It seems that in philosophy existence has 2 meanings. It can be taken to be an entity itself (the universe, God, etc.) or the proper definition of "the act of existing". But looking at statements made by philosophers (asking what can exist, and what does exist) seems to indicate that existence is treated as a verb. That is, exists seems to be something an objects does, or is a property of the thing itself. Saying santa does not exist, seems to indicate santa is missing the property of existence. But this is absurd. If we compare a santa that exists and a santa that does not, we will not be able to find a single difference between them to isolate the property of existence. So clearly, existence is not a property at all. However, saying a certain thing does not exist clearly does have meaning, as in the case of santa. I can see the need for such a term in languages to note the difference between a real entity, and one that is merely imagined. To our ancestors living in caves, there must have been a way to stress the difference between only imagining (or dreaming) that terrible monster outside waiting to eat everyone, and there bere a monster actually outside the cave. So it would seem existence and non-existence can be defined as real vs. imaginary. But how in the world did us stupid humans come to use such a concept as a verb? English is not the only language where there is the case. What about some of the worlds older languages? Did they have existence also as the equivalent to a verb?