What do you know to be real? Your family? Your house? Your friends? The very dirt beneath your feet? Your body? Your brain?

If you think about it, and really think about it, what can you know to be real? Nothing. Everything can be doubt. Everything can be an evil genius controlling everything we know to be real. All that we know for certain, with a 100% satisfaction, is that we exist. Our intelligence is somewhere, it exists.

But wait, there's more. Consider once more: What if only we existed? In order for us to know anything, there needs to be a second instance of existence. God. God must exist, because we can imagine that he exists. By the very notion of a perfect being, we can assume that there is one. This doesn't work for anything else, because they are not perfect. As knowledge-less lumps of matter, to be able to imagine perfect in turn proves perfection does.

Too much doesnt make any sense.

Like, where did anything begin in the first place?

What predates the big bang? What predates what started the big bang? And what predated what happened before then?

No one knows.

-------
In this world of adversity, I stand strong. -Me

---

Oh I'm disappointed by this. I thought it was going to be a legitimate argument. Shame.

---

---

Nothing we know is absolutely known.

Too much doesnt make any sense.

Like, where did anything begin in the first place?  

What predates the big bang? What predates what started the big bang? And what predated what happened before then?

No one knows.

---

But we know more than that. The reality we can imagine is only because we can imagine a god, so a god must exist. If god exists, so can reality.

If you're so wise, master, disprove me.

---

I believe in a higher existence, but I don't think it has anything to do with us or affects us in anyway. I don't think we're even capable of imagining a perfect being, because everyone's idea of "perfect" is different. Maybe we can imagine a higher power, but not necessarily one that is all-perfect. Because perfection doesn't really exist. Because what's perfect for one person may not be for another person.

---

I need no frame of reference because I am perfect. I am perfect because I am alone. I define perfection because it would require a perfect being to define it. An imperfect being defining a perfect one would be doomed to failure unless it could claim perfect understanding. If an imperfect being defines something it automatically lacks credibility, a perfect being would not need to be defined. The fact that you (who as far as im concerned may not exist, and since you are not perfect by your logic the fact that i can think of you does not make it so, unless i am perfect, which i am) and i disagree means there is no yet conceived perfection. If I assume only you exist, and this is true, your statements hold credibility but a paradox is created (only you exist)

Your logic does not follow. (please excuse grammar and spelling and formatting i am on a phone)

It is always a pleasure, mein alias.

-------
Our doubts are traitors, and make us lose the good we oft
might win, by fearing to attempt.

- William Shakespeare

Following your own train of thought, medjai has shown the flaw in your reasoning. If I am an imperfect being, and I imagine something perfect, then the fact that I am imperfect would skew my image of what 'perfect' is.

A perfect being is not required for imperfection to exist. Also, 'perfect' is still a very subjective term, so I don't think it makes sense to use it so heavily in such an absolute context as 'the existence of God.'

-------
Spicy Pidgeon