Hi Jack, you’ve got to remember that we’re talking about words here.The concept "Pantheistic God" perfectly fits the definition of something that is a “being” but not an “entity.” That’s all that matters in the universe of discourse created by this particular Moo T question. from Vancouver (vide infra), in that I affirm his interpretation of "distinct." This is, however, as the Brits used to say, a nice question, and reasonable people (also vide infra) may disagree about the answer.Wouldn't any fictitious character qualify as a being, because s/he can be imagined whereas s/he, having no distinct existence, would not qualify as an entity? Wouldn’t “anything that exists” have been way better? ” It’s sort of like defining left to include right. If that's what usage is, words start to be meaningless, or have such a broad meaning that they don't mean anything.
When you do that, you don’t use a lot of questions because the teams tend to spend a lot of time discussing them, trying to reach a consensus on an answer.
The way they create these definitions is that they survey usage, usually written usage – i.e. To play it, you must accept that the COD is the final arbitrator, and you will only get your points if you figure out what that final arbitrator believes. Which isn't the fault of the Concise Oxford Dictionary, but I hate to see them fall into the same trap. I have no difficulty with an "imagined" being, such as the Cheshire or Schrodinger's Cats.
they try to find out how people actually use the word – and then they try to capture these usages in their definitions. Cheers I understand the rules of Moot and have always respected them, but I still have to maintain that a definition that takes in its opposite or the entire rest of the universe is a poor choice. The imagination calls such beings into existence, from non-existence. Neither had I before I just coined the name, creating this remarkable bird from thin air. made you look.) But if that is so, the defining feature of a being is that it can be distinguished from other beings, or from nothingness.
So when you say that something is a “stupid definition,” it seems to me that what you are really saying is that the definition is not what you mean when YOU use that word, and that you disagree with those others who use it in that unexpected way. Even the most abstract beings, such as pi, the Spirit of '76, and the colour blue only have meaning if distinguishable from their absence, or by contrast against other concepts (e.g., 12, a zeitgeist, or happiness).
All beings that exist or are imagined must have "distinct existence", and thus be entities.