Philosophy: Prove you exist

  • Thread starter Thread starter Truthstalker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Truthstalker

Guest
I’ve never had an atheist take me up on this challenge. They are to prove they exist, using the same standards they use to disprove the existence of God.

Since this is the internet, I cannot see or hear the atheist. I cannot be sure it really is an atheist. I have to believe the poster really is an atheist. Maybe it is someone’s sockpuppet.

Any takers?
 
It’s an intersting proposition. It might even be closer to the “prove God exists” situation to have to prove to another person that the atheist exists. In other words, demonstrate how person B would prove to person C that atheist person A exists.
 
I think (pun unintended) that Descartes already tackled this problem.
 
Hello,
Truthstalker said:
You mean, “I think, therefore I exist”?

Or the whole problem?
Click to expand...
Well that may work to prove to Descartes that Descartes exists, but how does Mr. Atheist prove that Descartes exists. How do I know that Descartes thinks. I see supposed existing people around everyday who don’t seem to think. 😃

The problem should be addressed that it should prove a real person who is not present or near present in location. Such as -

Prove that George Washington existed.
 
Depends. Are we solipsist or not? 😛

If not, I believe Descartes has pretty much covered all that ground, up to and including a proof for God. However, his proof of God’s existence is markedly similar to Anselm’s – they’re both ontological and postulate that God exists because the perfect is necessarily extant, which does not follow.
 
Truthstalker said:
I’ve never had an atheist take me up on this challenge. They are to prove they exist, using the same standards they use to disprove the existence of God.

Since this is the internet, I cannot see or hear the atheist. I cannot be sure it really is an atheist. I have to believe the poster really is an atheist. Maybe it is someone’s sockpuppet.

Any takers?
Click to expand...
hmm you couldnt use the standards because they can prove by various ways you exist, but God is just a fairy tale supported by the fact that other religions have similar tales. Scientifically you can be proven, so can George Washington, but God cant.

(this is some of what I have learned from atheists.)

OH and as well you cannot use the bible as source material. (even though archelogy and science has) 😃

And if you get by any of that then they will bring up something like Socatates existed it will be said his writings existed. Actually all old documents can be trusted. Except Biblical ones. sigh its hard to score a goal they keep moving the goal posts.

Remember once you get talking to them, most Atheists are “backslidden” believers. 😃
 
What makes a book a book. What makes a computer a computer? How do we define a book or a computer? Here we bring in Plato’s Theory of the Forms, that books and computers come in a variety of forms and styles, techniques and specifications. But in the world that is outside the cave, there is a book, a computer, the essence or the ultimate form of what a book or computer really is.

Prove to me that what I’m looking at is a computer. I look at this metallic object with keys and a screen, but is it a computer? Prove to me that this is a computer.

What is an atheist? Is it a person who denies the existence of God? Is it an object or a person? Is an atheist merely a shadow of the true atheist? An atheist could give you all the evidence in the world, you can even experience what it’s like to live as an atheist, but still, you can never prove that an atheist exist. Why? We could be in the Matrix for example.

“I think, therefore I am”. Well, what makes a thought a thought? Is it random firings of neurons or is it systematic? Prove that a thought exists. Nothing is real, yet we are still here. How do we function without existing? We can exist as holographic projections with extremely complex algorithims that dictate our behavior.

No matter how hard you try to prove that anything exists, you can’t. Never. Yet we’re still here. How? Perhaps God. How do we know that God isn’t just another projection? How do we know if we haven’t seen Him? We see objects, yet we can never prove that those objects actually exist. If we can’t prove that even the things we see exist, how can we prove that God exists? (As with the Matrix, there has to be a person in charge…)
 
Descartes begged the question in “Cogito ergo sum.” Perhaps he would have caught it had he written, “Ego cogito ergo ego sum.” He assumes the very “I” he’s trying to prove! But he proves the basis of other bodies on the basis of God’s existence. He proves God’s existence by the ontological argument. “I can conceive of the greatest possible being, that being must exist because if he didn’t I could conceive of greater being which does exist, and existence is greater than non-existence.” Once God is established, then he can trust his senses, logic, etc. because God will not allow him to be deceived by some potential “evil demon.” But this too begs the question, for he is already assuming that the very logic he is trying to prove is valid in his use of the ontological argument. Descartes is a mess!

