On God's existence

[questfortruth]

In my classification of the stuff there is separation between words
Existence and Presence. For example,
The Robin Hood and the Peter Pan are present, but they are non-existent (not real).
I am not crazy, because they published me in arXiv.
@QuestForTruth got published

If somebody knows all, then this includes knowledge, that God exists.
Hence, God must exist. Faith is not blind faith. Faith is to stay true to Knowledge.

There are two kinds of riddle:
1. Paradox - riddle, that can have solution.
2. Absurd - riddle without solution.

The omnipotence paradox (and the paradox of a liar) is not paradox, but absurd.
It adds up no new information for theism and atheism.

There are two different definitions of word Knowledge:
1. It is what I (and all others) feel or see,
2. It is what God knows.
The good thoughts in our mind are from two sources:
1. We.
2. God.
God does not force us into belief, but He speaks in our tone in our head, so we think, that it is our own thoughts.

Neither the past nor the future can be changed, although they exist.
Why? They are not available to our feelings and free-will.
We can only change the present moment. That is why the clock on
the wall is ticking and we are celebrating new year's eve.

So, do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will take care of its own:
enough for each day of its own care. Gospel of Matthew 6:34.

 

[Nakosis]

In my classification of the stuff there is separation between words
Existence and Presence. For example,
The Robin Hood and the Peter Pan are present, but they are non-existent (not real).
I am not crazy, because they published me in arXiv.
@QuestForTruth got published

If somebody knows all, then this includes knowledge, that God exists.
Hence, God must exist. Faith is not blind faith. Faith is to stay true to Knowledge.

Or they would know that no God exists depending on which case is true.

There are two kinds of riddle:
1. Paradox - riddle, that can have solution.
2. Absurd - riddle without solution.

The omnipotence paradox (and the paradox of a liar) is not paradox, but absurd.
It adds up no new information for theism and atheism.

There are two different definitions of word Knowledge:
1. It is what I (and all others) feel or see,
2. It is what God knows.
The good thoughts in our mind are from two sources:
1. We.
2. God.
God does not force us into belief, but He speaks in our tone in our head, so we think, that it is our own thoughts.

There are two types of knowledge, practical and theoretical.
Practical knowledge come from experience through interaction with objects which physically exist.
Theoretical knowledge is knowledge about is believed to exist or even can have fictional existence.
Knowledge of God being the later.

Neither the past nor the future can be changed, although they exist.
Why? They are not available to our feelings and free-will.
We can only change the present moment. That is why the clock on
the wall is ticking and we are celebrating new year's eve.

So, do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will take care of its own:
enough for each day of its own care. Gospel of Matthew 6:34.

Main reason I responded is this. I disagree the past or future exist. The past existed at one time, it no longer does.
You cannot actually change what no longer exists.
Neither does the future exist. It will, at some point, come to exist. Currently, it does not.

Really, there is no guarantee that tomorrow will take care of itself. You or I may along with many others will die tomorrow.
You can hope for otherwise, but we all die sometime.

IMO

 

[questfortruth]

we all die sometime

Or they would know that no God exists depending on which case is true.

The person, who knows all, is Omniscient. Only God can be Omniscient. Therefore, he, who knows all, knows that God exists.

 

[Nakosis]

The person, who knows all, is Omniscient. Only God can be Omniscient. Therefore, he, who knows all, knows that God exists.

Therefore, only God could know of God's existence.

 

[questfortruth]

Therefore, only God could know of God's existence.

That does not disprove my proof. I repeat:

If a person knows all there is, then he must know that God exists.

 

[Nakosis]

That does not disprove my proof. I repeat:

If a person knows all there is, then he must know that God exists.

However there is no necessity that such a person exists.

So your proof is based on conjecture.

Couldn't I as easily say if God knows all there is.
if no person/entity knows all there is then God cannot exist.

 

[questfortruth]

However there is no necessity that such a person exists.

So your proof is based on conjecture.

Couldn't I as easily say if God knows all there is.
if no person/entity knows all there is then God cannot exist.

You can say that ever you want, but, technically speaking it is correct to say:

If a person knows all there is, then he must know that God exists.

Somebody might become impressed by that and draw conclusions.