> why it's god and not gods, which god and why that's not a so-called presupposition. > please try and be genuine in your next reply  evidently, the english language is not your first. > i'm still waiting for you to prove either  if you wish, i can provide godel's ontological argument. > which god? why not gods? again, these questions are irrelevant to the proof of existence. > what does that mean exactly? do you even understand the phrases you parrot?  a proof of existence is a proof that a thing exists; a proof of uniqueness is a proof that only one such thing exists. > 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.
United States