A Reading of Genesis

Con states: "I accept – some form of language may have existed." In other words, Con accepts my claim that language existed simultaneously with God before creation. Con argues that language is not an "entity," and that therefore, I must "prove the existence of language equals the existence of another entity." Con, however, provides no evidence that language is not an entity. Con's claim is an empty one. Because Con raises this point, however, I will argue below that "language" is in fact an "entity." But for the sake of argument, suppose for a moment that language is not an entity. It would not matter to this debate because I clearly stated in R1 that "To win this argument, I will only have to prove that there was something else that existed simultaneously with God. This "something else" can be anything. As long as I show that, according to Genesis, there was something other than God, I win." Because Con agrees that language exists simultaneously with God at the start, it does not matter whether language is an entity or not. I only had to prove "something" existed. I already have, and Con agreed with me. Therefore, it would seem that I have already won this debate. Nevertheless, I will continue to fortify my argument. I will argue that language is an entity just to remove all doubt on the part of my opponent. First, Con provided no definition of "entity," but merely stated that language could not be one. Therefore, to begin, I will provide definitions of "entity" from two sources. My first source is the Oxford English Dictionary. I use the OED because it is the most reliable dictionary available. It clearly defines "entity" as: "being, existence, as opposed to non-existence" [1]. Con accepts that language existed. Because an entity is defined as a "being, existence, as opposed to non-existence," I claim that language is in fact an entity. In other words, because language exists, it is therefore an entity. Nowhere does it state that the word "entity" is limited to a "being" with material existence. In fact, as my second source states clearly, an "entity" need not have material existence. On Wikipedia it states that an entity "need not be a material existence." In short, language, although it has no "material existence," is still an "entity." In the same article, we find that the "the word entity is used in a general sense of a being, whether or not the referent has material existence" [2]. Again, language exists, it has a "general sense of a being," and therefore, it matters not whether it has material existence or not – it is an entity. If Con plans to argue that language does not exist in his final round, then I make it clear now that I have shown, at the very least, that the word "light" existed prior to creation. Con has already agreed to this claim. Therefore, I can make the claim that the word "light" existed simultaneously with God prior to creation. Point is, something existed with God, and an "entity" is "being, existence." I have nothing further to argue. In conclusion, language, or at least the word "light," existed simultaneously with God before creation. In R2, Con agreed. Because I have shown that words are entities, I have removed all doubts Con expressed about my initial claims. Therefore, I ask that you vote Pro. Thank you. Sources: [1] http://www.oed.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...