Proving God Existence

[bennyboy]

G is outside time,

when I said outside time it means just a single event that is not related to any other.

G has actions

If G is a single event outside time then this contradicts G having actions, plural. More than one action is more than one event and is therefore not singular.

That's the magi-wonderful philosophy box called "Mystery," hard at work for the "truth."

S1 = all Statuses separated from (1/1/2000 00:00:00) by seconds, where S1 must have at least three members (two to establish a timeframe, and one which is being measured).

This irrelevant.

Pretty relevant, man. It is a statement in a set description of your own definition of time, before you start defining imaginary "Sets" which aren't actually sets. I'm not sure why you can't see that saying "S1 can't be infinite, because it is finite by definition" and then arguing that S2 can't be true because it violates S1 is begging the question. Literally.

The problem is that you are trying to treat sets as boolean (empty = false, not-empty = true), and introducing two of three possible set statuses with individual booleans (you've missed "empty set" as one of the possible descriptions of time, though it is a philosophical contender):
1) S1 is infinite (may be true or false)
2) S2 is finite (may be true or false)
3) S3 is an empty set (may be true or false)

But making these boolean is wrong, because that's not what sets are. What you really should have is ST (Set of all Time), a set which may have zero members, finite members, or infinite members. Then you have to argue which of these cases you feel is true. But the reason you haven't done this is you don't get to say, "ST is finite by definition, therefore it cannot be either an empty set or an infinite set." If you did that, it would be even more obvious that your axioms are also your conclusions.

As an aside: I'm not sure why you keeping using the value Φ, aka the Golden Ratio, which is approx. 1.618 and is often used by theosophers to represent a kind of mathematical truth in the universe, when you apparently mean an empty set, Ø. (but which you really mean as "false," since your sets aren't actually sets)