This is why I don't like debating religion

[cyberninja45]

GameOver22 said:

happydolphin said:

Well, I personally wasn't using causality for the God component. I was using causality for the existence of sentient beings, whereby the matter that formed them needed to exist prior to their observation of things, which precludes existence in dsgrue's definition.

As for the causality in the God paradox, I haven't even gone that far yet, but I agree that it is a fascinating concept, seeing as all science leads to the fringe which is infinity, it is almost inevitable for the searching mind.

As for what constitutes reality, for some it is the physical, for some it may be beyond the physical. My definition of existence transcends the physical because it does not require physical sensors to preclude existence.

The bolded is kind of tautological....is it not? I didn't catch his original definition though.

As for what constitutes reality.....I'm not going to disagree that there might be more to reality than we can observe, but we need to differentiate between physical reality and a "broader" reality when we discuss these things.

From what I gathered dsgrue3 definition was that for something to exist it needed to be observed by another, I am no expert but  his definition  ,for my part, was quite wrong as the term "known to exist thus far" is often used, which I always thought meant something could exist without someone knowing its there.

Anyway that's my two cents.