the only substance that exists. Spinoza begins by arguing that substances essentially exist and that every substance has at least one attribute. This can be seen from his definitions of both substance and attribute. This question is the one raised by absurdism. Being, how can we derive meaning when nothing that exists has meaning, nothing exists intentionally, and therefore human life is absurd. Spinoza's substance monism directly addresses this issue by stating the claim that there is essentially meaning in life because we are all part of one substance which is God. However, although this may appear to directly refute Spinoza's claim The absurdity that nothing in existence has a meaning actually doesn't. The problem with solving this problem lies in Spinoza's definition of God. Spinoza defines God as “an absolutely infinite being, that is, a substance constituted by infinite attributes, each of which expresses eternal and infinite essentiality”. The problem with this definition can be found in the word essentiality. I disagree with this definition because I disagree with his definition of God. Nothing in existence is essential and therefore postulating the claim that God is essential is a direct contradiction. Spinoza's method of proving a substance is based on his definitions and his reason. I further disagree with this method because God cannot be proven through reason alone. Through this same reasoning Spinoza gives too much meaning to life. In his argument, he states that since God is the only substance, all things derive from God. This means that everything that exists is a part of axiom seven states that "If a thing can be conceived as non-existent, its essence does not imply existence". This axiom can be attributed to God. I can certainly conceive of God as non-existent just as I think of a chair as non-existent. Saying that God does not exist does not imply a contradiction. This does not imply a contradiction because I can think of all things as non-existent, everything has the potential to not exist. Therefore, I can also think of God as non-existent and by Spinoza's seventh axiom it is clear that God's essence does not imply existence. Since I can think of God as non-existent, it follows that God must not exist. Therefore, the one substance that is everything does not necessarily have to exist because everything has the potential to not exist