Now, to cut the nonsense, no person can deny their own existence and be sane. If I say, “I do not exist” I am speaking nonsense. If I say, “You do not exist,” I am not speaking nonsense, because you may be a hallucination.

I don’t know how to prove that solipsism isn’t true, but if it is, it seems meaningless to believe in it. What good does it do me? Nothing. I might as well believe that what seems to exist actually does.

G.K. Chesterton recounts in his biography of St. Thomas of a man who wondered why more people weren’t solipsists. He remarked that this man who was a solipsist himself did not realize that, if solipsism is true, then there is no one else to be a solipsist!

Peter Kreeft once said that about half of philosophy is bullsht. I think most of it began with Descartes, and most philosophy since him has been bullsht.

If the average person started preach some of the things that philosophers preach, they would be sent straight to the nuthouse.
 
dbacks5439 said:
What makes a book a book. What makes a computer a computer? How do we define a book or a computer? Here we bring in Plato’s Theory of the Forms, that books and computers come in a variety of forms and styles, techniques and specifications. But in the world that is outside the cave, there is a book, a computer, the essence or the ultimate form of what a book or computer really is.
Click to expand...
Plato’s theory has some serious flaws. Aquinas gets it right.

The forms exist in the mind of God before in the thing themselves, then they exist in the thing themselves, and then they exist in our mind, and this happens due to divine illumination.

newadvent.org/summa/1084.htm
 
Mirdath said:
Depends. Are we solipsist or not? 😛

If not, I believe Descartes has pretty much covered all that ground, up to and including a proof for God. However, his proof of God’s existence is markedly similar to Anselm’s – they’re both ontological and postulate that God exists because the perfect is necessarily extant, which does not follow.
Click to expand...
I’m going to regret getting into this because I’m super busy right now. But doesn’t one really end up in solipsism by following Descartes’ ontology? Or at the very least it seems all you can know (if you accept the cogito is really a proof) is that you exist. If your ontology starts in your head, it seems like that’s where it ends up. This is the problem I’ve always had with idealism and the implications it has for knowledge. I don’t see how you could ever even say it’s likely that anything exists outside of your head, including other minds (people) and God. I can see where Anselm gets to his conclusion from the ontological argument that God must exist, but can’t see how Descartes could ever get there since things really existing don’t seem to fit in with his philosophy of being.
 
tdgesq said:
I’m going to regret getting into this because I’m super busy right now. But doesn’t one really end up in solipsism by following Descartes’ ontology? Or at the very least it seems all you can know (if you accept the cogito is really a proof) is that you exist. If your ontology starts in your head, it seems like that’s where it ends up. This is the problem I’ve always had with idealism and the implications it has for knowledge. I don’t see how you could ever even say it’s likely that anything exists outside of your head, including other minds (people) and God. I can see where Anselm gets to his conclusion from the ontological argument that God must exist, but can’t see how Descartes could ever get there since things really existing don’t seem to fit in with his philosophy of being.
Click to expand...
The cogito is only a starting point; there’s a reason it’s called the ‘first certainty’. If you don’t go anywhere with it, yes, you end up in solipsism, but you’re not supposed to just stop there. Descartes’ next step is to find God, using an ontological argument (perfection implies existence) – that’s fatally flawed, but no matter. Moving on, he regains belief in the material by assuming first that God gave him the ability to perceive the material and second that God is not deceptive.

Descartes’ proofs of God are quite similar to Anselm’s (and his final argument is essentially identical). Ontological arguments actually start from solipsism – they depend merely on the existence and capacity of the mind and nothing else.
 
Hello,
Kitty_Chan said:
hmm you couldnt use the standards because they can prove by various ways you exist, but God is just a fairy tale supported by the fact that other religions have similar tales. Scientifically you can be proven, so can George Washington, but God cant.
Click to expand...
Oh, I don’t know. I don’t think you can prove George Washington existed using the same standards, assumptions, skepticism, etc. that atheists use towards God and Catholicism.

