How I prove God exists.

originally posted by: turbonium1
They are also the only two celestial bodies directly above Earth.

When the two celestial bodies eclipsed, perfectly, it was a universal sign, for all people to see, of creation.

There cannot be two celestial bodies above us that could fit perfectly, as one. If you think this can be all from random chance, think again.

Pluto has 53 moons + 1 sun = 54 celestial bodies. Mars has 2 moons and 1 sun = 3 celestial bodies. Why would alignment be random chances?

originally posted by: turbonium1
What are the chances of two celestial bodies being the exact same size? Or nearly the same size?

Chance is your eyes play trick on you.
It's called perspective. The farther the object, the smaller it appears before your naked eyes.
Try viewing with telescope. Sun is way larger than moon.

originally posted by: turbonium1
From all of the celestial bodies within our solar system, none are the exact same size. Only a few, very tiny, moons..might get close in size, but nowhere close to a perfect match!

That's right. None are the exact same size.

Our Sun is not the exact same size as the moon.

originally posted by: turbonium1
The Sun and moon are the only celestial bodies above Earth, among millions, of all sizes, and shapes, and they just happen to be the exact same size, and shape, and they align perfectly as one.

It is their perfect alignment that shows us they are the exact same size.

If they are the same size, then they are both equally same distant from earth, which mean they will not align, but collide into each other.

originally posted by: turbonium1
No more lucky coincidences and random chance.

No. It's poor analysis of object's distant due to misinterpreting eyes perspective. Try viewing with telescope.

originally posted by: Deluxe
a reply to: Pachomius

not all definitions are circular.
But if a definition is circular it simply means it assumes the reader has a prior understanding.
A circular definition is therefore lacking and shouldn't be used to prove a point.

That is very good.

Now, give an example of anyone at all giving a circular statement to prove the existence in actual objective reality of the empirical universe, stating his circular statement.

With serious, honest, and rational thinkers, when they work on an issue, they first and foremost apply themselves to concur on the meanings of words which are very crucial in resolving the issue they are involved in.

So, at this point already, a party who does not want to work with the other party as to come to concur on meanings of words crucial in the resolution of an issue, that party is already either not serious, or not honest, or not rational, OR all three: not serious, not honest, and not rational.

There are words which I call natural, and words which are artificial.

For example, the word finite is a natural word, while the word infinite is an artificial word.

Finite is what we experience, infinite is not anything we experience at all, but we make up the word infinite by adding the prefix in to the word finite, meaning: not finite.

Do we have the meanings of words which are artificial?

With artificial words which are made by adding a negation particle like a prefix in, we know what we are talking about with the artificial word, like for example, infinite, but it is not a natural meaning, for it cannot be founded on an experience of any object referred to with the word, for example, infinite - we can only have some imagination of it.

For example, with the word infinite, we can imagine us walking along a road, in one direction on and on and on and on and on and on... without ever reaching the end of the road, neither in the exact opposite direction, on and on and on and on... without ever reaching the end of the road along the opposite direction on the road: that means for us, it is an infinite road in length.

Consider my definition of God:

originally posted by: Pachomius posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 05:23 PM

1. I define God as in concept first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

[ . . . . ]

a reply to: Pachomius


You have to imagine that infinite is much more then just a never ending road in all directions. Imagine infinite as a absolute empty void of Space that takes up all Space possible. Before the beginning of time; that is what Space would be like.


Before time started as we know time, time was absolute neautral... a absolute constant. We use infinite as a constant within Math and physics. So we dont really imagine infinite when we have to use it With specific Equations, we actually know it exists and have to use it within Our Equations,.... if not the Equation will not add up properly.

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Pachomius


You have to imagine that infinite is much more then just a never ending road in all directions. Imagine infinite as a absolute empty void of Space that takes up all Space possible. Before the beginning of time; that is what Space would be like.

Before time started as we know time, time was absolute neautral... a absolute constant. We use infinite as a constant within Math and physics. So we dont really imagine infinite when we have to use it With specific Equations, we actually know it exists and have to use it within Our Equations,.... if not the Equation will not add up properly.

Any evidence outside your mind of the existence of your concept of infinite inside your mind, applied to "a[n] absolute empty void of Space that takes up all Space possible"?

a reply to: whereislogic
oops, I swapped out infinite and finite at the start of my comment.

