Prove you Exist.

[sandy whitelinger]

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.

I shouted because you were not paying attention. Keep paying attention and I will neither shout nor patronize. Now:

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: ‘There is thinking’ involves a contradiction if denied, but the statement '‘I' am not thinking’ implies no contradiction, since no concept of ‘I’ is deducible purely from the thinking. Therefore P2 cannot be stated and the conclusion is not proved.

Please go
here and see post #140.

 

[rojse]

Could someone please offer a sound logical argument that they, or anything for that matter, exists. I'm not looking for philosophy or reason just a well formulated logical argument.

Observation 1 - You have the ability to question your own existence, and the existence of what you perceive
Argument 1 - Based on this observation, you have intelligence of some sort to be able to articulate this problem
Argument 2 - This intelligence must exists in some form or other

Or, to put it far more succinctly, "I think, therefore, I am".

Not too well versed on logical arguments, but how does that stand up?

 

[cottage]

I shouted because you were not paying attention. Keep paying attention and I will neither shout nor patronize. Now:

Please go
here and see post #140.

'Keep paying attention'? Exquisite!

Instead posting links with a display of arrogance and bad manners, which gives the impression that you don’t know how to conduct yourself in a debate, why didn’t you just politely set out your argument and then wait for my response? This is supposed to be a discussion, and yet for some reason you seem to be of the opinion that the controversy is settled, as if the answer were preordained! It is not - not as far as I’m concerned and nor in the general sense. I would also prefer seeing your own objections, rather than having to discuss someone else’s post through a surrogate and reference to a link.

“If socrates is a man and if all men are mortal then socrates would be mortal. I have just proved that socrates would be mortal if socrates is a man and if all men were mortal. Therefore, I exist.”

Okay, what is proved here is the valid form of the syllogism:

If Socrates is a man then Socrates is mortal
Socrates is a man
Socrates is mortal

If Socrates exists then he is mortal by definition of his being a man. But that doesn’t prove that Socrates or mortal men exist, and nor does it prove the existence of the ‘I’ that claims to have done the thinking and therefore the proving. The ‘I’ is completely superfluous and the syllogism (as above) does not depend upon it for the truth of its premises. The argument only works if we accept that ‘I exist’ is true, which is the very point of my contention.


”If you consider "You can't prove that you don't exist" to be proven then you have proven your own existence.”

.
Basically the above is saying ‘I don’t exist’ is a contradiction, which is correct, if the ‘I’ is assumed. But the statement ‘There may be nothing corresponding to the ‘I’ is certainly logically possible, which is the essence of my argument, and I’m saying the proposition ‘You can’t prove that you don’t exist’ is not proven, no more than is the proposition ‘I am, I exist’.

To recap yet again, my conclusion on this is close to David Hume’s, which is that when we introspect we find no evidence of a simple self. But in addition to this I also take the view of Kant who said no argument from logic alone proves an existential proposition.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Instead posting links with a display of arrogance and bad manners, which gives the impression that you don’t know how to conduct yourself in a debate, why didn’t you just politely set out your argument and then wait for my response?

The argument has been presented previously in the thread. Go back and read it and then present something new.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Observation 1 - You have the ability to question your own existence, and the existence of what you perceive
Argument 1 - Based on this observation, you have intelligence of some sort to be able to articulate this problem
Argument 2 - This intelligence must exists in some form or other

Or, to put it far more succinctly, "I think, therefore, I am".

Not too well versed on logical arguments, but how does that stand up?

This has been presented before.

 

[cottage]

The argument has been presented previously in the thread. Go back and read it and then present something new.

...says one who is big on glib remarks while having very little to contribute to the debate!

If the specifics of my argument have been presented elsewhere, then good, for I entirely agree with its conclusions for the reasons that I've given. And btw, I'm not out to 'present something new' but to give my own views on the matter. It's known as 'discussion'.