Does God Exist?
Posted: Sun May 17, 2026 7:16 am
Does God Exist?
Before I ever went to Kindergarten, I made up my mind about God. I put it this way, If a bird existed, even if you only found bird shit, you could conclude that a bird produced it. You named it bird shit, and you had the shit, which implies that whatever a bird was, it was that which produced it and therefore existed. Now, some would claim that made me agnostic. Quite the contrary, that meant I believed in Science.
What does one have to do, in order to answer any question about any word? Does existence only imply that words denote material difference, and not the parsing boundary or limit? There are two types of identities, one for each part of speech.
Video and PDF
https://archive.org/details/meta-grammar
Video
https://youtu.be/5r4gzyyPpfo
Full text
Does God Exist.docx Statistics:
Words - 1.023
Characters - 4.586
Paragraphs - 14
Sentences - 58
Sentences per Paragraph - 4.1
Words per Sentence - 17.5
Characters per Word - 4.3
Flesch Reading Ease - 62.8
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level - 8.8
Passive Sentences - 15.39
Does God Exist?
What does one have to do, in order to answer any question about any word? Does existence only imply that words denote material difference, and not the parsing boundary or limit? There are two types of identities, one for each part of speech.
Have both parties agreed upon what a word is assigned to represent? Is the word denoting a part of a thing, such as noun or verb, or is it the name of a thing, meaning a combination of noun and verb? We have to be able to not only name quantity, or the limits of a thing, but its quality, or material difference as well. We combine those two names, using the intelligible of quantity, or the noun to contain both prior agreements. So, we can name quantities as intelligible, because it has always been an intelligible. It is a fact at the foundation of our naming convention. In short, nouns always denote a standard of measure, they always name the parsing boundary of material difference. Or again, in any of our grammar systems, we always use nouns as a method of counting, or memory addressing.
A definition is a combination of names. (Plato and common sense)
Tom, which is a noun, is given to mean, by convention, that a prior convention of names has already been accomplished. For example, “a man” or “a cat”. Without that agreement, you cannot agree which Tom is given to mean. Is Tom my next-door neighbor, or is Tom a cat pissing on my door because I own a female cat?
What this means is that Tom, is not a name which is directly either a quantity or quality, it is an intelligible which we agree upon by which we can group the previous convention of names, one that its magnitude can be named, and two, that its material difference can be named. Tom is not one or the other, Tom is an intelligible container for both of our previous agreements. Nouns are never, can never, be perceptible, by grammatical fact. The limit or boundary of a thing can never be the material difference within the boundary.
Let us take the idea closer to the point of origin. Can I construct an alphabet where some letters are perceptible, while others are intelligible? Or do all letters, do all members of a symbol set have to be perceptible in order for any agreement can be reached as to their combinations in order to construct any name, which can name both the perceptible and intelligible? Or are you claiming that we can only use symbols to name the perceptible, while the intelligible things are agreed upon by groups of people dancing around fire in the middle of the night performing some ghastly ritual?
You cannot even have a system of grammar, if one insisted on having not a perceptible alphabet but an intelligible one, meaning, one could not speak, even to count.
So here is the rub. We construct perceptible names all the time, and we use them to denote the intelligible all the time. We constantly use names to process information which we do not see, i.e., which is not perceptible.
So, when people insist that a name, is the name of something perceptible, I have to ask, are nouns, the limits of a thing, ever perceptible? Do you see the boundary, or do you see the material in a boundary? Try this. Close your eyes, and feel around. Do you ever feel the wall, or do you feel the boundary between the wall and the air? You conclude that your hand is on the surface of a wall, but you are feeling the wall, and concluding that it is the surface of the wall. But, do you actually feel the surface of the air which is at the very same place? When you feel the wall, why do you conclude it is solid, but think nothing of the air which is at the same boundary?
Every noun is a metaphor for the previous agreements which the name denotes. That agreement is always intelligible, and never perceptible. Without those agreements, it only means, 1) that people are too illiterate to make an agreement, or 2) prefer to not make an agreement as an excuse to play a savage, not only dancing around the fire in the middle of the night performing some ghastly ritual, but making the whole life a nasty ritual day or night.
God, is defined by two previous agreements, its magnitude, and a material difference. Does the fact that you refuse to make an agreement mean you are capable of literacy, or that you are too stupid? And, who, but a really illiterate person claims that the refusal to engage in the first act required for grammar, is science? Really? Personally, I thought a person who knew science, was also, by definition literate. My bad.
If, however, you are literate, you have to conclude, that the only power a mind has, is the intelligible, the ability to parse all information, the power of judgment, the power of names, is God, which, if one could read, is exactly what is said in Genesis. So, I would have thought a scientist would be not the last person to admit in the existence of the only power knowable was God, but the first. Now, ain’t that curious? How is it, that the only power a mind actually has, is denied by those who claim to know about power? How can one claim to be more intelligent, yet claim that they are wholly ignorant of the intelligible? How is it, one claims to be a genius, yet cannot spot the most primitive self-referential fallacy possible? Should not the scientist be teaching about the only power a mind can ever know and not the illiterate? Should it not be the scientist who are ministers of God, and not the illiterate? When given two terms, both of them describing people who are illiterate, which one is right? Neither.
