This is why I don't like debating religion

[dsgrue3]

happydolphin said:

dsgrue3 said:

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.

"Existence did not exist prior to defining existence."
As a term I certainly agree, but as a rule in the universe? I'd like a source for that.

Knowing that we are here, requiring matter to cause us to exist, matter necessarily needed to exist. At the moment that no sentient being were alive, matter needed to exist following the rules of causality, whether we were there to observe it or not.

The application of the definition is predicated upon a third party source, that's why I mentioned the mirror effect. It's no different from the chicken and the egg, really. 

Again, you're defining existence entirely different than I am. In my defintion, nothing existed until it was observed. You have to play by the rules. If you want to define existence in another manner, do so. But if you do not and you continue to misappropriate my definition, we won't get anywhere.