A monotheistic God doesn't exist

Excuse me, but apparently Pro doesn't understand the principles of quantum mechanics and relativity. Let me dummy it down for you: http://www.dummies.com... This says that time dilation is a very definite and valid theory. TIME CAN BE BENT BY INCREASING GRAVITY. So can space. A black hole is literally A HOLE IN SPACE-TIME. Of course the principles of time are different across the event horizon of a black hole. Or is it that you don't understand even simple inference? If you don't, then you're wasting both our time. 1 and 2) I agreed that God didn't use "our" time to create the universe. Hello? When did I ever agree to him not creating the universe? Stop jumping to "by definition" every now and then. Its funny only for a short while, after which it becomes pathetic. TIME DOESN'T EXIST? Oh my debatably-existent God! I have hardly ever seen such an ignorant person! Time is JUST A PHRASE? I would IMPLORE Pro to PLEASE (SERIOUSLY, PLEASE) read the following articles pertaining to relativity before posting his next argument. For your own sake, please don't turn yourself into a joke: http://library.thinkquest.org... http://curiosity.discovery.com... For a more simplistic explanation, i'll post some well-known links: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.youtube.com... I only agreed that God didn't "use" time to create the universe. Pro's "definition" of the word "definition" is definitively flawed. It's nothing more than an overuse and repetition. And THE SUN ORBITS THE EARTH? WHO TOLD YOU THAT? I really hope that is a BIG typing error, otherwise i would advise you to pick up your fifth-grade science textbook and look at the SOLAR SYSTEM. The moon orbits the earth. The earth orbits the sun. This is not exactly nature. It has a name. Once again, it's GRAVITY. Mr. Pro has some SERIOUS flaws in his scientific statements, and quite frankly, its disgraceful. As goes for nature, that is what makes the sun, moon and earth rotate about their own axes. It is the conservation of angular momentum: http://www.scientificamerican.com... http://curious.astro.cornell.edu... 3) What is so odd about this? Well, Pro believes that there is only one single, unaltered flow of time within the entire universe. NOW, THAT'S ODD. Do you not know that TIME FLOWS AT DIFFERENT RATES UNDER DIFFERENT GRAVITATIONAL FIELDS? If your answer is still no, then it means you've neither read my previous arguments, nay, FACTS, properly, nor have you visited the links i provided just a few lines above. This is classic ignorance for someone who prefers to go "by definition". If the answer is yes, however, then your time argument is finished. PERIOD. Moving on, i would request you to read this very carefully: You say that because God exists out of time, he has no time to rule? Well, once again, your definition is FLAWED. We define ruler as "a person exercising government or dominion". Check your dictionary, if you have one. And if you don't, google it. To rule means to exercise authority, to GOVERN, and NOT TO CONTROL or dominate. This is different how, you ask? To CONTROL is puppetry - a man will only do what God intends him to do. This is what you say a ruler does, and it isn't true. To GOVERN is to inflict consequence - like karma, or law. You're free to defy it, but not to escape it. As you sow, so shall you reap. THIS is what a ruler does. That is what GOD does. Definition argument 1) The upcoming sentence said your following arguments were false, of course. It's simple english; how could you not understand it? And even if you didn't (which would severely question your credibility), then am i not supposed to be saying that your arguments are false "by definition"? I expected you to understand at least that much. 2) I agreed that he didn't have "our" time. Meaning, he didn't do it ON EARTH. Time has a different nature and flow in OTHER gravitational fields. I am not going to state this again. 3) Once again, since i have disproved your previous arguments, your present statement has been rendered moot. I haven't agreed with anything you said. You're under the misconception that i have, because: (i)Your definition of ruler is flawed. (ii)You seem to have no idea about relativity, or if you do, you choose to ignore it. (iii)Your definition of time and its flow is flawed. (iv)You think that the SUN ORBITS THE EARTH(which is false to begin with), and you think it's because of nature. At the risk of sounding cliched, it's because of a force of nature called GRAVITY. So now, BY DEFINITION, you don't know anything about gravity, the solar system, time, and rulers. (v)And of course, you either misread or simply ignored some of my rebuttals. The time and definition arguments are over, Mr. Pro. I await some NEW arguments. Dwelling on a disproved argument could very well be conceived as undue fixation.