Prove my existence.

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Existentialism
  3. » Prove my existence.

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2010 06:34 pm
Disregarding the fact that typing this requires my thinking, which requires my existence; please do not use that argument.
 
Understanding
 
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2010 06:39 pm
@Diogenes phil,
Diogenes;155416 wrote:
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"?
 
Wisdom Seeker
 
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2010 06:42 pm
@Diogenes phil,
Diogenes;155416 wrote:
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.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2010 07:18 pm
@Understanding,
Understanding;155420 wrote:
What is your definition of "existence"?


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.
 
CharmingPhlsphr
 
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2010 08:19 pm
@Diogenes phil,
Diogenes;155416 wrote:
Disregarding the fact that typing this requires my thinking, which requires my existence; please do not use that argument.


Actually, you do not exist. You are merely the creation of my creative faculties.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2010 08:33 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;155456 wrote:
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?
 
Owen phil
 
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2010 11:02 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;155512 wrote:
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?


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.
 
Legomaster
 
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2010 11:15 pm
@CharmingPhlsphr,
CharmingPhlsphr;155506 wrote:
Actually, you do not exist. You are merely the creation of my creative faculties.


Can you prove that I am merely the creation of your creative faculties.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 01:27 am
@Krumple,
Krumple;155512 wrote:
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?




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.
 
wayne
 
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 02:03 am
@Diogenes phil,
Diogenes;155416 wrote:
Disregarding the fact that typing this requires my thinking, which requires my existence; please do not use that argument.


You have statistics, you must exist to have statistics. Smile
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 02:18 am
@Diogenes phil,
Diogenes;155416 wrote:
Disregarding the fact that typing this requires my thinking, which requires my existence; please do not use that argument.


Disregarding the fact that I owe you money because I borrowed money from you; please do not use that argument.
 
Razzleg
 
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 04:04 am
@Diogenes phil,
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.

Honestly, even were the terms "my" and "existence" defined, their relationship clarified, and if the process by which certitude regarding the referents' necessary relationship could be arranged; 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?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 05:19 am
@Razzleg,
Razzleg;155585 wrote:
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?
 
salima
 
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 09:51 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;155593 wrote:
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!"
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 10:04 am
@salima,
salima;155684 wrote:
he should have said, "i knew it! i was right!"


Yes. And I am sure he would be relieved.
 
CharmingPhlsphr
 
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 04:58 pm
@Legomaster,
Legomaster;155544 wrote:
Can you prove that I am merely the creation of your creative faculties.


I don't have to. What do I have to justify to a figment of my imagination? The interesting part is that one would have a near impossible time to shatter this thought, for there is nothing you could really say that could not have been said to have been imagined. All of your memories of special events, recent conversations and situations were all just planted to develop a far more believable character.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 06:44 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;155558 wrote:
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)
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 07:05 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;155890 wrote:
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)


First, where did you ever get the idea that I am certain that God exists?

And second, I did not even say that I was certain that FPEs do not exist. What I said was that there is not evidence at all that FPE's exist, and a lot of evidence that they do not. More important, I said that since they do not exist, they have no properties, because what does not exist cannot have properties. You held that even if they don't exist, they have properties, and that was what the conversation was all about. It was not about whether or not FPEs exist, but whether non-existent things can have properties. (And it was certainly not about whether I believe that God exists).
 
Doubt doubt
 
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 07:10 pm
@Diogenes phil,
Diogenes;155416 wrote:
Disregarding the fact that typing this requires my thinking, which requires my existence; please do not use that argument.

not true. you are assuming that you are a "you" at all. We could all be the same, and their could only be the we that we are unaware of. its not probable but the veil of perception makes it impossible to ever be certain. Also what you ask can not be done for the same reason.

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

Wisdom Seeker;155426 wrote:
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.


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 ----------

Owen;155541 wrote:
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.


a flying pink elephant only has proprieties if it truly exists. saying properties something could have if it existed can not be used as proof of its existence.

---------- Post added 04-23-2010 at 09:20 PM ----------

Legomaster;155544 wrote:
Can you prove that I am merely the creation of your creative faculties.


he does not need to. it being possible is enough to make any hope of certainty that you exist impossible. unless you are looking for proof that it is probable that you exist. if that is what you are after then you looking down at your legs and the perception of pain should be enough.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 07:22 pm
@Doubt doubt,
Doubt doubt;155906 wrote:


---------- 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 ----------



.


What is being argued is that it would be impossible for you to ask for proof that you exist unless you existed in the first place, and therefore, that your asking for proof that you exist is, itself, proof that you exist.

And your reply to that is......?
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Existentialism
  3. » Prove my existence.
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 07/25/2021 at 05:41:26