happydolphin said:
Much better. If A (matter) did not exist, and A gives birth to B (sentient beings, via evolution), how did B exist as we observe it today?
Truth is: At that moment where A had not yet been observed, the truth is that it still existed, for without A's existence B could not have come into being. Which invalidates the converse of the definition you offered. The definition is fine, no problem with it. It's the converse that isn't (e.g. that if we haven't observed something then it doesn't exist). |
You're using a different definition to suit your argument. I've stayed with mine this entire time. You can't debate two separate definitions for existence then use them interchangeably. That's ludicrous.
By definition, it did not exist. Existence did not exist prior to defining existence. This is a philosophical matter more so than a scientific one since we are using a particular definition here.
