Prove you Exist.

[sandy whitelinger]

I am typing these words which you will see once posted, so I do exist

That is a logical fallacy called "Affirming the Consequent."

The fallacy of affirming the consequent is committed by arguments that have the form:
(1) If A then B
(2) B
Therefore:
(3) A

 

[sandy whitelinger]

If I step on a scale you can determine my weight. You can observe the effect I have on objects around me as I move and manipulate them. If you stick a thermometer in me you can measure my temperature. You can examine my body and test my DNA to determine my species. Practically any of the criteria used to determine any objects existence can be used to determine my existence.

Please present that as a formal logical argument.

 

[godischange]

Prove that who exists?

You just recognised that I exist by asking me to prove something. Unless you're a lunatic and you're purposefully talking to someone/thing that doesn't exist, you pretty much did my job for me.

As for addressing your idea of logic:

1. premises - My premise is that someone must be typing. Do you agree? If not, we can't really go much further because we have to assume that you're conversing with someone who isn't there.
2. inference- We can infer that if someone is typing, then that someone must physically exist to have the capacity to type.
3. conclusion- We can therefore conclude that the someone who is typing exists.

 

[Peace]

What if I'm imagining that other person, too?

What if I am imagining them ?

Then the best solution for you is to slap your face, sorry no offense meant, and if you feel the hurt then you will know that you are not imagining things or dreaming

 

[Yes Man]

I cannot prove that I exist to you. I could be someone or I could be a part of this reality that you have chosen to accept (or not). So.....

I can never be proven real to you. Why? Because reality is objective, you cannot even prove that you exist to yourself. Not really. Reality is not what you perceive, it is reality. Therefore you can never know what is truly real you can only infer that the reality you are experiencing is indeed real.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Prove that who exists?

You just recognised that I exist by asking me to prove something. Unless you're a lunatic and you're purposefully talking to someone/thing that doesn't exist, you pretty much did my job for me.

As for addressing your idea of logic:

1. premises - My premise is that someone must be typing. Do you agree? If not, we can't really go much further because we have to assume that you're conversing with someone who isn't there.
2. inference- We can infer that if someone is typing, then that someone must physically exist to have the capacity to type.
3. conclusion- We can therefore conclude that the someone who is typing exists.

That is a logical fallacy called "Affirming the Consequent."

The fallacy of affirming the consequent is committed by arguments that have the form:
(1) If A then B
(2) B
Therefore:
(3) A

 

[ChristineES]

Everyone here could be pretending to be someone else. As far as I know you could all be just one person. That certainly would not be logical, considering that sometimes people post at the same time at many different posts.

Note- I once belonged to a forum in which one person was posting for about 8 different people. It took us a while to figure it out, but she gave herself away by making the posts of these different people sound too much alike and we all caught on.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Then the best solution for you is to slap your face, sorry no offense meant, and if you feel the hurt then you will know that you are not imagining things or dreaming

That reminds me of the scene from "the Lion King."

Simba: I know what I have to do. But going back will mean facing my past. I've been running from it for so long.
[Rafiki hits Simba on the head with his stick]
Simba: Ow! Jeez, what was that for?
Rafiki: It doesn't matter. It's in the past.
[laughs]
Simba: Yeah, but it still hurts.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Everyone here could be pretending to be someone else. As far as I know you could all be just one person. That certainly would not be logical, considering that sometimes people post at the same time at many different posts.

Note- I once belonged to a forum in which one person was posting for about 8 different people. It took us a while to figure it out, but she gave herself away by making the posts of these different people sound too much alike and we all caught on.

Ok. Give a formal logical proof that anything exists.

 

[ChristineES]

Ok. Give a formal logical proof that anything exists.

You know I can't. I can only assume that anything exists.

 

[Somkid]

It's not philosophy I want it's a formal logical argument I'm after.

You are confusing rhetorical nonsense with philosophy what I am telling you is formal and logical it is also philosophy because that is the point of philosophy. The problem is most people have the idea that philosophy is rhetorical nonsense but they are mistaken and don't have a clue what philosophy is.

 

[Willamena]

Then the best solution for you is to slap your face, sorry no offense meant, and if you feel the hurt then you will know that you are not imagining things or dreaming

The point is: "what if?"

What if it's real, that I am really imagining you? I could be imagining the pain, too.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

You are confusing rhetorical nonsense with philosophy what I am telling you is formal and logical it is also philosophy because that is the point of philosophy. The problem is most people have the idea that philosophy is rhetorical nonsense but they are mistaken and don't have a clue what philosophy is.

I gave you a format for a formal logical argument.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Then the best solution for you is to slap your face, sorry no offense meant, and if you feel the hurt then you will know that you are not imagining things or dreaming

Sort it out man! That realy hurts! Peace rules:bow:

 

[sandy whitelinger]

The point is: "what if?"

What if it's real, that I am really imagining you? I could be imagining the pain, too.

Whether it's actually there or not is not always applicable to a logical argument. Since no one has offered a formal logical proof for existance then I'll have to assume that logic is not as applicable to proof of existance.

 

[Willamena]

Is that a logical conclusion, Sandy? Or a jumped-to one?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Is that a logical conclusion, Sandy? Or a jumped-to one?

It could fall under the "Argument from Ignorance" fallacy.

Arguments from ignorance infer that a proposition is true from the fact that it is not known to be false. Example
(1) No one has been able to disprove the existence of God.
Therefore:
(2) God exists.

Not all arguments of this form are fallacious; if it is known that if the proposition were not true then it would have been disproven, then a valid argument from ignorance may be constructed. In other cases, though, arguments from ignorance are fallacious.

In order for my proposition to be untrue then there needs to be a valid logical proof offered for existance.

 

[Willamena]

Why did the syllogism presented on the first page not satisfy logic?

 

[Don Penguinoini]

I hate that word fallacy.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Why did the syllogism presented on the first page not satisfy logic?

When Descartes said, "I think, therefore, I am," he assumed the existence of what he was trying to prove.