This is why I don't like debating religion

[dsgrue3]

happydolphin said:

dsgrue3 said:

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.

Then the predicate of your definition is inadquate, given the exception case I offered. At a moment when no 3rd party source existed, and we know by causality that matter needed to exist prior to the existence of said 3rd party source, the predicate is inadequate in answering the existential questions of life.

There are no exceptions, it's a definition. Conclusions can only be drawn from the definition. By definition, if it had not been observed it did not exist. This is a very simple concept to grasp. 

Example. Confining the Universe to a solid box. There may or may not be a ball inside of the box. I don't know, I haven't yet observed it. Nor has anyone else. It does not exist. I open the box, ALAS! a ball! It does exist. Understand? This ties into quantum theory, if you're aware. Schrodinger's cat experiment.