Objective Truth (and morality) must exist

P1. Truth is that which in accordance with reality (if X occurred, and someone believes X occurred then that belief is TRUE).
P2. Under classical laws of logic, any proposition is either true or NOT-true.
P3. such propositions thus have truth value for any possible (even conceptual) thing whether it exists or not.
P4. Our ability to assess the truth value of a proposition is affected by:
- Linguistic ambiguity (for example, in the proposition "Visiting relatives can be annoying," there are two possible interpretations: "Relatives who visit are annoying" or "The act of visiting relatives is annoying").
- Incomplete context (if person A killed person B, then the proposition "Person B was killed by person A" could be left undefined due to a lack of context—for example, evidence that person A in fact killed person B).
- Modal scope ("Person A could have killed Person B" expresses possibility, while "Person A did kill Person B" asserts actuality).
P5. assume some proposition "A" where A is any proposition. (such as "the sky is blue")
C1. Therefore, even under epistemic limitations, A still holds a determinate truth value—either true or false, based on whether the possible state of affairs it describes corresponds to a real possibility within modal reality (i.e., whether it holds in some possible world).
C2. Moral propositions are a subset of all propositions.
P6. Moral propositions have truth value only if there exists some standard or telos (purpose) by which they can be measured.
P7. No objective purpose → no objective standard → no moral truths (nihilism).
P8. If humans (or the universe) have any objective purpose, then moral truths exist relative to that purpose.
C3. Therefore, either:
(A) Humans/universe have a purpose → objective moral truth exists (even if unknown),
(B) Humans/universe have no purpose → no moral truth, no objective value (nihilism).
P9. to accept proposition B entails denying:
- Objective value in reasoning,
- Purpose in truth-seeking,
- Any ground for preferring some truth over falsehood (they're both just inert propositions),
- Any reason why logic should be trusted
C4. Therefore, to deny objective purpose (B) and by extension, objective morality, is not merely to reject moral truth, but to abandon the very preconditions of rational discourse: the value of reason, the trustworthiness of logic, and the meaningfulness of truth itself.
C5. Therefore, proposition B is epistemically self-defeating.
C6. Therefore, A: humans (or the universe) have an objective purpose, and objective moral truths exist, even if they are not fully accessible without further revelation or reason.
P10. Objective purpose (A) requires a necessary truth to ground it. Something thus that cannot be contingent, changeable, or arbitrary and must be personal.
C7. Therefore, if objective purpose exists (which must), a necessary truth (such as God) must exist.
✅ Leaked Exploit Documentation:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dOCZEHS5JtM51RITOJzbS4o3hZ-__wTTRXQkV1MexNQ/edit?usp=sharing

This made me $13,000 in 2 days.

Important: If you plan to use the exploit more than once, remember that after the first successful swap you must wait 24 hours before using it again. Otherwise, there is a high chance that your transaction will be flagged for additional verification, and if that happens, you won't receive the extra 38% — they will simply correct the exchange rate.
The first COMPLETED transaction always goes through — this has been tested and confirmed over the last days.

Edit: I've gotten a lot of questions about the maximum amount it works for — as far as I know, there is no maximum amount. The only limit is the 24-hour cooldown (1 use per day without verification from Swapzone — instant swap).