• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Prove you Exist.

sandy whitelinger

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member
Fluffy said:
Do you accept the following Disamis syllogism as being a valid formal logical argument:
P1 Socrates is a man
P2 All men are moral
C Socrates is mortal

If so then keep reading:

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

If P1 were not the case then its contradiction "I am not thinking" would be the case. However, this cannot be asserted coherently and so it cannot be the case. Therefore, P1 is the case.

P2 is an instance of the instantiation principle. If the instantiation principle were not the case then its contradiction "Whatever has the property S, does not exist" would be the case. However, this cannot be asserted coherently and so it cannot be the case. Therefore, P2 is the case.

The argument is in Disamis syllogistic form:
P1 Some A are B
P2 All B are C
C Therefore some A are C

Therefore the inference from P1 and P2 to C is valid.
Additionally, P1 and P2 are the case.
Therefore, The Cogito is sound.
Therefore, C is the case.
Click to expand...
Fluffy, I don't know if you still visit but I have been meaning to revisit this for some time. I agree that this outline proves existence. Kudos.

I do question though, how do you prove that you are thinking?
 
T

TheGodless1

Member
I know I think because When I put my thoughts here you and others respond with their thoughts and all our thoughts together create a debate or conversation based upon those thoughts and view.
Will that work? Or is it too Dr. Nancy for ya?
 
MSizer

MSizer

MSizer
At the risk of sounding simple, has it been mentioned that "I think therefore I am" was actually a logical deduction, which Descarted decided was the only single thing he could be sure of?

It had occured to him that there are many ways one could be mistaken about something, so he designed filters to do away with any notions he had which could in some way be possibly incorrect. His third filter, which was "an evil demon could be skewing my perceptions about everything" forced him to reason that maybe he didnt' really know anyting to be correct except that he himself existed, as he would have to exist to be deceived.
 
ManTimeForgot

ManTimeForgot

Temporally Challenged
MSizer said:
At the risk of sounding simple, has it been mentioned that "I think therefore I am" was actually a logical deduction, which Descartes decided was the only single thing he could be sure of?

It had occurred to him that there are many ways one could be mistaken about something, so he designed filters to do away with any notions he had which could in some way be possibly incorrect. His third filter, which was "an evil demon could be skewing my perceptions about everything" forced him to reason that maybe he didn't really know anything to be correct except that he himself existed, as he would have to exist to be deceived.
Click to expand...


At the risk of sounding pedantic I don't think this quite reaches the level of the OP. Descartes' argument satisfies for one's self and one's self only. I am aware of no method by which one can "prove" your existence to anyone else, nor am I aware of any means by which we can "prove" that anything else exists other than yourself.

Even if we could manage to "speak" mind to mind (direct thought contact) it would not be sufficient to prove that you exist to someone else. You "could" be a delusion of theirs, no matter how consistent the "thoughts" are with "your supposed actions." Sollipsism is a trap that results in a living dead end. So while it technically is not defeated by anything else I rather think of Sollipsism as being self-defeating (its impossible to fully use).

MTF
 
C

cottage

Well-Known Member
Popeyesays said:
The WHOLE quote is "I doubt. Therefore I think. Therefore, I am."

In order for doubt to exist there must be thought. For thought to take place, there must be existence.

If I worry about my own existence or yours, then I must exist.


Regards,
Scott

That's right. But of course he was wrong.

For where did the personal pronoun come from? There is no 'I'. He is unable to argue: 'Thinking exists. I am a thinking thing. Therefore I exist.' His demonstation shows only that 'There is thinking.' IOW there is no Descartes!
Click to expand...
 
C

cottage

Well-Known Member
Kerr said:
If I didn´t exist I couldn´t post this post.
Click to expand...

That is only to assume the 'I', in the same way that Descartes did when he said 'I doubt' and to doubt is to think. There are doubts, there are thoughts - and there are posts! But what is the 'I'?
 
sandy whitelinger

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member
ManTimeForgot said:
At the risk of sounding pedantic I don't think this quite reaches the level of the OP. Descartes' argument satisfies for one's self and one's self only. I am aware of no method by which one can "prove" your existence to anyone else, nor am I aware of any means by which we can "prove" that anything else exists other than yourself.

Even if we could manage to "speak" mind to mind (direct thought contact) it would not be sufficient to prove that you exist to someone else. You "could" be a delusion of theirs, no matter how consistent the "thoughts" are with "your supposed actions." Sollipsism is a trap that results in a living dead end. So while it technically is not defeated by anything else I rather think of Sollipsism as being self-defeating (its impossible to fully use).

MTF
Click to expand...
Yes, The OP was for a formal logical argument to prove that you exist. The proof came in that anything that has traits exists. For example you have hair.
Fluffy used the trait of thinking. While I accept the argument I was wondering if there is a formal argument to prove thinking.
 
Cobblestones

Cobblestones

Devoid of Ettiquette
sandy whitelinger said:
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.
Click to expand...
Of course we don't exist. That's why murder, rape, infanticide, child molestation, cannibalism and incest are perfectly fine; none of it is real anyways so you may as well embrace gang-bangers and saints alike. And that's why questions like "do we exist" are neither clever nor stupid. Right?
 
K

Kerr

Well-Known Member
sandy whitelinger said:
That's not a formal logical argument.
Click to expand...
If I don´t exist, why do I perceive I do and why does the post exist? Why do what I have done for the world exist? How come there is pain and joy in my life, if I didn´t exist I wouldn´t have any of them. I am the proof that I exist.
 
K

Kerr

Well-Known Member
cottage said:
That is only to assume the 'I', in the same way that Descartes did when he said 'I doubt' and to doubt is to think. There are doubts, there are thoughts - and there are posts! But what is the 'I'?
Click to expand...
I am me. Not sure how you could define it as something else.
 
ManTimeForgot

ManTimeForgot

Temporally Challenged
cottage said:
That is only to assume the 'I', in the same way that Descartes did when he said 'I doubt' and to doubt is to think. There are doubts, there are thoughts - and there are posts! But what is the 'I'?
Click to expand...


I think the better question is: Can you think of a way in which there can be no I that still explains the subjective experiences "supposed individuals" have? I spent several months in philosophy class in college while studying Descartes wondering the same thing: "Perhaps it is only our preconceived notion that there is an I which leads us to conclude this. Just because we don't know how there could be no "I" doesn't mean that there is an I." But in the end I had to give up on this line of thinking simply because it lead no where.

Even when I supposed that we all did not in fact exist, but rather were emblematic extensions of some super cosmic consciousness, it did not negate the existence of an I because even if we weren't technically an individual it did not undermine the mere fact that we have subjective experience and in order to experience anything something must be doing the "experiencing."

MTF
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top