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. 

Addendum: In a case of inheritance, if B inherits from A, then if B exists A must have existed at B's inception.

I clarified that with an edit  sowy.

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

Problem is, you also have to define what "real" means. The fundamental problem here, and it was also a problem in a previous thread, is that when people say God exists, they mean a different thing than when they say a physical thing exists. Just simply, God doesn't have pshyical existence. As you guys have discussed, the reason this characteristic is ascribed to God is to escape this causuality problem, primarily that all physical things need a casue. If God is non-physical, God doesn't need a cause and can therefore be ascribed necessity.

Essentially, the arguments (otological and cosmological) for God's existence depend on whether this idea for necessity is reasonable....its pretty easy to predict where someone stands on God's existence if you know which side of the debate they fall on in this issue....and belive me....this debate is still very much alive.  : )

The only problem I have with the definition is that it leaves open boundless possibilities, although I bet that's what you were seeking.

oh lord, this thread is like beating people over the head with a dead horse lmao

Can we please stop arguing semantics? What a waste of everyone's time.

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.

I'm only seeking the truth. If I'm off, I would be happy for you to show me where I err, and how my definition is flawed. I am very interested.

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.