Originally posted by Adam_PoE
In order for one to doubt his existence, he must first exist. If you believe it is possible for one to doubt his existence and not exist, by all means prove it.
Can you disprove it as well?
Maybe I can't prove that if something doesn't exist then how can it doubt it's existence?
But can you prove that because you doubt your existence therefore you exist???
You can't prove that fact neither.
Originally posted by LordFear
Can you disprove it as well?Maybe I can't prove that if something doesn't exist then how can it doubt it's existence?
But can you prove that because you doubt your existence therefore you exist???
You can't prove that fact neither.
The existence of something cannot be disproven as it is impossible to prove a negation. If something does not exist, there would be no evidence of its existence, let alone its non-existence.
For one to be able to doubt his existence, he must first exist. If he does not exist, there would be no "he" to do the doubting in the first place.
Furthermore, whether or not my argument can be proven does not validate yours. In other words, even if my argument could not be proven correct, your argument would not be correct by default. Considering that I have just proven my argument, and by your own admission, you cannot prove yours, mine is correct.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The existence of something cannot be disproven as it is impossible to prove a negation. If something does not exist, there would be no evidence of its existence, let alone its non-existence.For one to be able to doubt his existence, he must first exist. If he does not exist, there would be no "he" to do the doubting in the first place.
Furthermore, whether or not my argument can be proven does not validate yours. In other words, even if my argument could not be proven correct, your argument would not be correct by default. Considering that I have just proven my argument, and by your own admission, you cannot prove yours, mine is correct.
The point is that you are so sure of DesCartes theory or said slogan that my point is that why can't you prove it as well???
Validation is not what I am looking for. I am asking you to prove it.
An entirely different thing here.
If you believe in something then that's fine whether you can prove it or not so the same can be said for someone who opposes you.
Everything you said however convenient it may be has a flaw.
That flaw is without concrete, unequivical proof anybody can argue the contrary and you wouldn't be any righter then you are now.
Unlike science, philosophy is an imperfect and discrediting study simply because 95% of it's theories cannot be proven concretley unlike science.
To say that because you question your existence must mean that you exist is nonsense to me.And to say that something that doesn't question or is incapable of questioning it's existence might potentially not exist is madness. This statement only applies for a specific category and that is a human being, conscious, aware with the mental faculty to ponder such things. It leaves no room for nothing else ie: someone who is mentally deficient, comatose, a plant, animal. That is my point. Those categories don't fit in this theory therefore I dispel it altogether.
Originally posted by LordFear
The point is that you are so sure of DesCartes theory or said slogan that my point is that why can't you prove it as well???
Validation is not what I am looking for. I am asking you to prove it.
An entirely different thing here.
If you believe in something then that's fine whether you can prove it or not so the same can be said for someone who opposes you.
Everything you said however convenient it may be has a flaw.
That flaw is without concrete, unequivical proof anybody can argue the contrary and you wouldn't be any righter then you are now.
Unlike science, philosophy is an imperfect and discrediting study simply because 95% of it's theories cannot be proven concretley unlike science.
To say that because you question your existence must mean that you exist is nonsense to me.And to say that something that doesn't question or is incapable of questioning it's existence might potentially not exist is madness. This statement only applies for a specific category and that is a human being, conscious, aware with the mental faculty to ponder such things. It leaves no room for nothing else ie: someone who is mentally deficient, comatose, a plant, animal. That is my point. Those categories don't fit in this theory therefore I dispel it altogether.
The statement is "I think, therefore I am." It does not follow from this that "I am, therefore I think." It is possible for one to exist and not be able to question his existence, but it is not possible for one to be able to question his existence and not exist. 🙄
LordFear - They've said it a million times so far. Descartes was NOT saying "I don't think therefore I'm not". He said "I think therefore I am" which is unbelievably simple. Because someone cannot doubt their existence does not mean they don't exist. It is when someone DOES doubt their existence that they can't doubt they exist or they wouldn't be able to think. When someone WAKES from a coma and they say "am I alive?" they must be or else they couldn't make the statement. When they are in the coma they can't make that thought. However that doesn't mean they don't exist, just they can't be absolutely sure.
