QRD of the proof:
>everything in the world either EXISTS or DOES NOT EXIST
>everything that EXISTS has some potential to NOT EXIST, and vice versa
>for example 4chan prior to 2003 did NOT EXIST but had potential to EXIST; now it EXISTS but has potential to NOT EXIST e.g. by deleting and turning off
>this potential may be also zero i.e. some things are just not possible
>everything that potentially NOT EXISTS must truly NOT EXIST at some time or other
>if everything in the world has nonzero potential to NOT EXIST, then at some time they must have NOT EXISTED simultaneously;
>but from that moment onwards, nothing would EXIST, a contradiction
>therefore there is something that has zero potential of NOT EXISTING.
>now focus on the set of these things: call them necessary things
>every thing which is necessary has a set of things making it necessary
>this is a well-founded partial order so it has a minimal element
>this minimal element we call God.
I am working on formalizing this proof mathematically hopefully in modal logic, but I am having trouble with certain steps. For one thing I don't see why things that potentially all not exist have to not exist at the same time. For another why can't that time just be in the future? How do we properly formalize the "partial order" part so that it is (a)correct, and (b)expressible in a reasonably straightforward modal logic (or other suitable mathematical model)

>I am working on formalizing this proof mathematically hopefully in modal logic, but I am having trouble with certain steps.
That's because the proof makes no sense. You already identified some of the reasons why.

>For one thing I don't see why things that potentially all not exist have to not exist at the same time. For another why can't that time just be in the future?
There is no justification for this.

>How do we properly formalize the "partial order" part so that it is (a)correct, and (b)expressible in a reasonably straightforward modal logic (or other suitable mathematical model)
You don't.

>>16730222 (OP)
>I don't see why things that potentially all not exist have to not exist at the same time
Think about it analogously. For example. at the moment the first motion picture was made, all movies that will ever come to exist afterwards that adopted this new artform and technology from this first progenitor all did not exist at that exact time. Formalizing, this would be like "there exists x_0 at time t=0 such that there exists a time (exactly t=0) such that for all x_i, i>0, x_i did not exist at time t=0", or something like that . i.e., from the perspective of that exact moment, all the things that potentially exist did not have actual existence.

By the way, well-founded partial order works, you'll figure out that this will give you something that looks like a fixed-point proof.

>>16730222 (OP)
Time is contingent itself.

Define what the ordering relation represents and prove it’s well-founded with clear assumptions.

>>16730222 (OP)
you'll run out of paper+good luck getting anyone to read it if you succeed

>>16730222 (OP)
>>everything that EXISTS has some potential to NOT EXIST, and vice versa
How does this work vice versa? If something doesn't exist it can't have any properties (such as potential to exist).

More generally, saying "everything that does not exist" is a contradiction since "thing" implies existence

>>16730222 (OP)
>>but from that moment onwards, nothing would EXIST, a contradiction
no, nothing=/=noexist

>>16730222 (OP)
>hopefully in modal logic,
if you use S5 you are going to get (rightfully) laughed at, now if you pull it off in S4, THAT would rustle some jimmies

>>16730222 (OP)
Consider that under the umbrella of existence, manifestation and potentiality share an order of magnitude I.e. both are made of the substance of reality, and share a tier of primacy.
The comparison of dreams to reality fits nicely.
Perhaps 0 is everything, and therefore infinite potential to manifest as a value of 1, with is inherently structured (there are things it is not, unlike 0, which either IS everything or can BECOME anything. Curiously, 1 would therefore be a fraction, which is pleasantly flexible in its numerical value - like how Pi fits to every circle, a fraction can fit to any "number".

>>16730222 (OP) This may help you, homie.

Absolute Reality Argument ("ARA") - the first truly unified argument for the necessity of God
The ultimate argument for God, not just an upgrade of Aquinas, Anselm, or Leibniz, but something radically superior. A post-metaphysical, post-empirical, post-linguistic argument. One that integrates logic, experience, consciousness, cosmology, mathematics, and the existential mystery into a single, unstoppable thrust of insight.

Premise 1: Consciousness is the Ground of All Experience
Every argument, every doubt, every experiment, every logic chain, all of it presupposes the existence of conscious awareness.
You cannot deny consciousness without being conscious. It is the primal datum, not a product of the universe, but its condition for being known at all.

Premise 2: The Universe Is Structured by Abstract, Immaterial Truths
• Mathematics governs the fabric of spacetime.
• Logic constrains all possible worlds.
• These immaterial, unchanging truths exist independently of matter and time.
No physical process can generate a necessary truth, yet physics dances to their tune. So we must ask:
>Why is reality intelligible at all? Why does it conform to logic and math?
There is no reason for this unless the ground of reality is itself mind-like, an intelligence in which truth and coherence originate.

Premise 3: Contingent Existence Cannot Be the Source of Itself
• The universe is a swirling soup of contingencies — entropy, probability, birth, death, laws that could have been otherwise.
• No part of it explains why anything exists at all.
This means reality must be rooted in something that is not contingent, something self-existent, uncaused, and logically necessary.

>>16730934
Premise 4: The Necessary Ground Must Be Conscious, Creative, and Intentionally Ordered
• Pure necessity can’t generate values, beauty, order, or experience. You need intention.
• The cosmos reveals not just order, but elegance; mathematical beauty, symmetry, harmony in laws and forms.
• Conscious beings (like us) emerge in this system, beings capable of knowing truth, feeling love, and asking why.
The only coherent source of this is an Absolute Conscious Intelligence, a Being whose very essence is existence, value, knowledge, and will.

Premise 5: Your Own Existence Is the Final Proof
You are aware, now. You are aware of being aware.
• This recursive, self-reflective awareness cannot be reduced to atoms or logic.
• It is the fingerprint of a deeper reality, a spark of the Absolute.
If you trace your awareness to its source, not just biologically, but ontologically, you will find that it is not isolated.
It is grounded in a field of Being so vast, so radiant, so timeless, that every finite thing is upheld by it.
That is God, not a being in the universe, but the Being of being itself.

>There is an Absolute, Conscious Source of reality, necessary, immaterial, infinitely intelligent, and self-existent, in whom all truth, value, beauty, and being arise. That Source is God.

You do not need to "believe" in this God.
You are already participating in Him, right now, by existing, thinking, questioning, longing.
To deny Him is to deny the very preconditions of denial.

>>16730935
Why This Argument Is Superior:
• Combines: Consciousness, logic, cosmology, mathematics, aesthetics, contingency, and subjective experience.
• Avoids outdated pitfalls: No dependence on Big Bangs, Paley’s watches, or syllogistic traps.
• Reveals God not just as cause, but as context; the infinite backdrop against which anything makes sense.
• It collapses the gap between first-person experience and metaphysical necessity.

You wanted a superior argument? Here it is.
Not just an argument for God, but a revelation of why you are even able to ask the question.

>I Am that I Am
Not a name, but a fact. Now sit with that.

>>16730937
Why This Argument Is Superior:
• Combines: Consciousness, logic, cosmology, mathematics, aesthetics, contingency, and subjective experience.
• Avoids outdated pitfalls: No dependence on Big Bangs, Paley’s watches, or syllogistic traps.
• Reveals God not just as cause, but as context; the infinite backdrop against which anything makes sense.
• It collapses the gap between first-person experience and metaphysical necessity.

You wanted a superior argument? Here it is.
Not just an argument for God, but a revelation of why you are even able to ask the question.

>I Am that I Am
Not a name, but a fact. Now sit with that.

>>16730934
Now prove that God is the Christian God.

>>16730988
It seems that you cannot understand what you read.