This is why I don't like debating religion

[dsgrue3]

happydolphin said:

dsgrue3 said:

Gah, you and your edits.

You can't use the term entity in a definition of existence. That's like saying the property of this existing object proves existence. lol

Hihi, I edited again :)

I don't know if it's complete, but I'm getting closer to where I want to get. Something that's verifiable.

For example, if something can be seen, yet a person with eyes can't see it, then it is either that the person's eyes are not the right sensors to observe the object and verify its existence, or that object/entity simply does not exist.

Do you realize how closely this definition is getting to the one I presented? "Existence is predicated upon observation." Sound familiar? Can you differentiate your definition from this as yours seems to be stating the same exact thing?

Remember "observation" doesn't mean sight, it means "sensors" from your definition. 

I'm just struggling to find a difference in definition.