> What evidence do you have of this being the case?

Well, the thought experiment that followed?

> Think about what it would mean for the truth of "Snow is white" if it was dependent upon how it was represented. If you can represent something in more than one way, then that thing is not dependent upon its representation.

Nah, that's not what I mean. My point is not that the content of the concept depends on how it is represented, but that the existence of the concept depends on the concept being represented. It doesn't matter how it is represented, the point is that if it is not represented at all, there is no basis for the claim that it exists.

> You would have nothing, but you removed the physical world and have removed the propositions that go along with that world. The proposition "Snow is white" depends on the existence of snow being white, and it does not depend on the sentence "Snow is white".

Nah, that's also not what I mean. The idea isn't to change the world to not have any physical reality. The idea is to remove from your conception of "snow is white" all the aspects that mirror physical reality (though I think that's a bad example for this because it's kinda difficult to see how to do that).

> That being said, the proposition "1 < 2" does not depend on anything physical. So you can removed all physical things, and "1 < 2" will still be true under the Peano axioms.

You mean you could evaluate "1 < 2" to "true" using the Peano axioms ... without representing the Peano axioms anywhere? Doing an immaterial computation? I am not sure I have any concept of what you are trying to construct here.

> Not to be a burden, but to respond to your question could you give me a refresh: What are you considering to be a testable pattern? What are you considering to be an untestable abstract idea?

By a testable pattern I mean essentially "a description of physical reality", by an abstract idea I mean "a description of a made-up system of rules". As in, "9 apples + 1 apple = 10 apples" is a description of a pattern in physical reality, which is also testable, in that you can take 9 apples, and add another apple, and then check whether you failed to get 10 apples (which would falsify the claim). "9 + 1 = 10" on the other hand is a description of a made-up system of rules, which you can only evaluate for consistency against the system of rules (so, you could check whether "9 + 1 = 10" can be proved based on the (implied by convention unless specified otherwise) Peano axioms, or any other axioms).

> Objective reality: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts regarding the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

It's kinda unfortunate that you used "exist" in defining "objective reality", which was supposed to define "exist" ... ?!

> Uhh... the composition of words in a definition is synonymous with what they are defining. If you only use one word to define something, then that word is a synonym... I don't understand the point of this complaint. If you think the definition is wrong or obscure then please state why.

Sure, there is nothing wrong with your definition per se (and I don't really care much whether it's obscure or "wrong", I am just trying to understand what you are trying to say), it just doesn't seem to be any less ambiguous than what I was asking about. So, yeah, synonyms are perfectly fine definitions in principle, but I was asking for a definition because "exist" is a pretty ambiguous word, and a synonym doesn't really help with that--rather, I am trying to understand which specific meaning you have in mind when you are using it here. (And, after all, I can look up generally used synonyms myself ;-)

> Perhaps you don't like the definition because you are trying to find something that implies physicality? I got the definition straight from google... Is there some other dictionary you'd like to suggest?

No, it's just about understanding what you mean when you say "exists" (in this context), and to make sure we aren't running into any equivocation where it's used with two different meanings in different places in the argument.

> B) The universe can change states.

I see quite a few potential flaws in that whole argument, but I think I'll start with this one:

How do you know that, if not as a result of the scientific observation of the physical process of the universe changing states? Or am I misunderstanding your claim here?

> Right/Good behavior is an act which is in accordance with what God wills.

> Wrong/Bad behavior is and act which is not in accordance with what God wills.

OK ... so, under that definition(!!!): Why should I, or anyone, care about morality?