If this sentence is true, then God exists.

I'm not using circular logic. Re-read my first post: I don't start with the assumption that the sentence is true, nor with the assumption that God exists. If I start with any assumption, it's only that it is _possible_ for the sentence to be true, and this seems reasonable to me in lieu of any evidence to the contrary. Just because a proposition seems counterintuitive or strange doesn't make it impossible. Starting simply from the reasonable premise that the sentence could, hypothetically, be true, I tried to see whether the sentence's consequent followed necessarily from its antecedent, and found that it did: there was no way for God to not exist so long as the sentence was true. From this, it necessarily followed that the sentence was true, since the sentence is true if and only if its consequent necessarily follows from its antecedent. Nowhere did I assume my conclusions, so the reasoning was not circular. (Moreover, even if it had been circular, that wouldn't make the sentence untrue, which you still need to show. For example, the argument "Mice are mammals that exist. Therefore, mice exist." is circular, yet that doesn't imply that mice don't exist! Circularity does not denote falsehood.) "since hypothetically the statement is true you agree since hypothetically its true " - I never said that. My argument has never relied on anything like the assumption that the statement is "hypothetically true", whatever that means. All it relies on, if anything, is that the statement _could_, hypothetically, be true. So long as it could be true in some hypothetical world, any world at all, it is necessarily true in our world, because, being a conditional, the sentence's truth is only dependent upon whether its logic follows, not whether it is applicable to the real world. "then you make a leap since in this hypothetical universe its true it is therefore true" - That isn't a leap, because we're dealing with a conditional. Allow me to illustrate. Consider, for example, the following sentence: "If I am a bachelor, then I am an unmarried man." This statement is true even if I am not a bachelor, because it's a conditional. (And note that this statement is not explicitly circular, even if it's trivially true.) The antecedent doesn't need to be true for the sentence as a whole to be true, as long as the consequent must follow from the antecedent. The same applies to "If this sentence is true, then God exists." Denying the antecedent right off the bat is missing the point, because what matters is only whether the consequent follows from the antecedent: the fact that the consequent following from the antecedent is all that's needed to make the antecedent true doesn't change that fact, it just adds an extra conclusion we can draw from the conditional's logic following. "But we aren't debating in that hypothetical universe we are debating in this one." - True, but if you concede the hypothetical universe, you are forced by logical necessity to concede our universe, because conditionals deal with hypotheticals. Your point would be correct if we were debating the sentence "This sentence is true, and therefore God exists." Then appealing to a hypothetical would be a non sequitur on my part. But we aren't debating that. We're debating the sentence "_If_ this sentence is true, then God exists". As such, hypotheticals are extremely important, because they help us see whether it's possible for the consequent to be untrue while the antecedent is true. Since this is plainly impossible (i.e., if the sentence is true, there's no way for God not to exist), whereas we see no reason for it to be impossible for the antecedent to be true at all, the only logical conclusion is that if the sentence is true, God exists; and since that is what the sentence says, the only logical conclusion is that the sentence is, in fact, true. "So you can go on and on and on with your current course but all your doing is arguing in a hypothetical universe and unfortunately for your case we are debating in this universe." - You're missing the point. If we were debating "If I am a bachelor, then I am an unmarried man.", it wouldn't matter whether or not I am a bachelor in this world; all that would matter is that in a hypothetical world where I was a bachelor, I would be an unmarried man. This alone shows that the sentence is true, regardless of the state of affairs in this world. In the same way, "If this sentence is true, then God exists." only needs to be true in a hypothetical world, in order for the _sentence_ to be true in every world, including our own. The only difference between this conditional sentence and the bachelor one is that this one has an imbedded real-world consequence, by virtue of the fact that the sentence's truth (which, again, can be established by its validity in any world, because, like the bachelor sentence, it's a conditional) necessitates the existence of God in the real world. "BUT YOU DON'T SAY WHY ITS TRUE IN THIS WORLD YOU ONLY SAY IF ITS TRUE THEN ITS TRUE..... " - It's true in this world because an "if-then" (i.e., conditional) sentence is by its very nature about hypothetical situations and their consequences. For example, "If I am a biologically female human, then I have an XX sex chromosome" is true even if I am not female at all in the real world. For such a sentence to be true, all that matters is that if, hypothetically, the antecedent were true, the consequent would necessarily be true as well. For the same reason, all that matters in order to evaluate the bachelor sentence is whether I would be an unmarried man _if_ I were a bachelor; and all that matters in order to evaluate the truth of "If this sentence is true, then God exists." is whether God would necessarily exist _if_ the sentence were true. And since God clearly would exist if the sentence were true, the conditional is true. "in order for it to make sense you have to accept that hypothetical= real but it doesn't" - No you don't. Where did I ever say that the hypothetical must be real? You accept that "If I am a biologically female human, then I have an XX sex chromosome" is true even if you are not female, do you not? For the same reason, logic forces you to accept that "If this sentence is true, then God exists" is true even if you don't start off with the assumption that it's true in the real world, and merely acknowledge that in a hypothetical world where it was true, God would necessarily exist.