Can you prove your own existence?

[ronvohra]

@zangetsu13

How about we turn things inside out? To prove that one exists, it must be proved that we are not currently living an illusion. Ergo, we cease to exist only when it is definitively proved that this is an illusion.

Consider the Matrix example referred to previously. To be a person trapped in the Matrix, to know that one was in that illusion was a realisation one could achieve only outside the box, looking in. So, there was no way of proving that the world was an illusion until you came out of it. Just believing that life is an illusion, just doubting it, doesn't make it true any more than faith in the fact that one exists.

So, to summarize, we cannot prove our lack of existence any more or less than we can prove our living an illusion.

If there is a life after death and it is better then here, then it's the only thing that matters. Every inferior experience should be set aside for that goal.

I disagree with this. I think that if there is a life after death, and it is better than here, then we would not be sent to while this one away for nothing. I think that our purpose then would be to make this one count in order to prepare ourself for that one. Remember, none of us are here by our own volition. We don't make the rules. Whether or not there is a purpose is not something we can speculate on.

[razoel123]

i don't think one can prove its own existence, because, even if it were possible, wouldn't it require an "outsider" (one, whose existence is either proven before (which would lead to an infinite loop backwards), or whose existence is unquestionable (which would be kinda lame)) to acknowledge this proof? unless you want to prove it to yourself

[apr118]

Hmmm... the simplest proof that I can provide to prove that I exist is the fact that I am "thinking". It is as Descartes said: "Cogito Ergo Sum"

[realmzmaster]

Why should I have to prove my existence? If I am an illusion then I am an illusion. If my life is an illusion then there is nothing to prove or disprove. For that matter how do you know the illusion exists? Maybe we are just a dream in another creatures imagination and we exists only there. It does not matter. Are we really thinking or is the person dreaming or imagining us thinking? Are we simply the thoughts of a larger entity or just matter dust in the universe. Are we just a Fluke of the Universe? It is a metaphysical question to which there is no answer. Or is there an answer?

[DEATHxxx50bmg]

i couldnt care less. its my life whether it be fake or not. no need to wander over such meaningless issues.

[theoneandonly]

I think therefore we are.

[Monad-Gnostis]

Perhaps my eyes are streaming a video to some other parellel universe, and everything I see is giving those " " an idea of what to expect when they punch through the

time and space requiem, maybe all of us are at the very precipice of time and space as we know it, about to break the thin glass that holds us inside this contained space we call universe, and maybe I'll be hungry for the rest of my life..., however I'm still at peace, with being this scapegoat for the other side..

[DuLake]

I'm going to skip the diatribe and just quote and respond to a few of the things that raised my interest, because I think the topic of existence is boring (nobody ever really says anything) and, to be honest, this question is kind of pointless. If you're debating someone it's obvious that you believe they exist, making it an agreed upon term, and therefore vain to argue about. Also, I almost always see this question pop up from apologists either trying to avoid questions or start their discourse (and the occasional philosophy newbie, but more often apologists).

A more interesting topic might be *what* is existence, but, unfortunately, that went out of vogure quite some time ago.

In order for a mental self to exist, there needs to be a mind. Can you prove that exists?

Please define "mental self" and "mind" for me, I'm not entirely sure how they are different, just that "mental self" is a personalized view of mind. As mentioned earlier, Descartes seemed perfectly satisfied that action (in his case thinking) implied that there was an actor and I generally agree (though Cogito is technically a circular argument). So I submit, can running take place without a runner? If not, then we can infer that, since I think, I exist (and that as far as we can really go with the issue). It should, of course, be noted that that actor may be a separate piece of a much larger whole (like a partition on a harddrive), as Berkley suggested.

Until you prove you have a mind you can't formulate a rational argument to support your argument because rational arguments are all mentally based. Therefore, in order to know truth and prove your own existence there needs to be some kind of preexisting truth to build from, right?

I have to ask: Why? Why wouldn't such an argument matter? That's like saying my heart won't beat if I don't know it's there, or that you don't believe in a table unless you've met the carpenter. If something is indiscriminately true, it doesn't matter where it came from, just that it's true. So why should an argument have to be traced to a point of origin? I don't mean to be overly simplistic, it just seems to be a moot point.

Now, please note, that while Descartes claims that the process of thinking and its mind of origin have an inherent connection, this cannot be said for an argument and it's mind, because each exist independent of one another (example, the Bible exists while it's authors are dead). The process of thinking is intrinsically a dependent process, while an argument is an object in and of itself.

