everything does exist in some way shape or form, as ive said more times than I will bother to count.
ambiguous or not, everything exists. The argument is whether "god exists" in reality, not as an ambiguous idea but exists in real form someplace else, whatever - but not imaginary.
So I use the nothing exists paradox to say that everything must by default exist - since we can talk about it, but I mean that in the reality of space and time, god is assumed to exist since not existing is impossible. So that the first mention of god already states existence (whether ambiguous or not) and followed by exists can't be a proper logical statement.
What claim is made about god's relationship to the world??
That he is present amongst everything else we know to exist?
Existence, where everything happens to be right now, waiting to be found, somewhere.
ambiguous or not, everything exists. The argument is whether "god exists" in reality, not as an ambiguous idea but exists in real form someplace else, whatever - but not imaginary.
So I use the nothing exists paradox to say that everything must by default exist - since we can talk about it, but I mean that in the reality of space and time, god is assumed to exist since not existing is impossible. So that the first mention of god already states existence (whether ambiguous or not) and followed by exists can't be a proper logical statement.
What claim is made about god's relationship to the world??
That he is present amongst everything else we know to exist?
Existence, where everything happens to be right now, waiting to be found, somewhere.
Coming soon: Banner image-link to new anti-islam forum.
