"god exists" <Why is this a relevant argument?

[TruthWorthy]

Grammatically, "God exists". can stand alone as a sentence so it must be logical, I think I was unnerved by the fact that god (exists) hinged directly on exists. how can you have an interactive relationship with exists???

[Tiberius]

So do you get the erroneous nature of your argument now? Or are you still of the thinking that everything exists and logic can be thrown out the window?

[TruthWorthy]

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.