The definition that Spy gave was for "finite", I said it was for "infinite". I meant finite where I said infinite and I meant infinite where I said finite after that. 2nd and 3rd sentence of that comment. Well, in a way, using "finite" in the 3rd sentence makes a similar point, especially the final point in that sentence (which is a hint related to Pontius Pilate's behaviour and way of thinking when he asked Jesus: "What is truth?" Which was an insincere question demonstrating his general agnosticism).

“What Is Truth?”

THAT question was cynically posed to Jesus by the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate. He was not interested in an answer, and Jesus did not give him one. Perhaps Pilate viewed truth as too elusive to grasp.​—John 18:38.

This disdainful attitude toward truth is shared by many today, including religious leaders, educators, and politicians. They hold that truth​—especially moral and spiritual truth—​is not absolute but relative and ever changing. This, of course, implies that people can determine for themselves what is right and what is wrong. (Isaiah 5:20, 21) It also allows people to reject as out-of-date the values and moral standards held by past generations.

The statement that prompted Pilate’s question is worth noting. Jesus had said: “For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth.” (John 18:37) Truth to Jesus was no vague, incomprehensible concept. He promised his disciples: “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”​—John 8:32.

Where can such truth be found? On one occasion, Jesus said in prayer to God: “Your word is truth.” (John 17:17) The Bible, written under divine inspiration, reveals truth that provides both reliable guidance and a sure hope for the future​—everlasting life.​—2 Timothy 3:15-17.

Pilate indifferently rejected the opportunity to learn such truth. What about you?

Three 16th-Century Truth Seekers​—What Did They Find?

“WHAT is truth?” That was the question that Pontius Pilate, Roman governor of Judea in the first century, asked of Jesus, who was on trial before the governor. (John 18:38) Pilate, of course, was not really seeking the truth. If anything, his question revealed his skeptical or cynical attitude. Apparently, to Pilate truth was whatever a person might choose or was taught to believe; there was really no way to determine what is truth. Many today feel the same way. [whereislogic: demonstrated in comments such as "You are actually using dictionary definitions. Seriously.
All dictionary definitions are circular." The first part of that comment also demonstrating something relevant to the 2nd sentence. As well as demonstrated in South Park's agnostic code and those who claim that God is a mystery, which is more selective vagueness regarding that subject rather than the general vagueness that Pontius Pilate is demonstrating in that insincere question regarding any truth regarding any subject.]

Churchgoers in 16th-century Europe faced the dilemma of what to believe as truth. Raised to believe in the supremacy of the pope and in other teachings of the church, they were confronted with new ideas spread by the Reformation, which was sweeping through Europe at the time. What should they believe? How would they decide what is truth?

During that period, there were, among many others, three men who were determined to seek out the truth.* How did they go about identifying what was true and what was false? And what did they find? Let us see.

“LET THE BIBLE . . . ALWAYS RULE SUPREME”
...
The Capito home in Strasbourg became a place where religious dissenters met and no doubt discussed many religious matters and Bible teachings. Though some Reformers still promoted the Trinity doctrine, Capito’s writings, according to the book The Radical Reformation, reflect “reticence on the doctrine of the Trinity.” Why? Capito was impressed by the way that Spanish theologian Michael Servetus appealed to Bible texts to disprove the Trinity.*

Denial of the Trinity could bring fatal consequences, so Capito was cautious about declaring his feelings openly. However, his writings suggest that he had privately questioned the Trinity doctrine even before he met Servetus. A Catholic priest later wrote that Capito and his associates “proceeded to discuss in their private capacity, and without appeal,​—the profoundest mysteries of religion; [and] rejected that of the most Holy Trinity.” A century later, Capito was listed first among prominent anti-Trinitarian writers.

Capito believed that the Bible was the source of truth. “Let the Bible and the law of Christ always rule supreme in theology,” he stated. According to Dr. Kittelson, Capito “insisted that the chief failing of the scholastic theologians lay in their neglect of the Scriptures.”

