This is why I don't like debating religion

[dsgrue3]

happydolphin said:

dsgrue3 said:

This is beyond pedantism. Observation isn't predicated upon capability. We defined it as humans. The term existence didn't exist until we existed and defined it. That's like attempting to apply laws of science before the Universe came to be. 

I hope you understand the difference. 

From an objective third party intelligent being, indeed these such things existed (given the known physics definition for existence). 

My question is, did they exist prior to us observing them as a 3rd party intelligent being.

At the moment the were at play into creating sentient beings, did they exist (at that time when we were not existent)?

This is not pedantism, it's a quest for truth.

It's pedantism. No doubt about it. I said if a third party source were observing the Universe prior to humans, it would confirm the existence of the atom. 

You can't simply say before life nothing existed. Of course it existed, but there weren't any intelligent beings around to confirm its existence. Nothing to ponder that simple fact. This is a definition for existence which is widely accepted, but it does present a mirror effect. A observes B confirming B's existence, but who confirmed A's existence?

You're making a very strange argument trying to refute a defintion, which is laughably obsolete. Is there a point to be made here, because I'd rather not waste time debating the validity of a defintion which is accepted by the entire physics community.