Did I really just read 5 pages of people arguing semantics? No wonder no progress is made.

It was quite painful, but I'm bored at work with nothing to do. Probably should've taken it private. Sorry, dude.

@bold. I realize that, and it wasn't in my logic.

It's not part of my definition, it was a supporting clause. It's not required, but if and when B depends on A, then yes this comes into effect. Not the case for the God clause I'm afraid.

Do you realize how frustrating it is talking to you?

You defined existence as if B requires A to exist, A exists. I said okay, I accept that definition. Now you say that has nothing to do with the defintion. Then what's the definition?

Here, I'll start: Existence: 

The definition is, like I posted earlier:

I admit I added this clause prior to it, but it's a supporting clause, it isn't required in the definition, it's an addendum:

I'm trying to be as clear as I can be.

Existence:

The property of an entity to be part of the set of all real things at any point or over the span of any points in the axis of time.

Existence: Existence. That is what you just said is the definition. Do you understand that? DEFINE EXISTENCE! You have yet to do so!

Existence:

The property of an entity to be part of the set of all real things at any point or over the span of any points in the axis of time. Unless an intellignet observer can use its senses to show that an element is not part of the set of all real things according to its given senses, then any and every element can possibly be in the realm of real things.

Anything that is not in the realm of real things does not exist in reality.

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.

However said object could exist without the validation of said observer (the observation does not preclude existence).

As such, until every and all type of sensor in the universe or multi-verses is discovered, we will never know what the full set of real things actually is.