[s0teric]

I'm going to skip the diatribe and just quote and respond to a few of the things that raised my interest, because I think the topic of existence is boring (nobody ever really says anything) and, to be honest, this question is kind of pointless. If you're debating someone it's obvious that you believe they exist, making it an agreed upon term, and therefore vain to argue about. Also, I almost always see this question pop up from apologists either trying to avoid questions or start their discourse (and the occasional philosophy newbie, but more often apologists).

It's to point out that you have no basis for knowledge and atheists have no basis for establishing knowledge, while the Christian does. The Christian's existence is rationalized by God who rationalizes himself in his character. Only upon the God of the Bible can you base anything and know things for sure. So this isn't pointless it points out an inconsistency which you have not been successfully able to address.

Please define "mental self" and "mind" for me, I'm not entirely sure how they are different, just that "mental self" is a personalized view of mind. As mentioned earlier, Descartes seemed perfectly satisfied that action (in his case thinking) implied that there was an actor and I generally agree (though Cogito is technically a circular argument). So I submit, can running take place without a runner? If not, then we can infer that, since I think, I exist (and that as far as we can really go with the issue). It should, of course, be noted that that actor may be a separate piece of a much larger whole (like a partition on a harddrive), as Berkley suggested.

I simply mean that the statement I think therefore I am is impossible because it assumes you are there to think. You cannot know you are thinkingif you are part of some massive illusion. Hence, no basis for knowledge. Which you seem to agree with up until the point of the partition thing. Can you enlighten me to what you mean by this. Unfortunately, I am unfamiliar with Berkley.

I have to ask: Why? Why wouldn't such an argument matter? That's like saying my heart won't beat if I don't know it's there, or that you don't believe in a table unless you've met the carpenter. If something is indiscriminately true, it doesn't matter where it came from, just that it's true. So why should an argument have to be traced to a point of origin? I don't mean to be overly simplistic, it just seems to be a moot point.

Already explained that it simply points out an inconsistency.

Now, please note, that while Descartes claims that the process of thinking and its mind of origin have an inherent connection, this cannot be said for an argument and it's mind, because each exist independent of one another (example, the Bible exists while it's authors are dead). The process of thinking is intrinsically a dependent process, while an argument is an object in and of itself.

what do you mean by argument? And I don't see how you can believe one is dependent and one is independent. Obviously those arguments were conceived at one point. So couldn't the same thing be said for thoughts, then? That one is left to discover the object, which is thought the same way one discovers an argument. That is, if I'm getting what you're saying right, sorry if I'm not.

[DuLake]

It's to point out that you have no basis for knowledge and atheists have no basis for establishing knowledge, while the Christian does. The Christian's existence is rationalized by God who rationalizes himself in his character. Only upon the God of the Bible can you base anything and know things for sure. So this isn't pointless it points out an inconsistency which you have not been successfully able to address.

To say that knowledge must be based off of a deity or it cannot exist is a false dilemma and therefore illogical. Knowledge can be based on whatever we want it too, the question simply becomes how firm that base is. I base my epistemology off of my experiences and things that I can understand, a theist prefers a being that they have never qualitatively interacted with, who performs great and powerful magic that has never been empirically observed. I respect that it is a basis of knowledge, but it's no less of a leap of faith than I am. I am believing that my life and memories is consistent to reality, a theist believes stories they have heard as consistent to reality. Both positions are making an axiomatic statement, and until someone can prove that a deity is more valid than my experience, it is presumptuous to say one is theism is more logical than my empiricism (which I can justify).

As for the argument being pointless, it seems you agree, as you've changed topics from epistemology to metaphysics by turning the topic to God. I appreciate that, as I find it more interesting.

Also, saying that God proves himself is circular, and, until I see this proof, presumed incorrect.

I simply mean that the statement I think therefore I am is impossible because it assumes you are there to think. You cannot know you are thinkingif you are part of some massive illusion. Hence, no basis for knowledge. Which you seem to agree with up until the point of the partition thing. Can you enlighten me to what you mean by this. Unfortunately, I am unfamiliar with Berkley.

You're assuming that Descartes implies that you, who you are and what you've done is exactly what you think it is. Descartes' point was not that he was, in fact, Rene Descartes, but that even if he were being lied to (as if in the Matrix, which is almost entirely based off his book) he is still thinking. He doesn't know if he's a human, or a brain in a jar, or if he even has a brain, but he knows he is something that thinks, and by extension, he knows he is something. It is true that it is circular, but that's mostly because of the translation "I think, therefore I am. The core idea is so elemental, that I believe our language erodes it and creates the circularity, not the idea itself. That is pure opinion though, so you'd have to mull it over for yourself.

