> >why it's god and not gods, which god and why > that's not a so-called presupposition if you can't prove these with logic and reason then your answer is simply your personal feelings, which essentially is the presupposition  > >please try and be genuine in your next reply > evidently, the english language is not your first i appreciate you not being disingenuous this time  > >i'm still waiting for you to prove either > if you wish, i can provide godel's ontological argument. can you articulate how it demonstrates one god, which god and why? or do you just parrot "godel's ontological argument" without any further elaboration? > a proof of existence is a proof that a thing exists; a proof of uniqueness is a proof that only one such thing exists. again, > what does that mean exactly? do you even understand the phrases you parrot? > i disagree because it's the the thought or wonderment about the "uniqueness of god" that drive man to advance science > completely irrelevant to godel's ontological argument you're welcome to your personal feelings and opinions
United States