To be or not to be?

[stanleyg]

To be or not to be, that is the question? Maybe, if we were to finally answer William Shakespeare’s question, then there wouldn’t be any controversy over God’s state of existence. I know it must sound insane to hear me make such a preposterous accusation. Yet, prior to my crucifixion, deed me my academia to prove me correct. Shakespeare had mastered that “be” is the first word of our English language. Mankind first questioned what being is God? Mankind realized that God is an infinite being. Here we have the infinitive of “to be” or “not to be”. Can there literally be a “to be” without a “not to be” even can there be a “not to be” without there being a “to be”? If God were “not to be”, it would prove literally that God is “to be”. I have observed that in primary education our teachers stress instructing young students the conjugated form of “to be”. Yet, I have failed to observe any teacher, who instructs the equally with “not to be”. We take children for granted that “not to be” is understood. As children mature into adulthood, we can observe in our social commune English persons in a literary debate if God does exists or does not exist. The fact is both answers are equal. God is his own existence and Satan is literally God’s own none existence. Everything God is, Satan is not. Everything Satan is not, God is.

[Casiopea]

Theologists have used that very same argument.

The moment you negate the existence of something you automatically prove its existence.