In case anyone was interested where my phrases "vagueness rules supreme in mythology", "Vagueness (often accompanied by some form of agnosticism, selective or general) also rules supreme in presenting mythology and unverified philosophies as enlightenment, insight or knowledge/science..." and other variations I've used, came from (which is thus a contrast that I'm talking about now, different than what it should be* in theology or any truth seeking; "should be" in terms of getting the right results, actually figuring it out and learning the specific truth that sets men free that Jesus talked about, free from walking around in circles of endless human speculation, human 'wisdom' and human philosophy, which all lead back or trace back to Babylon and their spiritual father anyway, Satan, the master manipulator of the mind, he's had thousands of years of practice on humans and manipulating their search for truth, or making them give up as per the ending conclusion of South Park's agnostic code and as per Pontius Pilate's cynical question demonstrating this same attitude towards any search for the truth of a matter, as if it's pointless, and more specifically the matters involving God's existence and correct theology). You can swap out "unverified philosophies" or "mythology" with "evolutionary philosophies" or "the doctrine of the Trinity" or "the doctrine of the immortality of the soul" (all of which are connected via Plato) as well. You can also use agnosticism, atheism, philosophical naturalism, Trinitarianism, all other religions in the world that are part of Babylon the Great and whatever I haven't thought of right now where people cannot be clear about what they're presenting or arguing in favor of whether or not it's factual/absolute/correct, without error. Which is just one example or way of describing this vague way of thinking demonstrated by Pontius Pilate as well. I've already shared some other descriptions and hints as to how to recognize it (the use of the word "mystery" or "mysterious", phrases such as "most likely ...". Or a more recent example, entitling a thread "An Evolutionary View of The Mind" ("view" being a synonym for "philosophy/idea", no indication as to whether it's been verified as being factual) and then presenting that view as if it's factual/true in the OP (by the way it's phrased).

a reply to: spy66

Does the infinite exclude humans and earth?
I mean anything forming and taking up space in the universe would be an end of infinity no?
or are we talking multiuniverse?
excuse the interjection

originally posted by: whereislogic

“What Is Truth?”

THAT question was cynically posed to Jesus by the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate. He was not interested in an answer, and Jesus did not give him one. Perhaps Pilate viewed truth as too elusive to grasp.​—John 18:38.

This disdainful attitude toward truth is shared by many today, including religious leaders, educators, and politicians. They hold that truth​—especially moral and spiritual truth—​is not absolute but relative and ever changing.

I feel I should point out that the same argument that truth is not absolute is also used by claiming it's subjective rather than relative, which has a slightly different meaning but the base of that argument or way of thinking is still the same, that truth is not absolute/certain/correct, without error/true/factual (another contradiction in terms as shown by these synonyms). So relative and subjective aren't exactly synonyms but they are used in almost the same argument which both have the same underlying Pontius Pilate-style of thinking. Blurring the lines between fact and fiction (or possibly incorrect opinions; opinions are subjective, truth is what it is and it is absolute/factual/correct, without error/true, otherwise "truth" doesn't apply if it isn't actually true/absolute/correct, without error, people's opinions on a matter isn't going to change the actual truth of a matter, pardon the redundancy in that phrase if you spot it). A poster on this forum with the name "Realtruth" uses the signature:

"The Real Truth appears to be subjective in our world."

That would be an incorrect perception (he saw it wrong, he misinterpreted his observations*) nudging the reader to an incorrect opinion and a contradiction in terms when that phrase is used to imply that truth is not absolute/factual/correct, without error/certain. What people perceive to be true* does not necessarily mean that it actually is true, that depends on whether or not they got it right/correct. If they got it right, then it's true, the tricky part of course is trying to figure out whether or not someone got something right. (*: in essence when he's talking about "real truth" he seems to be thinking about what people perceive to be true, their opinons that are subjective, see ending of this comment for more detail) When they talk in contradictions, it's a safe bet to conclude they got it wrong. So when Lawrence Krauss says that "nothing isn't nothing anymore...in physics", and when Dawkins says in a conversation with Lawrence Krauss about this topic (see video I shared earlier): "it's not nothing....it's literally nothing" it should be clear to everyone who understands the usefulness in spotting contradictions in the process of truth seeking, that they're wrong. No matter how many intellectuals such as Stephen Hawking jump on the same bandwagon and won't call them out on their arrogance of thinking they can re-define the meaning of the word "nothing" and hardly anybody noticing what's going on here when thinking about charachter-types such as Lucius Luvin (see playlist and subsequent videos that follow after my link to the Dawkins and Krauss video about "nothing"), who are very good at impressing people with their intellect but that doesn't make their attempt to re-define the word "nothing" any less foolish, ridiculous, far-fetched, 'brainwashy' (I know that's not a word, but you know what I mean) or intellectually arrogant for thinking they can get away with it and still be taken seriously by people like me. And sort of an insult to their fans' and admirers' intellectual capacity and ability to recognize utter nonsense and no longer be taken in by these smooth talkers who sell themselves well and who are selling useless books such as "The Grand Design", "The Blind Watchmaker" and "A Universe from Nothing" and made a career out of selling philosophy as science without ever making any significant discovery in the sciences akin to Newton's discovery of the law of gravity, or Einstein's discovery of the fact/certainty/truth/reality that E=MC^2, where E = energy, M = mass, and C = the speed of light. In particular Krauss and Dawkins, one can argue that Hawking has discovered something about black holes, but that's not a subject I want to get into now. Besides, it isn't much or particularly significant in applied science (and it's decades ago).

