Prove you Exist.

[Thief]

And this is where the discussion breaks down for twisting words back and forth.

So instead of proving you exist....why not ask the question of yourself....and then make your own discussion.

Of course, as mentioned before, your response is proof you exist.
If you have already responded to this thread we already have proof that you do exist.
If you stop responding, we might say you no longer exist and have become dust.

If you want to keep it going the discussion could move toward existing beyond death.
Yes we do......God allows it.

 

[cottage]

And this is where the discussion breaks down for twisting words back and forth.

So instead of proving you exist....why not ask the question of yourself....and then make your own discussion.

Of course, as mentioned before, your response is proof you exist.
If you have already responded to this thread we already have proof that you do exist.
If you stop responding, we might say you no longer exist and have become dust.

If you want to keep it going the discussion could move toward existing beyond death.
Yes we do......God allows it.

The title and subject of the thread is 'Prove you exist'. In other words it is asking for some conclusive evidence that there is a 'you', meaning personal identity or a self. This ages old quandary has never been solved because introspection reveals only thoughts, ie ideas (this very response is just one such example). And so to claim that this 'Self', which has not been established, can survive its own death by reference to a further idea (God), is an instance of begging the question. However, that is not to say God cannot exist (or that selves cannot exist). The idea of God, for example as a necessarily existent being, is perfectly logical and may be understood as the ultimate reality upon which all other ideas depend. Nevertheless it is still just a thought or idea among other thoughts and ideas.

 

[Thief]

So now we are not addressing whether YOU exist.
I THINK you exist because you responded...
Or YOU think you exist because you responded...
And the action of response proves nothing....
Should we expand this to include rocks (which have no thought or response)?

Well if hot air blows in my face....I will call it real.

How about that tree in the forest...too far away to hear when it fell?

How about that super nova that went bang, but made no sound?

Some one should draw a line between ideas and reality.
But maybe you are just a passing thought, and when I'm done here....you are dust.

 

[cottage]

So now we are not addressing whether YOU exist.
I THINK you exist because you responded...
Or YOU think you exist because you responded...
And the action of response proves nothing....
Should we expand this to include rocks (which have no thought or response)?

Well if hot air blows in my face....I will call it real.

How about that tree in the forest...too far away to hear when it fell?

How about that super nova that went bang, but made no sound?

Some one should draw a line between ideas and reality.
But maybe you are just a passing thought, and when I'm done here....you are dust.

I can't prove that I exist. All that is apparent are the events, actions, perceptions, ideas, call these instances what you will. And the same for you: the feeling of hot air, the sound of the falling tree, the super nova - my response! Where in those ideas you find a simple self, the notion of personal identity? All you can claim is that 'something' exists.

 

[logician]

"Prove you exist"

I'd give my SSN and copy of my birth certificate, but you know the dangers of ID theft these days.

 

[Thief]

Hey Cottage....
Shall I declare you a figment of my imagination?
That would seem a little weird.

As for my own existence...I think...therefore I am.

I would be willing the same unto you....unless of course you claim you don't think.

 

[cottage]

Hey Cottage....
Shall I declare you a figment of my imagination?
That would seem a little weird.

As for my own existence...I think...therefore I am.

I would be willing the same unto you....unless of course you claim you don't think.

<Groan!> Tell you what, pop back to near the beginning of the thread where it picks up on Descartes That'll save me having to go through it all again.

 

[Thief]

Well maybe it would be easier for you to not exist?

If you stop responding, I might be able to make that assumption.

 

[cottage]

Well maybe it would be easier for you to not exist?

If you stop responding, I might be able to make that assumption.

I'm no more doubtful of my existence than you are of yours. But, like you, I cannot prove it.

 

[Thief]

So now we are 'in each others face'....saying....'you exist...now prove it!"

I think this is where the irrational sense of humor is suppose to step in...
And we get to giggle.

 

[cottage]

For the love of god, what sort of stupid question is that, i mean come on man, i pretty much exist that rock outside is real unless of course im mad and im seeing it, smoke some weed and think about it.

Question: Was god gay? Can it be proven he was not? Who is god? Where is he now? Is the pope a mad old man wearing a big cape, the answer is yes

Thank you very much indeed for your kind offer of a controlled substance. I must decline, however, as the hallucinatory effects will serve only to confuse the philosophical conundrum to an even greater degree. I too might start seeing mad old men in big capes, and begin to question God's sexual orientation. Oh, and that rock outside isn't real by the way: it's something you just made up to get your point across.

 

[Thief]

Rock goes through front window.

 

[Humanistheart]

So now we are 'in each others face'....saying....'you exist...now prove it!"

I think this is where the irrational sense of humor is suppose to step in...
And we get to giggle.

I don't think I'd be so miserable if I didn't exist. I don't see how that would be possible at any rate.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Sorry Sandy but it is you that are incorrect - You cannot prove to me that you exist.

Sorry Eavndr but you are incorrect. A formal logical proof was offered for existence. See post #103

 

[sandy whitelinger]

It seems particularly circular to say: Selves have characteristics, there are characteristics, and therefore there are selves. And in any case, if the concept of characteristics exists, like the Self, as an idea, then all this amounts to is one idea being said to prove the existence of another.

See post #103.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Okay...so one idea is not allowed to support another?
Slap your face....you exist.

That's nice. But to the point of being repetitive and slapping myself for revisted this, what I was asking for, in the OP, was a FORMAL LOGICAL PROOF of existence. This was presented in post #103. :yes:

 

[sandy whitelinger]

The title and subject of the thread is 'Prove you exist'. In other words it is asking for some conclusive evidence that there is a 'you', meaning personal identity or a self. This ages old quandary has never been solved because introspection reveals only thoughts, ie ideas (this very response is just one such example).

Cottage, please get it straight, I was asking for FORMAL LOGICAL PROOF of existence. This "ages old quandry" was proved in post #103. Please read it and study it. I find no fault with it.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

<Groan!> Tell you what, pop back to near the beginning of the thread where it picks up on Descartes That'll save me having to go through it all again.

<graon> Please go to post #103 and it will save me having to go through it all again.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

So now we are 'in each others face'....saying....'you exist...now prove it!"

Go to post #103.

 

[cottage]

Cottage, please get it straight, I was asking for FORMAL LOGICAL PROOF of existence. This "ages old quandry" was proved in post #103. Please read it and study it. I find no fault with it.

Now look, you asked for formal, logical proof (without shouted capitals); it is my view that there is no proof, logical or otherwise, and I have given my reasons. Oh and I will thank you to keep your patronisng comments to yourself.

The Cogito
P1 I am thinking
P2 Whatever has the property of thinking, exists
C I exist


Opening premise (P1) assumes the 'I'. The statement: &#8216;There is thinking&#8217; involves a contradiction if denied, but the statement '&#8216;I' am not thinking&#8217; implies no contradiction, since no concept of &#8216;I&#8217; is deducible purely from the thinking. Therefore P2 cannot be stated and the conclusion is not proved.