No, sir there ain’t no god down here! At least, not according to all dem blind people.
Before I ever went to Kindergarten, I made up my mind about God. I put it this way, If a bird existed, even if you only found bird shit, you could conclude that a bird produced it. You named it bird shit, and you had the shit, which implies that whatever a bird was, it was that which produced it and therefore existed. Now, some would claim that made me agnostic. Quite the contrary, that meant I believed in Science.
What does one have to do, in order to answer any question about any word? Does existence only imply that words denote material difference, and not the parsing boundary or limit? There are two types of identities, one for each part of speech.
Video and PDF
https://archive.org/details/meta-grammar
Video
https://youtu.be/5r4gzyyPpfo
Full text
Does God Exist.docx Statistics:
Words - 1.023
Characters - 4.586
Paragraphs - 14
Sentences - 58
Sentences per Paragraph - 4.1
Words per Sentence - 17.5
Characters per Word - 4.3
Flesch Reading Ease - 62.8
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level - 8.8
Passive Sentences - 15.39
Does God Exist?
What does one have to do, in order to answer any question about any word? Does existence only imply that words denote material difference, and not the parsing boundary or limit? There are two types of identities, one for each part of speech.
Have both parties agreed upon what a word is assigned to represent? Is the word denoting a part of a thing, such as noun or verb, or is it the name of a thing, meaning a combination of noun and verb? We have to be able to not only name quantity, or the limits of a thing, but its quality, or material difference as well. We combine those two names, using the intelligible of quantity, or the noun to contain both prior agreements. So, we can name quantities as intelligible, because it has always been an intelligible. It is a fact at the foundation of our naming convention. In short, nouns always denote a standard of measure, they always name the parsing boundary of material difference. Or again, in any of our grammar systems, we always use nouns as a method of counting, or memory addressing.
A definition is a combination of names. (Plato and common sense)
Tom, which is a noun, is given to mean, by convention, that a prior convention of names has already been accomplished. For example, “a man” or “a cat”. Without that agreement, you cannot agree which Tom is given to mean. Is Tom my next-door neighbor, or is Tom a cat pissing on my door because I own a female cat?
What this means is that Tom, is not a name which is directly either a quantity or quality, it is an intelligible which we agree upon by which we can group the previous convention of names, one that its magnitude can be named, and two, that its material difference can be named. Tom is not one or the other, Tom is an intelligible container for both of our previous agreements. Nouns are never, can never, be perceptible, by grammatical fact. The limit or boundary of a thing can never be the material difference within the boundary.
Let us take the idea closer to the point of origin. Can I construct an alphabet where some letters are perceptible, while others are intelligible? Or do all letters, do all members of a symbol set have to be perceptible in order for any agreement can be reached as to their combinations in order to construct any name, which can name both the perceptible and intelligible? Or are you claiming that we can only use symbols to name the perceptible, while the intelligible things are agreed upon by groups of people dancing around fire in the middle of the night performing some ghastly ritual?
You cannot even have a system of grammar, if one insisted on having not a perceptible alphabet but an intelligible one, meaning, one could not speak, even to count.
So here is the rub. We construct perceptible names all the time, and we use them to denote the intelligible all the time. We constantly use names to process information which we do not see, i.e., which is not perceptible.
So, when people insist that a name, is the name of something perceptible, I have to ask, are nouns, the limits of a thing, ever perceptible? Do you see the boundary, or do you see the material in a boundary? Try this. Close your eyes, and feel around. Do you ever feel the wall, or do you feel the boundary between the wall and the air? You conclude that your hand is on the surface of a wall, but you are feeling the wall, and concluding that it is the surface of the wall. But, do you actually feel the surface of the air which is at the very same place? When you feel the wall, why do you conclude it is solid, but think nothing of the air which is at the same boundary?
Every noun is a metaphor for the previous agreements which the name denotes. That agreement is always intelligible, and never perceptible. Without those agreements, it only means, 1) that people are too illiterate to make an agreement, or 2) prefer to not make an agreement as an excuse to play a savage, not only dancing around the fire in the middle of the night performing some ghastly ritual, but making the whole life a nasty ritual day or night.
God, is defined by two previous agreements, its magnitude, and a material difference. Does the fact that you refuse to make an agreement mean you are capable of literacy, or that you are too stupid? And, who, but a really illiterate person claims that the refusal to engage in the first act required for grammar, is science? Really? Personally, I thought a person who knew science, was also, by definition literate. My bad.
If, however, you are literate, you have to conclude, that the only power a mind has, is the intelligible, the ability to parse all information, the power of judgment, the power of names, is God, which, if one could read, is exactly what is said in Genesis. So, I would have thought a scientist would be not the last person to admit in the existence of the only power knowable was God, but the first. Now, ain’t that curious? How is it, that the only power a mind actually has, is denied by those who claim to know about power? How can one claim to be more intelligent, yet claim that they are wholly ignorant of the intelligible? How is it, one claims to be a genius, yet cannot spot the most primitive self-referential fallacy possible? Should not the scientist be teaching about the only power a mind can ever know and not the illiterate? Should it not be the scientist who are ministers of God, and not the illiterate? When given two terms, both of them describing people who are illiterate, which one is right? Neither.
No, sir there ain’t no god down here! At least, not according to all dem blind people.