The default position.

Your confused in around the word existence dude.   Nothing is not something. Thats just plain absurd at best.

Nothing, as metaphyscial-1, mind/intellect/concepts and as macro-infintie non-occupied space exists as nothing, not something.

Only the irrational. illogical follow your pathways of thought and plenty of those around here.

Mathematician and.or philosopher.  At least in this scenario we the color is a given factor and not hypothetical of SM sheep in a box that is red.

If the sheep spin around then we know color of two sides of sheep.   But have the sheep been painted to fool us into not knowing there true nature?

Now we enter back into SM's long list of irrational, non-philosophical scenarios.

If something exists as nothing, it is nonexistence.

I am not confused, and I'm not going to debate this with you. If you can't see how this is a perfectly reasonable belief, I am under no obligation to entertain the idea that your semantic fumbling is anything other than the squealing ineptitude of a haughty and uncharitable know it all trying to justify their own illegitimate superstitions.

Invincible ignorance is an invention of the Catholic church but let's consider it for a moment. What reasonable due diligence could possibly be applied to something that exists outside of physical reality? How could you ever confirm or deny such a thing? Also please give a specific example of my miscategirizing one of your logical fallacies with an explanation of the fallacy.

The Truth precedes everything.

Contemplate on that until you can think of a way that is true. Not just true, but evidently true.

When you can make sense of why The Truth has to precede everything that exists, you will understand what I am saying. No amount of me explaining this at this point is going to help you any further. You have to realize it now.

Let me see if I can summarize your argument and if I get it wrong please let me know. 

If I understand you correctly you are arguing that at some point some thing must either have began to exist without a cause or some thing must have existed eternally and that even though we have never observed either of these phenomena (unless you count quantum particles which do seem to begin existing without a cause but in that case we may simply be unable to observe the cause so we can ignore that for now if you like) that an eternal thing is not just more likely but the only reasonable option. Is that an accurate summation?

No, my argument is that nothing exists independent of The Truth, which gives everything its existence, and so The Truth precedes everything.

If the truth had a beginning, it is not The Truth, but a truth and that truth would not exist if not for The Truth, which by necessity of its being must be eternal. If The Truth came into being, that means it is bound by time, and if time is a truth greater than the truth we are looking at, that truth cannot be The Ultimate Reality.

The Ultimate Reality is The Truth.

And actually, I should make a correction. I don't believe this is an argument so much as a statement of fact. It is an assertion, and a true assertion that I believe good sense and understanding shows to be self evident.

Logical ultimate reality (The Truth) is (Immanuel Kant's) noumenon (magnum mysterium).

There must be some way to distinguish The Truth from The Lie.

An arbitrary standard like "you know it when you see it" is equally meaningless.

How does The Truth inform you about the color of the ball in the unopened box?

If you are making a (bald) assertion and not an argument then we are not really having a discussion. I would prefer to have a discussion.

Immanuel Kant is an overeducated dipshit if he denies God.

If you deny God, you undermine your own argument so you can't refute what I am saying.

There is plenty here to discuss.

For example, how do you justify denying The Truth? If you do not believe in The Truth, how isnyour justification true?

It isn't.  You are being arbitrary. You are comparing God to a ball in  a box.

Gnosticism is a heresy

There can only be a discussion if both sides are willing to have a discussion and agree to terms. It is this second requirement that we seem unable to attain. Unless we can agree to certain guidelines by which we make our argument then we are both wasting our time.

Merriam-webster Collegiate Dictionary Edition 11 is my dictionary.

I'm not going to compromise the integrity of language so that you can feel justifies in adopting an idiotic and self defeating position and feel smug about it.

No, you need to be aware that your position is stupid, and it would be intelligent of you to abandon it and believe God exists.

We are not talking about a ball in a box. We are talking about The Truth.

Your entire position is pure gnosticism.

Please explain the difference between what you believe and what you think gnosticism actually is.

Gnosticism is faith in knowledge. It is knowingism.

You, or your god Kant says if you can't know The Truth it is meaningless.

My faith is in The Truth, not knowledge.

Thank you for explaining that.

It actually makes a lot of sense now.

Evidence is my reason for accepting claims. I'm not going to compromise the integrity of logical conclusions based on evidence just so you can feel justified adopting a prescriptive tautology that you cannot demonstrate. So where does that leave us?

There is nothing logical about denying The Truth. Don't kid yourself.

I'm not denying that some things are true. You are proposing something else, something beyond just true things. You are the one who is making a distinction between the two concepts while simultaneously trying to blur the line between them. In any case you didn't answer my question so I will ask it again. Where does that leave us 

I'm talking about what gives truth to true things.

THE TRUTH.

So if you deny THE TRUTH you are denying all truths.

Not a truth, THE TRUTH.

The way things actually are.

Not

The way things are in relation to something else... like, the way things appear to be.

Absolute Truth.

That is what God is.

The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.

Realize it now.

The only thing that makes something true is if it is. If something is true no external agency is required to render it more true. Now stop changing the subject. Where does that leave us?

The Truth is closer than your breath. Than your blood.

If something is true, it is because The Truth is in it.

If The Truth is not in something, it doesn't exist. It is unreality.

The Ultimate Reality. That which is ultimately real.

How is it that you don't understand? 

Maybe you don't want to. Maybe you prefer the darkness to the light. Maybe you have been bribed away by the lusts of your mind and flesh. We have talked at great length over a long time now, there is no amount of me explaining things further that will help you.

You need to realize, otherwise we aren't even talking about the same thing. I grow weary of you playing stupid.

Why do you assume that I believe based on my desired rather than by the observable evidence?

You also still haven't answered my question. I reject your claims where does that leave us?

You can't even admit that The Ultimate Reality exists when it by the nature of its being is not only existent, but the realest there is.

What more can be said? You condemn yourself. I think this is really stupid.

I don't care what you think only what you can prove. 

Real/unreal is dichotomous. Things are either real or they are not. Realest is not A word Mr dictionary and it's a nonsensical idea besides.