I tell you what, we’ll role play. You play the defender of George Washington, showing evidence for his existence - and I will play the ever doubting atheist (in this case, would it be a-George Washingtonist? 😃 ) I’ll try to refute your evidence and arguments and try to show it’s parallel in the proof of God argument (if I can).

This could be fun - as least for me. 😃
 
Truthstalker said:
I’ve never had an atheist take me up on this challenge. They are to prove they exist, using the same standards they use to disprove the existence of God.

Since this is the internet, I cannot see or hear the atheist. I cannot be sure it really is an atheist. I have to believe the poster really is an atheist. Maybe it is someone’s sockpuppet.

Any takers?
Click to expand...
As Descartes put it “I think, therefore i am”
 
Truthstalker said:
I’ve never had an atheist take me up on this challenge. They are to prove they exist, using the same standards they use to disprove the existence of God.

Since this is the internet, I cannot see or hear the atheist. I cannot be sure it really is an atheist. I have to believe the poster really is an atheist. Maybe it is someone’s sockpuppet.

Any takers?
Click to expand...
If I was them I would respond to your challenge by saying, “First you prove that I do not exist.”
 
Truthstalker said:
I’ve never had an atheist take me up on this challenge. They are to prove they exist, using the same standards they use to disprove the existence of God.

Since this is the internet, I cannot see or hear the atheist. I cannot be sure it really is an atheist. I have to believe the poster really is an atheist. Maybe it is someone’s sockpuppet.

Any takers?
Click to expand...
I’m not an atheist, just a lowly agnostic, but I’ll give it a crack. Actually, come to think of it, why should you believe that I’m *not *an atheist? Maybe I’m lying about not being one.

It is impossible to prove to you deductively that I exist. However, I am pretty sure I can convince you that it’s more likely than not. In fact, people who attempt to prove or disprove the existence of God are kind of missing the boat. The question isn’t, “Does God exist?” The really important question is, “Should I believe in God?” Presumably, you not only think that you should believe in God, but you think that I should too. Personally, I think I shouldn’t believe in God, and I think you should believe whatever makes sense to you. (But only in terms of belief in God. I don’t think you should make up your own mind about speed limits and red lights.)

So, having avoided the first question, I’m now stuck with the question: Can I convince you that you should believe in me? In this instance I’m greatly aided by the fact that you already do. You do don’t you? I mean, you aren’t sitting there believing that you have made up everything you have just read have you? Are you really sitting there thinking, “Okay, I’m going to challenge all these figments of my imagination to prove they exist to me. Wait, not all of them, just the ones that claim not to believe in God.”

(Interesting thought: If I, and everyone else, is just a figment of your imagination, then you must be God. If I am trying to convince you, then I must believe you exist to be convinced. So, I can’t be an atheist because I’m trying to convince God that I am justified in not believing in Him. :whacky:)

You are totally justified in doubting anything I tell you about myself. If history has told us anything it’s that people lie prodigiously and frequently. But to believe in my non-existence is somewhat harder. *Someone *wrote these words. Someone came up with this idea.

You could believe that these words were randomly created, and that it is just an amazing fluke that they had meaning for you. But you have seen people type, haven’t you? You have witnessed the transference of idea to electronic media. You can do it yourself. I would even suggest that as far as we know the *most *common way that meaningful language is created be through human (name removed by moderator)ut.

Here is the thing; I don’t see the same sort of concrete evidence with God. I mean it’s true that I didn’t create the world, but it doesn’t mean any religion is right on the subject. I know there are people who look at the theory of evolution and think that it is more far fetched than believing in God. I disagree. I know of people who see God everywhere, but I don’t. The way the world appears to me is the way I would expect it to appear if there was no God. It is a stretch to go from believing that the world isn’t a figment of my imagination to believing that there is the Catholic God. I don’t see in nature something that must be designed by an extreme intelligence with a specific agenda.

So, I haven’t proved that I exist. But I believe that I have shown that my standards for belief are mostly consistent. I don’t have a special bias against the idea of God.
 
