Disregarding the fact that typing this requires my thinking, which requires my existence; please do not use that argument.

Disregarding the fact that typing this requires my thinking, which requires my existence; please do not use that argument.

What is your definition of "existence"?

Disregarding the fact that typing this requires my thinking, which requires my existence; please do not use that argument.

X exists = X instantiates some properties. And X does not exist =X instantiates no properties.

What that means is that to say of X that it exists is to say that something has certain properties. For example, to say that God exists is to say that the properties of omnipotence, omniscience, creator of the universe, etc. etc. are properties of someone (something). Now is that is true, then God exists. But if that is false, then God does not exist. Simple.

The flying pink elephant exists, if the flying pink elephant has properties. Since wings and pink are the properties of the flying pink elephant then the flying pink elephant exists? Seriously?

Actually, you do not exist. You are merely the creation of my creative faculties.

The flying pink elephant exists, if the flying pink elephant has properties. Since wings and pink are the properties of the flying pink elephant then the flying pink elephant exists? Seriously?

Disregarding the fact that typing this requires my thinking, which requires my existence; please do not use that argument.

Disregarding the fact that typing this requires my thinking, which requires my existence; please do not use that argument.

I'm afraid I can't. Without further elaboration as to the individual meanings of the separate terms involved in the request, the nature of their relationship, and an agreement as to what would constitute a proof, my attempts to prove your existence would prove merely a series of poorly constructed hypothesis.

Even were the terms "my" and "existence", their relationship, and the process by which certitude regarding the referents necessary relationship properly defined, my reasoning would remain highly speculative. Perhaps the best I could do would be to reassure you of the possibility of your existence. However, assuming for a moment that the possibility of your existence could be taken for granted, and given that "I" have "observed" a manifestation that could be attributed to this possible being (in the form of a forum post,) perhaps a better question for me would be: What reason do I have to doubt your existence?

The story goes that the philosopher, Morris R. Cohen was confronted by a student who challenged him to prove that the student existed. "Prove I exist" the student challenged. And Cohen looked around and asked, "Who's asking?". What do you think the student should have replied-if anything?

he should have said, "i knew it! i was right!"

Can you prove that I am merely the creation of your creative faculties.

Flying pink elephants have no properties, since there are no FPE. What makes you think that pink, and wings, and a long trunk are properties of any one kind of thing? Have you been drinking a lot? "Nothing has no properties". Descartes.

Doesn't the same work for a god? I don't see how any of the properties associated with god would work. They are flawed theories. So how is it you can be so absolutely certain that the flying pink elephant does not exist, yet you can be certain that a god exists?

(speaking generally not specifically to you)

Disregarding the fact that typing this requires my thinking, which requires my existence; please do not use that argument.

you exist because you tell us to prove it, if you don't exist you can't tell us to prove your existence is silly.

Yes. If we define existence as having a property then, Exists(the x:Gx) <-> EF(F(the x:Gx)).
And, ~(Exists(the x:Gx)) <-> ~EF(F(the x:Gx)).

If 'the flying pink elephant' has the property of flying, then it exists.
If 'the flying pink elephant' has the property of being pink, then it exists.
If 'the flying pink elephant' has the property of being an elephant, then it exists.

If 'the flying pink elephant' has any property at all, then it exists.

B(the x: Bx & Cx) -> E!(the x: Bx & Cx), is a theorem.

Can you prove that I am merely the creation of your creative faculties.

---------- Post added 04-23-2010 at 09:13 PM ----------



he exists because you are god and are bored of being alone so you used your all powerfulness to create us from your imaginations and the same all powerfulness to prevent yourself from discovering this. probable no. possible yes. only you exist.

---------- Post added 04-23-2010 at 09:17 PM ----------



.