It really depends on which reality we are talking about. A fifteen-headed green-bearded unicorn with purple LED hoof lights does not exist. Or at least, it didn't until I just invented it. Now it exists in my imagination. Oh dear, it also seems to exist in your imagination too - sorry about that. It is, however, non-existent in our external reality. But being non-existent there doesn't prevent it existing elsewhere, i.e. in the mind. Therefore a non-existent thing can exist. You don't have to re-define existence, but it does help to qualify it, I agree. I wouldn't suggest that qualifying it is mandatory, however. If it were mandatory, EvF would have to be banned from the forum, or at least receive a warning. He said at the start of this thread, "I don't believe God, miracles or magic are things. That's why they don't exist." But according to dictionary.com, this is a thing:-
![[Image: Things_Definition.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=b.imagehost.org%2F0048%2FThings_Definition.jpg)
Therefore, EvF denies that God, miracles or magic are objects of thought, which they clearly are. Is this not the same accusation that has been levelled at me - redefining words? And even that's overlooking that the word thing doesn't even appear in the definition of exist, but I suppose the meaning of 'exist' is what the thread's about so that objection would qualify for exemption under an obscure subsection of the forum rules.
![[Image: Things_Definition.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=b.imagehost.org%2F0048%2FThings_Definition.jpg)
Therefore, EvF denies that God, miracles or magic are objects of thought, which they clearly are. Is this not the same accusation that has been levelled at me - redefining words? And even that's overlooking that the word thing doesn't even appear in the definition of exist, but I suppose the meaning of 'exist' is what the thread's about so that objection would qualify for exemption under an obscure subsection of the forum rules.