Ok, if you don’t assume existence, then I don’t believe that YOU exist. Provide for me proof that you exist, and ill believe you. I believe that you are some sophisticated computer program that can think, and answer questions. Very advanced. lol. Now, now seriously. You say that we don’t assume existence. From your point of view its true, and that is exactly your problem. You go, and say, we don’t assume the existence of a God. then, you go through a proof, and end up saying, based on this, we come to the conclusion that there is on God. Circular reasoning. This nullifies your very own proof, as you so nicely admitted. If you assume that God doesn’t exist, of course you can prove that he doesn’t. But, that very fact nullifies your own proof. Therefor, we MUST assume existence if we wish to prove that isn’t a God, and go from there, so that we can have a valid proof. Once you provide me with such a logical proof that goes from assuming that there is a God, to proving that there isn’t one, ill believe you. So far, I have not seen any.
Another thing, you say that we don’t assume existence? That is would be like going on trial and saying “ok, he is guilty, let HIM prove that he isn’t.”? Lets look at the scientific world. We look at a scientists, who came up with an new theory. He comes to present it to his fellow scientists, and they, from the beginning have their doubts. What mentality do you think they have “He is right, lets prove him wrong” or “He is wrong, let Him prove that he is right”? I assure you that it is the second one that they go by. The problem is, that its a nice practice in a court of law, “Innocent till proven guilty”, but it isn’t in practice in the scientific world today. Since science is more closely related to our discussion then a court of law, I propose that we must assume the idea that “He is wrong, let Him prove that he is right”. You Atheists have this one problem, you assume without proof that there is a God, or assume it based on a faulty conclusion, and then you ask for proof that there is one. You go by the very same system of thought, and ask that very same question. “ok, he doesn’t exist, let HIM prove he does.” of course, you don’t get anywhere with this. Watch out for hypocrisy on your part, cause it can be your downfall.

To your point about order and perfection, its not my fault that you don’t have a fixed idea or order or perfection. Maybe if you pull up and dictionary, and look up the standard definition, you may get a better idea of what the proof is actually stating. The other thing is, it’s not the proof’s fault either, even if it is old. and you want some more recent proof? Why don’t you look up Kurt Gurdel’s proof of God? He too made a very neat proof, and its absolutely ingenious. He should be modern enough for your tastes. The only counter people can find to his arguments is that the assumption he made that “the sum of all good is good.” is false. Now that is getting pretty desperate, don’t you think? ok, there is my answer, sorry for the inversion of order, but I thought that this way it would be best

@Fyrius Im sorry, my time is very limited, ill hopefully get to your reply by tonight.

welcome to swine fluther
let us marry at once