Ecclesiastes 12:12

12 As for anything besides these, my son, be warned: To the making of many books there is no end, and much devotion to them is wearisome to the flesh.

Some people today are like sponges; they soak up whatever they come across. It is all too easy to absorb whatever is around us.

But it is far better for each individual personally to choose what he will feed his mind. It is said that we are what we eat, and this can apply to food for both the body and the mind. No matter what you are reading or watching or listening to, test to see whether it has propagandistic overtones or is truthful.

Moreover, if we want to be fair-minded, we must be willing to subject our own opinions to continual testing as we take in new information. We must realize that they are, after all, opinions. Their trustworthiness depends on the validity of our facts, on the quality of our reasoning, and on the standards or values that we choose to apply.

Source: article in my signature

originally posted by: Pachomius

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Pachomius


You have to imagine that infinite is much more then just a never ending road in all directions. Imagine infinite as a absolute empty void of Space that takes up all Space possible. Before the beginning of time; that is what Space would be like.

Before time started as we know time, time was absolute neautral... a absolute constant. We use infinite as a constant within Math and physics. So we dont really imagine infinite when we have to use it With specific Equations, we actually know it exists and have to use it within Our Equations,.... if not the Equation will not add up properly.

Any evidence outside your mind of the existence of your concept of infinite inside your mind, applied to "a[n] absolute empty void of Space that takes up all Space possible"?

Well you mention the word beginning in Your OP. What was before the beginning?

Have you ever made a thought about that?

Before there was anything (A Beginning) there was absolute nothing. No beginning only one timeline. And that timeline would be a absolute constant timeline.

If there was anything present accepth the infinite empty void of space.....you have already missed the actuall beginning and are probably focused on a different timeline further Down the chain of events. Because any beginning need a cause no matter how small it is or how large it is.

a reply to: whereislogic

Apparently, to Pilate truth was whatever a person might choose or was taught to believe; there was really no way to determine what is truth.

Signature from the poster "Realtruth":

The Real Truth appears to be subjective in our world.

Can anyone else spot the relation between the bolded concept or way of thinking and Realtruth's signature?
Combining both articles I used earlier and bolding some other points may help (between brackets is mine):

WHAT is truth?” That was the question that Pontius Pilate, Roman governor of Judea in the first century, asked of Jesus, who was on trial before the governor. (John 18:38) Pilate, of course, was not really seeking the truth. If anything, his question revealed his skeptical or cynical attitude.

Apparently, to Pilate truth was whatever a person might choose or was taught to believe [people's subjective opinions, what realtruth refers to as "Real Truth", exactly as described here and as I explained he seems to be thinking of when saying "Real Truth", at least that's how he ends up applying it by suggesting it appears it's subjective just like opinions of what people perceive to be true, or what they choose or are taught to believe is true]; there was really no way to determine what is truth [what is absolute/certain/factual].
...
He was not interested in an answer, and Jesus did not give him one. Perhaps Pilate viewed truth as too elusive to grasp.​—John 18:38.

This disdainful attitude toward truth is shared by many today, including religious leaders, educators, and politicians. They hold that truth​—especially moral and spiritual truth—​is not absolute but relative [or subjective] and ever changing [or in the eye of the beholder, as per the incorrect vague slogan "truth is in the eye of the beholder", which should probably only be used in a figurative sense that what people perceive to be true is in the eye of the beholder, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it actually is true, as explained before, so the word "truth" doesn't apply if it's not actually true; but this cute slogan is also often used to refer to the phenomena that people tend to reinterpret reality through things like our senses, conditioning, belief systems, etc. But then they're still saying it wrong if referring to that phenomena, it's misleading and confusing, people's reinterpretations do not affect what the actual truth of a matter is, pardon the redundancy again].

No more conflation please between what is actually true (=truth) and what people perceive or think is true (=subjective opinions; which can sometimes be true, and sometimes be false if people got it wrong, often reasoning incorrectly or misusing language and logic). I recommend no more blurring of the lines in the process of truth seeking, you'll just end up philosophizing in circles about unverified ideas/philosophies and speculations+mythology on this forum until you get to over 5,000 posts that discourage from doing what 1 Thess.5:21 encourages people to do when seeking truth:

Make sure of all things, hold fast to what is fine.

