What is the difference between concluding that God 'IS' - or probably/possibly 'is' - and concluding that he exists(or probably/possibly exists)?
If God is to 'be', if God 'is', then that means he is something otherwise he, by definition, cannot 'be'. Because if he is not something then he is nothing, and nothing cannot 'do' or 'BE' anything... because it does not exist. It makes no sense to say that something non-existent can just 'be', that it just 'is'... it isn't anything if it doesn't exist because if it doesn't exist that means it isn't anything. Non-existent=nothing, and nothing can't do or 'be', anything. Once more: It makes no sense whatsoever to say that something just 'IS' without existing... so yes, please do elaborate because it seems to me that so far you have failed to get around the fact that it makes no sense in language to say that what does not exist can still 'be', still somehow 'is'...
/end rant
EvF
If God is to 'be', if God 'is', then that means he is something otherwise he, by definition, cannot 'be'. Because if he is not something then he is nothing, and nothing cannot 'do' or 'BE' anything... because it does not exist. It makes no sense to say that something non-existent can just 'be', that it just 'is'... it isn't anything if it doesn't exist because if it doesn't exist that means it isn't anything. Non-existent=nothing, and nothing can't do or 'be', anything. Once more: It makes no sense whatsoever to say that something just 'IS' without existing... so yes, please do elaborate because it seems to me that so far you have failed to get around the fact that it makes no sense in language to say that what does not exist can still 'be', still somehow 'is'...
/end rant
EvF