Everstruggling said:
I’m not an atheist, just a lowly agnostic, but I’ll give it a crack. Actually, come to think of it, why should you believe that I’m *not *an atheist? Maybe I’m lying about not being one.

It is impossible to prove to you deductively that I exist. However, I am pretty sure I can convince you that it’s more likely than not. In fact, people who attempt to prove or disprove the existence of God are kind of missing the boat. The question isn’t, “Does God exist?” The really important question is, “Should I believe in God?” Presumably, you not only think that you should believe in God, but you think that I should too. Personally, I think I shouldn’t believe in God, and I think you should believe whatever makes sense to you. (But only in terms of belief in God. I don’t think you should make up your own mind about speed limits and red lights.)

So, having avoided the first question, I’m now stuck with the question: Can I convince you that you should believe in me? In this instance I’m greatly aided by the fact that you already do. You do don’t you? I mean, you aren’t sitting there believing that you have made up everything you have just read have you? Are you really sitting there thinking, “Okay, I’m going to challenge all these figments of my imagination to prove they exist to me. Wait, not all of them, just the ones that claim not to believe in God.”

(Interesting thought: If I, and everyone else, is just a figment of your imagination, then you must be God. If I am trying to convince you, then I must believe you exist to be convinced. So, I can’t be an atheist because I’m trying to convince God that I am justified in not believing in Him. :whacky:)

You are totally justified in doubting anything I tell you about myself. If history has told us anything it’s that people lie prodigiously and frequently. But to believe in my non-existence is somewhat harder. *Someone *wrote these words. Someone came up with this idea.

You could believe that these words were randomly created, and that it is just an amazing fluke that they had meaning for you. But you have seen people type, haven’t you? You have witnessed the transference of idea to electronic media. You can do it yourself. I would even suggest that as far as we know the *most *common way that meaningful language is created be through human (name removed by moderator)ut.

Here is the thing; I don’t see the same sort of concrete evidence with God. I mean it’s true that I didn’t create the world, but it doesn’t mean any religion is right on the subject. I know there are people who look at the theory of evolution and think that it is more far fetched than believing in God. I disagree. I know of people who see God everywhere, but I don’t. The way the world appears to me is the way I would expect it to appear if there was no God. It is a stretch to go from believing that the world isn’t a figment of my imagination to believing that there is the Catholic God. I don’t see in nature something that must be designed by an extreme intelligence with a specific agenda.

So, I haven’t proved that I exist. But I believe that I have shown that my standards for belief are mostly consistent. I don’t have a special bias against the idea of God.
Click to expand...
I don’t see why you should exist or not. You haven’t proven anything. The jury is out on the question as to whether you exist.
😃
 
I’ve been thinking a lot about the arguments on this thread. This argument pops up all over the place. It rarely convinces anyone who doesn’t already believe. The idea is to show that the atheist’s skepticism is irrational. If one applied his or her level of skepticism to something other than God, it would show how ridiculous their argument really is. (I don’t know why, but using gender-neutral language on religious forums is perversely satisfying.)

The reason it doesn’t work is because the skeptic knows they’ve witnessed a theological shell game. They may not know how, but they know that the game was rigged. Instead of bowing before the superior intellect of the believer, they leave more jaded and hardened in their opinion.

It’s been my experience that most people either believe or don’t believe in God, and then try to justify their position after they’ve decided. Their skill at justification varies wildly. Most people aren’t very good at it. This is just purely a guess, but I would say that 1 person in 10 can really prove the case their beliefs. I have also observed that neither believers nor non-believers are any better at justifying their position. Small wonder I should think that; I am, after all, an agnostic.

Whether an individual can prove something is completely irrelevant. A person who believed in quantum mechanics in the fifteen-hundreds wouldn’t have had a leg to stand on. In the mid eighteen-hundreds a person who believed in Newton’s Law of Gravity was arguing from an unassailable position. Who would have thought that these two individuals would have their positions reversed by the time 2000 rolled around.

Your position isn’t the slightest bit stronger because you can poke holes in the opposition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top