And Newton's warning in relation to that (which brings us back to Cardinal John O'Connor's statement about the Trinity, "which we don't begin to understand").

A man may imagine things that are false, but he can only understand things that are true, for if the things be false, the apprehension of them is not understanding. - Isaac Newton

This scene may also be of assistance in resisting a particular heavily promoted attitude towards "truth" (or the process of differentiating between what is right/true and what is wrong/false, i.e. truth seeking, figuring out the truth of a matter). But I don't really want to get into the details why right now, hoping people might get it on their own based on everything I've been talking about so far (it is Harrison Ford's way of thinking that I'm encouraging, not the paintjob that he's "such a boy scout", 'thinking in black and white' as if what he's doing is so naive or any other negative description one might want to give to it because the other way of thinking is preferred and promoted in contrast to it in this system of things because it's convenient to those spreading falsehoods, and twisting facts and logic, spinning for dishonest purposes:

Note the promotion of vagueness (and general agnosticism) again in the phrase "the world is grey Jack" at the end.

Signing off, insignificant boy scout (and not ashamed of it).

a reply to: whereislogic


When we had intelligence cources in the military one instructor said. If you want to know the truth... tell a lie. Someone will always try to come With the facts/the truth in one form or another. A lie is not a lie until it is proven to be so. Telling a lie is a way to gather facts...the truth and to ID the individual and his/her background. Moste People dont understand that and fall for it everytime.

In Our society telling the truth can get you convicted. We have contracts that prevent us from sharing/telling the truth. This does not just apply to the military complex but within every sector of Our society....even within science and education.

The system we live in today is far from Natural. It is not Natural in anyway. But we are groomed to think so and educated to drift it. TO have a society like the one we live by today. You have to keep the People on Board as we say, if not it will not work, there would be to many complications.
To keep Things les complicated People have to be groomed to fitt in. THat means Peoples minds have to be educated. We are educated to be in a apposition to eachother and to what the actual truth really is. Our social standards are aslo built that way. Some People are shared more information then others. Some People have more right to information then others. The Public is very far down that list of priorities when it comes to the truth and the facts. We live by a system that prevents us from being honest With one another. That is also why we are being groomed to Accept it and we work on these skills practically With eveyone we communicate With......

Appart from that what you have written is smak on target.

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Pachomius

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Pachomius


You have to imagine that infinite is much more then just a never ending road in all directions. Imagine infinite as a absolute empty void of Space that takes up all Space possible. Before the beginning of time; that is what Space would be like.

Before time started as we know time, time was absolute neautral... a absolute constant. We use infinite as a constant within Math and physics. So we dont really imagine infinite when we have to use it With specific Equations, we actually know it exists and have to use it within Our Equations,.... if not the Equation will not add up properly.

Any evidence outside your mind of the existence of your concept of infinite inside your mind, applied to "a[n] absolute empty void of Space that takes up all Space possible"?

Well you mention the word beginning in Your OP. What was before the beginning?

Have you ever made a thought about that?

Before there was anything (A Beginning) there was absolute nothing. No beginning only one timeline. And that timeline would be a absolute constant timeline.

If there was anything present accepth the infinite empty void of space.....you have already missed the actuall beginning and are probably focused on a different timeline further Down the chain of events. Because any beginning need a cause no matter how small it is or how large it is.

posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 05:23 PM, by Pachomius
1. I define God as in concept first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

From Spy66
Well you mention the word beginning in Your OP. What was before the beginning?

Have you ever made a thought about that?

Before there was anything (A Beginning) there was absolute nothing. No beginning only one timeline. And that timeline would be a absolute constant timeline.

In my investigation of existence, I have the conclusion that there has always been existence, i.e. something, not nothing at all.

You identify that as 'a absolute constant timeline.'

Whatever you understand that 'absolute constant timeline', if you investigate existencd, will you concur with me that it is also existence, and as such it comes with everything that should exist with it, in addition to what you say to be 'absolute constant timeline'.

What I like very much to invite everyone to think about is existence.

And existence can be divided into beings with a beginning to their existence, and an entity that is without any beginning at all.

a reply to: Pachomius



I think you are catching on.....