As for Berkley, I'd suggest taking a look at him, he's got an interesting little concept of reality that you're a hair shy of it seems. Check out Stanford's encyclopedia of philosophy for more depth, but his basic idea (known as Subjective Reality) was that only what is perceived exists (that wall behind you? Assuming a purely subjective reality, it disappears if you don't look at/touch/etc it). His thought was that the material world does not exist as matter, but as a thought, as perception. He goes on to explain that the objective reality that we experience exists only because something (God) perceives all reality. This implies that we do not exist except for being perceived by God. Assuming his worldview, we are fragments of God, but don't realize it. Therefore we wouldn't technically exist as an individual, but as part of a greater individual. I honestly kind of dig it. It takes balls to deny that reality exists. My main problem is that it's a bit clunky and feels unnecessary. If you're into theism though, I respect it as logical, just not quite for me.

Already explained that it simply points out an inconsistency

what do you mean by argument? And I don't see how you can believe one is dependent and one is independent. Obviously those arguments were conceived at one point. So couldn't the same thing be said for thoughts, then? That one is left to discover the object, which is thought the same way one discovers an argument. That is, if I'm getting what you're saying right, sorry if I'm not.

I apologize, I hoped I'd addressed this thoroughly enough. You are right to say "thoughts" and "an argument" are both independent of someone existing (they could be written down, and could, unless otherwise proven, spontaneously exist), but, "the process of thinking" is something entirely different from a thought. A thought is formed (past tense), thinking is the process of forming the thought. In the Matrix, a "thought" could be planted into one's head, an action, like"thinking," could not. So we can conclude that a thought (or an argument) can exist independent to a mind, especially since, in a vacuum, it's more probable for a simple thought to exist than something complex enough to think of it.

It should also be noted that a thought was considered the only applicable verb for this equation, as everything else is channeled through senses (which could be mistaken or implanted). Determinism becomes a bit of a counterargument, but few prefer to think of themselves as automatons (I allow the possibility, another reason I don't feel existence is an interesting topic, or, at least, not as interesting as what existence is).

[kaoru]

It's a good question. You prove it with every breath; you prove it with day-to-day motion, emotion, thought, and with each sound of a heartbeat. But you will never really be able to comprehend the full extent of the system that brought you here, so in higher standarts, you'll never be able to prove it. The book "L'etranger" comes to mind, in which the protagonist realises, when he is given a chance to kill a man on the beach, that both him and that same kneeling man are both alive and dead on that beach, and that any action truly amounts to nothing. (in the sense that both are already dead in a far off future)

But hey, if you are alive, if you are playing the game, then don't leave the table without playing a hand or two, otherwise it just isn't worth it.

[Shinigami King]

Existence can never be proved materialisticly, but our minds possess the the ability to prove our physical bodies exist, rather we can prove we exist, but we can't prove what we exist within, be it a computer program, a network of computer systems, or as part of someone's imagination, we exist within that plane of existence, but we can't prove the plane which we exist in. we can only speculate.

[Lokisson]

You're assuming that Descartes implies that you, who you are and what you've done is exactly what you think it is. Descartes' point was not that he was, in fact, Rene Descartes, but that even if he were being lied to (as if in the Matrix, which is almost entirely based off his book) he is still thinking. He doesn't know if he's a human, or a brain in a jar, or if he even has a brain, but he knows he is something that thinks, and by extension, he knows he is something. It is true that it is circular, but that's mostly because of the translation "I think, therefore I am. The core idea is so elemental, that I believe our language erodes it and creates the circularity, not the idea itself. That is pure opinion though, so you'd have to mull it over for yourself.

As for Berkley, I'd suggest taking a look at him, he's got an interesting little concept of reality that you're a hair shy of it seems. Check out Stanford's encyclopedia of philosophy for more depth, but his basic idea (known as Subjective Reality) was that only what is perceived exists (that wall behind you? Assuming a purely subjective reality, it disappears if you don't look at/touch/etc it). His thought was that the material world does not exist as matter, but as a thought, as perception. He goes on to explain that the objective reality that we experience exists only because something (God) perceives all reality. This implies that we do not exist except for being perceived by God. Assuming his worldview, we are fragments of God, but don't realize it. Therefore we wouldn't technically exist as an individual, but as part of a greater individual. I honestly kind of dig it. It takes balls to deny that reality exists. My main problem is that it's a bit clunky and feels unnecessary. If you're into theism though, I respect it as logical, just not quite for me.

