It is entirely possible to not exist, just as flying spaghetti monsters most certainly do not exist.
Existence is as intangible as love. Both concepts exist, and we can talk about them, but we can see, touch, taste or smell neither of them. They are concepts, ideas, emotions, and as such, are perfectly intangible.
God and Existence must then be infinitely old, with no beginning to either of them, because if existence was there before God, then God must not be the omnipotent creator of everything, as something must have had to create him. Either way, my logic about the chicken and the egg still stands.
Tell me, have you been able to wake up in the morning and see existence? You can see that things exist, but you can't see existence itself. I can see that your logic is flawed, but I can't see or touch or feel your logic itself. Your logic, as an object, does not exist. It exists as an intangible idea, just like the concept of existence.
If God is existence, then am I God, since I exist? Is Satan God, because he exists? No. God and existence are separate but related. God, if he is omnipotent, could not have come into existence after the concept of existence was established. Do you see your problem here? Are you willing to admit that your God is not omnipotent or all powerful?
Your God must have brought the concept into existence with him, and not before, and if God created the Earth and life, then our existence is a product of him, not him himself. If God was existence, then we would have sprung into existence alongside him, and not 6 days afterwards, or however long afterwards.
I regret you will never be able to understand what I am saying, even though it is nothing like what you think I'm saying. I'm not saying that existence does not exist, and that you don't either. All I'm saying is that existence is a philosophical idea that represents the fact that we..are. You can't possibly reach out and grasp existence, just like you can't reach out an grab other ideas and emotions. Either way, this argument is going nowhere, and is completely off track with the original intentions of this thread. Let's agree to disagree and somehow get back to the matter at hand.
Assuming you're still talking about the topic of this thread, this isn't a scientific statement because there is no evidence for God from the natural world.
Tesla, you're just repeating the same assertions over and over again without providing any evidence to support them. Learn what science actually is before you argue about how it should change.
on a side note: the law of thermodynamics is tentative.
Uh, yes, of course, that's what I just explained in my previous message.
Let's see, let me check my list of scientific theories here and see how many are not tentative. Omigosh! Would you believe it! There's not a single untentative scientific theory! Wow! Who woulda thought!