A absolute infinite void of empty Space is something. It is a absolute vaccum. It is a void of Space that is absolute empty of finite energy, matter and particles. Before we had anything finite we had nothing....... That does not mean the infinite void does not exist.

I will illustrate With a image.

In this image you see nothing but darkness. There is nothing there.



Now ask Your self: how did Our universe appear out of nothingness...... Where did finite come from?

I will illustrate With a New image. If i asked; Where did this light come from? What would Your answer be?




People With chirstian understanding of genesis think that Earth was already created before genesis Chapter 1.

Now ask Your self: where did Earth come from if everything was nothing but darkness upon the sea. And Earth was without form and void?



If Earth was without form and void you would be left With this image again:

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Pachomius

[ . . . . ]

Now ask Your self: how did Our universe appear out of nothingness...... Where did finite come from?

[ . . . . ]

Dear Spy66, I see you have a poet's heart and mind.

From my part, I am into reasoning, and I investigate existence in itself, and I come to the conclusion which cannot be denied by anyone doing also reasoning, namely, there has always been existence, even before the Big Bang science cosmologists have arrived at.

originally posted by: Pachomius

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Pachomius

[ . . . . ]

Now ask Your self: how did Our universe appear out of nothingness...... Where did finite come from?

[ . . . . ]

Dear Spy66, I see you have a poet's heart and mind.

From my part, I am into reasoning, and I investigate existence in itself, and I come to the conclusion which cannot be denied by anyone doing also reasoning, namely, there has always been existence, even before the Big Bang science cosmologists have arrived at.

What's happening to the posters erstwhile present in this thread of mine?

I posted the above message on Mar, 3 2018 @ 12:55 PM.

It is now in my place as I write, March 11, 2018, Sunday, 2:47 AM, eight hours in advance of Greenwich.

And no one at all, all this time, has replied to my post above.

Are you guys otherwise erstwhile full of thoughts now for all these days, which is an eternity in the web, all been reduced to silence, from my most awesome thought in the above post?

I am most disappointed with you all.

a reply to: Pachomius

I think nobody is responding because you haven't actually proven God exists.
If you did I bet this thread would be very active.

The ONLY means to directly obtain proof of the existence of God is via each individual's consciousness structure. No person can install the Proof from their consciousness into another person's consciousness. Although we try unendingly through music, writing, speaking, art it is not possible except to present metaphorical snapshots of That which is in a purely kinetic state of existence. The instant the "snapshot' is produced to later communicate to others, it is 100% contaminated. It is like me handing you a charged battery and asking if you understand the video playing on the device that the battery MUST be used in.

originally posted by: Pachomius

originally posted by: Pachomius

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Pachomius

[ . . . . ]

Now ask Your self: how did Our universe appear out of nothingness...... Where did finite come from?

[ . . . . ]

Dear Spy66, I see you have a poet's heart and mind.

From my part, I am into reasoning, and I investigate existence in itself, and I come to the conclusion which cannot be denied by anyone doing also reasoning, namely, there has always been existence, even before the Big Bang science cosmologists have arrived at.

What's happening to the posters erstwhile present in this thread of mine?

I posted the above message on Mar, 3 2018 @ 12:55 PM.

It is now in my place as I write, March 11, 2018, Sunday, 2:47 AM, eight hours in advance of Greenwich.

And no one at all, all this time, has replied to my post above.

Are you guys otherwise erstwhile full of thoughts now for all these days, which is an eternity in the web, all been reduced to silence, from my most awesome thought in the above post?

I am most disappointed with you all.

It is that ABSOLUTE NON-EXISTENCE is self-annihilating. I just demonstrated why that is true. I told you absolute non-existence exists, which violates the integrity of the definition of absolute non-existence because my consciousness recognized non-existence to exist.

This leaves infinite existence to exist and omniscience with the task to accomplish the absolute definition of omnipresence. God must exist inside of absolute non-existence to be true to the definition of omnipresent. Thus the REASON for the existence of the ONE infinitesimal Singularity. God, omniscience engaging omnipotence to geometrically "going there". I wonder if God got there since the "there" does not exist.

What is it that we would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting something that we don't believe even exists?
He created us with the intention that we would know him.
He keeps the question of his existence squarely before us.

The Big Bang. This was the singular start to everything that exists, It had a start...what caused that?
Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light and matter.
The Universe flashed into being.....perfect distance from the sun,chemical properties of water, DNA.

If God isn't real why does it matter?

a reply to: madenusa

This thread is about logically proving God exists not refuting God exists.