Yep, the disagreement stemmed from our personal definitions of exist in the context of the subject at hand. When you're talking about god I would argue that th

Yep, the disagreement stemmed from our personal definitions of exist in the context of the subject at hand. When you're talking about god I would argue that the typical(most commonly used) definition of "exist" would be "physically", or even "spiritually", but not just mentally or based on a concepts impact on the world. I would never argue that religion hasn't had a huge impact on society, but I think his original statement could definitely have used a qualifying statement as to his actual intended meaning. I think a more accurate representation of his point would be "the concept of god exists" because the _actual_ diety itself doesn't exist in the traditional physical sense.