In standard English sentences like: The apple is red, the word /IS/- indicates or points to the predicate red which follows it and describes a specific condition of the nominalised subject: apple.

Though many people mistakenly assume otherwise,  /is/ never points to the FACT of something existing. IS always points to (but does not in itself add to) the predicational information which describes the NATURE  or one or more of the ways a subject exists.

Thus the predicativly orphanic statement: "God is."  contextually implies historical, previously learned descriptive information regarding God which has been  internalised by the believer as being true. The indicant is points to the word God as the fountainhead, agent and essential locus underlying the reality of such previously predicated   imputed divinatory virtues. 

Thus to the faithful, repetitive detailings of God's goodness are unnecessary, for the  predicative accounts of the Creator's excellence are so well known and  timeless - it is enough to simply say: "God is."  Such all-embracing declarations refer to  something self-evident; something that can be assumed as the basis for the continuance of an already established and internalised faith.

Every object in the cosmos is energised. Unenergised objects could never exist. Energised objects always exist as changing entities - they never exist as an unchanging pure presence either as an object, an entity, energy or as a field. (call them what you will.)

 An entity never just is - entities never simply are - entities (including humans) are always "becoming" modified versions of themselves. That which our brain interprets as "red" we call "red" also changes, for the reflective skin of an apple changes from second to second as it ages and with it the character of the wavelenght characteristics of the reflected photonic bombardment that impacts its surface and is received by the human eye. So too the retinal nature of the observer's eyes and optical nerves undergo change as the red photopigment in the retinal rods of the human viewer dissociates into retinene under the influence of light

An entity never simply "exists" - an entity always exists "AS" something constantly and seamlessly changing, devoid of any of the existential interstices like the useful fictions mankind has attributed to "time."  It is objects that change - not time. Man has simply chosen the earth, the sun and the moon as the three most obvious changing objects as models by which to apply  some "temporal" eventive  order to the rest of the changing objects of the world with which he is surrounded  - the interactive dynamic objects which he prefers to label metaphysically as "events"  and tag with the chronological abstractions he calls: seconds, minutes, hours and days, etc.


The logician and the mathematician employ is and exists (or their symbolic equivalents) . as unsupported usefully fictive assertions in the let's pretend existence theorems of logic and math. The premises and propositions of  logical arguments begin with counterintuitive  statements like: 'there exist(s) ..', and:  'for all x, y, ... etc.,

Ipsedixitism is the pejorative term for an unsupported rhetorical or fictive assertion; it is a term in logic for an initial  missing argument. Such Ipsidixitism is the stock in trade of the logician and the mathematician who use the logical equivalent of is" or exists" in the premises and propostions as the  formal terms of symbolic logic and predicative logic or mathematics.

Such statements which include  existential quantifiers. are let's pretend there exists terms  or pure presence theorems.


The religious believer, the transcendentalist, use such archaic pure presence forms of is in statements like: God is.

For the religious, whose intention is to aver that there is such a thing called God the sententionally orphaned word /is/ implies that God exists in all the modalities (loving, all-powerful, as the creator, etc) accepted by the believer as part of his/her spiritual credo and faith in an almighty being.

The use of such an orphanic (prevocational covert) sentential form of is which lacks any overt form of modalic description comprises a pure existence theorem. A theory may be called pure if the proof given of it doesn't also indicate a construction of whatever kind of object the existence of which is asserted.

Walt Disney's more ontologically aware cartoon character Popeye, not being a supernatural being, nor one worshipped as creating and controlling the world and every aspect of lives of those that dwell upon its surface, qualifies his initial existentially unsupported dogmatic assertion I am by supplementing the ipsedixitism with the qualitative modifier: what I am.   The predicative what I am, whilst not going into detail, does flag up, map and refer to the host of implied existential modalities familiar to children all over the world.  

The children of the world are antecedally aware of Popeye's existential modalities - the unspoken but implied missing (or covert) predication of: being a sailorman, of having bulging forearm muscles tattooed with anchors, of consuming large amounts of tinned spinach and having a girlfriend called Olive Oyl.

So, unlike the missing (overt or covert) predication of the arguments to be found in the strings of the useful fictions found in logical proposition - the emphatic assertions of the religious and the transcendentalists (and other creators of predicative orphanism, which are made as if no supporting evidence were necessary) is implicative and assumed and based upon a priori beliefs.  

It all depends on what the faithful know and believe  in advance about THE WAY God exists as explained to them by their priests or discovered in the pages of the Bible.

        As Robin Williams once said regarding his first foray into motion pictures:

                          "If you watch it backwards, it does have a plot"