Furthermore, in essence, we can then say that we have a complex sentence, which has an independent clause in the present tense (It is often…disprove…), joined with a conjunction (and), followed by an independent clause (Anyone who claims…). Within such compound sentence constructions, in general, the initial present tense clauses may join with a wide variety of different tenses in later clauses as long as we use the tense that fits the logic of the sentence. From your first question above, we determined that nothing equals nothing—it will always be nothing, no past tense, no future tense. As a result, any other sentence construction, while grammatically correct, does not fit the logic of the sentence. This not only explains the “Why?” of the matter, but also follows the rule in English about keeping tenses consistent on the sentence level (i.e., do not change tenses when there is not time change allowing for the action). Finally, the above is a lot of information to absorb in only reading, so I want to tell you that using verb tenses in sequence is difficult not only for native speakers, but also for those whose mother tongue is not that language. Complicating this situation is the fact that context, idiom, and style play as much a factor in determining tense sequence as the rules of grammar. However, with diligent practice, and by applying yourself, you will gradually get the hang of it. I can only trust that I explained it as to where it is clear to you, rather than simply served to confuse you ever more… (*-^) Good luck! Jonathan. Part II of II

The claim that there is no god goes beyond or exceeds the evidence means that the evidence that their is no god is not sufficient to state categorically that that is the case. Perhaps the evidence is also consistent with the existence of God. Is going or goes would both make sense to me in this sentence and would not change the meaning

Your first question mirrors the age-old one of which came first—the chicken or the egg? Just as you seemingly cannot have one without the other, you cannot prove one without the other. It is a classic “Catch-22” situation. Similarly, as there is nothing definitive to prove or to disprove that God exists (i.e., there is no available evidence, nothing, either way…), then anyone who claims that he or she can do either is “going beyond” nothing, which equals the available evidence, and which is still nothing (0 + 0 = 0). Alternatively, though, if we choose, we can agree with the astrophysicist, Neil deGrasse Tyson, who answered, “The egg—laid by a bird that was not a chicken." As to your second question, the definition of a subject complement is a noun, pronoun, or adjective that follows a linking verb. While a linking verb is present (is, a form of the word, be), the words “going beyond” are not a noun, a pronoun, nor an adjective. By definition then, those words cannot be a subject complement. The verbal phrase, “go beyond,” which means to do more than (something), or to do more than is expected or required, has different forms (tenses) to denote the passage of time (went beyond, gone beyond, goes beyond, etc.). Your sentence, which I will truncate (“Anyone who claims there is no God is going beyond the available evidence.”), does not use auxiliary verbs, and does not refer to a specific time, so it cannot be in the Simple tense. Similarly, it does not use the words have, has, or had as auxiliary verbs, and it does not allow action to continue over time, so it cannot be in the Perfect tense. However, it does use the words—is, are, was, or were as an auxiliary verb, along with an –ing ending on the main verb, and it does focus on the “progress” of an action, so again, through the process of elimination, we can say it is in the Progressive Tense. Part I of II

Hello