Was waiting for the "Brain in a jar" theory to come out. 'Bout time. Always approved of the elegance of it myself. Oddly, you'd think I'd really go for Berkley's theory, but I find I just can't. Not sure why. May well have something to do with the whole morality and God debate (who created morality. The Gods who then assign them to us, or ourselves who then relinquish the blame unto the Gods?). Stick with Descartes ... brains in jars having no sensory input (therefore no other human company by inference) thus having nothing but thought to prove they exist

at all. Love it.

For arguments sake, kauro, let me try it this way. You don't exist. "I" am a brain in a jar, I have thrown everything I could at myself and very lamely concluded that "I think, therefore I am". Blargh. Yet how else can I prove I do, actually exist? I know you don't! "You", kauro, are a figment I've created to stop myself from going insane. So is DuLake btw This world exist for no other reason than to give me meaning and for me to find meaning in my own existence. You guys are merely here to let me explore differing avenues. Sick bastard that I am. So how can you, now, prove you exist? You don't breathe, you don't move, you have no emotions and you have no heartbeat. If you can demonstrate to me that you have external thought/stimuli of your own, I MAY be willing to concede you exist.

Not only a sick bastard, I'm now a condescending one as well lol. Sorry.

[salmun]

I used to think that all the decision I made were already made in advance for me, so, uhm, what ever.

[Lokisson]

In some ways I believe they are. My wife likes to tell me I still have choices regarding certain issues. She really doesn't like it when I reply that the decision was made years ago, and though she might be technically correct, I wouldn't betray myself in such a way as to reverse it now. Regardless of consequences.

[DrumRoll]

don't care if I can't prove my existance. My whole life may be one big lie but until then I'm more or less happy in my ignorance.

[Excidium]

I exsist because i believe i do

[DuLake]

Lokisson, You've got it right except that technically you're talking about solipsism. "Brain in a jar" is technically just a denial of the physical world where you could have multiple connected brains (IE, the Matrix) or a more Berkley-esque array of sub-brains (which would perceive themselves as individuals despite being fragments). Solipsism is straight one being in the world, and the rest are figments. The main problem with solipsism is that, as you alluded to, as soon as you begin to argue it's merits you're assuming someone else exists and are therefore inconsistent. A tricky little beast to argue. Still a fun mental exercise though.

On the topic of fate (my how this conversation has evolved), I'm more of a chaos theory determinist, but if (a) deity(ies) exist, I would expect that fate would be implied. I see the world as a bit of a chemistry set, and, while unpredictable due to the scale, people's choices are unknowingly made for them (you don't eat a hamburger because you chose it, you did so because your biology said you were hungry and that you liked the taste of meat). In the case of a Christian god I'd expect his role in creation combined with omniscience would imply a manner of fate (if he didn't want it to happen, he could have just not made anything, hence absolute control over destiny). Not familiar with enough different creation myths to know if it applies to all potential deities, but I suspect the formula applies to most. Polytheism might allow for some free will, but, again, I'm not familiar with enough creation mythology to really comment (Only a bit of Greek and the vaguest understanding of the world tree).

Excidium, the problem with that is that I can believe vampires exist and they still don't. Kind of moot since there isn't a firm means of proof, but just wanted to throw it out there.

[† Ferocia Coutura]

"Their once was a man who dreamt he was a butterfly. When he awoke from the dream, he wondered, 'Am I really a man who dreamt I was a butterfly, or am I just the butterfly, dreaming I am a man.'" ~ Chinese Proverb

I think this quote almost speaks for itself. Existence cannot be proven. It can be fought, argued, debated, and dreamt, but existence itself can never be proven.

That said, I can argue that I exist on the bases that if you exist, you are acknowledging me right now while reading this message. Ergo, you are acknowledging my existence. But again, that is but a mere arguement. It can never be proven because I cannot prove that the person reading this message exists, except for the fact that I am acknowledging his/her existence.

And that, everyone, is an unsolvable paradox.

[EvilDoomBunny]

I really like this thread, and I enjoyed reading everyone's comments, thoughts, and counters.

I personally do not feel the need to prove my existence nor spend countless hours pondering if it can be proven.

IMO that is time wasted when it can be spent living.

Perhaps when I am gone I'll ponder the issue then ;p