Which runs into the absolute truth, if you have the capacity to doubt your existence.... you exist. 😄
Originally posted by debbiejo
Earth to Adam..Earth to Adam......You're always Sooooooooooo Serious...You gotta find your HAPPY place...
I also agree but its nice to see someone who always thinks before posting so that the point comes across clearly (also nice to see someone who cherishes the english language in all of its messed up glory (ie spelling and grammar))
One thing I do want to point out and which is really the basis for my argument is that I beleive that nothing is absolute and I agreed with DesCartes when he said that he cannot trust anything even his senses.
I agree with that one hundred percent. Where I don't agree is where he believes that if you can ask yourself that question then it proves that you must exist. IT sounds right and makes sense, but I go a step further and still say that that isn't enough because it doesn't fit in every category therefore there is no absolution or certainties at all in our lives and in this world. There is nothing in our reality that is infallible and without absolute certainty even the weather, seasons anything. There is always an exception and always an x factor. This is simply not enough for me to not still question my existence. That's it people but thanx for a good debate.
What he says proves nothing but that he exists, it doesn't prove animals exist, it doesn't prove plants exists, it doesn't prove any other person exists, it proves he exists.
Which is basicly the limit of our knowledge, everything we know may or not be true. Perhaps its not there now that we don't see it, perhaps it is. You can't be sure of it. But you can be sure you exist, because you are able to question it. Other people questioning it and telling you they do so does not prove they exist either. It just proves they think they do...
This statement only works for you and nothign else, I think, therefore i am. It proves nothing but your own existence, and nobody here is trying to tell you that anything but you exists.... Or besides them, simple fact is that you can not know. You are not sure. You might believe so, but that can play tricks on you.
However if you can question if you exist if you can even think then for you, you exist. What the rest of the world and the people are you can not know.
Originally posted by LordFear
One thing I do want to point out and which is really the basis for my argument is that I beleive that nothing is absolute and I agreed with DesCartes when he said that he cannot trust anything even his senses.
I agree with that one hundred percent. Where I don't agree is where he believes that if you can ask yourself that question then it proves that you must exist. IT sounds right and makes sense, but I go a step further and still say that that isn't enough because it doesn't fit in every category therefore there is no absolution or certainties at all in our lives and in this world. There is nothing in our reality that is infallible and without absolute certainty even the weather, seasons anything. There is always an exception and always an x factor. This is simply not enough for me to not still question my existence. That's it people but thanx for a good debate.
By all means, provide an instance in wich it is possible to quetion your existence and not exist.
adam poe, all ur existance is made of is ur expiriences and memories in life, that is ALL that makes YOU, so tell me, what if everything, all the fundamental concepts like existance, time, "self" etc, were false, what then wud be ur point of view, it might be possible to question ur own existnace without existing, but it doesnt seem that way to u, because ur mind cannot make sense of it given all the evidence against it, which in turn is based on ur expiriences and self. existance is not tha easy a thing to define or prove.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
adam poe, all ur existance is made of is ur expiriences and memories in life, that is ALL that makes YOU, so tell me, what if everything, all the fundamental concepts like existance, time, "self" etc, were false, what then wud be ur point of view, it might be possible to question ur own existnace without existing, but it doesnt seem that way to u, because ur mind cannot make sense of it given all the evidence against it, which in turn is based on ur expiriences and self. existance is not tha easy a thing to define or prove.
After a young woman from North Carolina contracted encephalitis at the age of seventeen, she developed amnesia. She could recall no memories from before her illness nor could she even identify ordinary objects such as a hair brush or an ice cream cone.
She qualifies as someone with no memories, experiences, or knowledge of fundamental concepts, yet she could not doubt her own existence without first existing. In this instance, she may doubt who she is, but not that she is.