Philosophy: Prove you exist

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

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. .

I like the line in “Song of Bernadette” where Lee J. Cobb says:

"For those who believe, no explanation is needed. For those who don’t, no explanation is possible"

Your position isn’t the slightest bit stronger because you can poke holes in the opposition.

Obviously you have never taken part in an official debate or been inside a courtroom during a proceeding.

 

[john_doran]

keep in mind that descartes was attempting to demonstrate to himself that he existed, not to anyone else.

the ability to demosntrate one’s own existence to anyone else depends upon the assumptions that are being made (and accepted) by your interlocutor. for example, any demonstration that entails the truth of your existence must have as (possibly tacit) premises something like:

A) your senses are reliable; and

B) your rational faculties are reliable.

even with those premises, however, the proof will never be deductive, but only inductive, since the rest of the premises in the argument will inevitably involve connecting their subjective experience of personhood (i.e. their “I”) to their behaviour, and from there to your behaviour and your “I”.

in other words, any demonstration to someone that you exist is simply a demonstration that there is at least one other mind. and that proof can only be inductive, which means it involves reasonably disputable premises.

not that atheists are always reasonable in their rejection of (theistic) reasoning…

 

[john_doran]

Whether an individual can prove something is completely irrelevant.

says you. but the theist that uses the argument in this thread is responding to the typical atheist claim “you believe that god exists. prove it to me”…

you may not believe that proof of the sort for which the atheist is asking is necessary for reasonable belief, but every single atheist that i’ve ever encountered certainly does, which makes this a perfectly reasonable response:

“you claim to believe that a belief is only reasonable if proof of a certain kind is available for that belief. fine. you believe that there is a real world, that there are other minds, and that your senses are reliable. i will provide you with a proof for the existence of god if you can provide me with a proof for those beliefs of yours”.

Everstruggling:

Your position isn’t the slightest bit stronger because you can poke holes in the opposition.

not so: if there is an argument that makes my position unlikely, and i demonstrate that such an argument is, in fact, unsound, then i have eliminated a defeater for my belief. which strengthens the reasonableness of my position.

 

[tdgesq]

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.

Interesting. I am not very familiar with Descartes, and I’m not familiar at all with his ontological argument for the existence of God. It does seem like there is an important distinction here between his argument and Anselm’s though. Here it appears that Descartes is trying to find a way to get to “actual existence.” It is not something that he presupposes, but instead attempts to give a proof for this through his ontological argument for the existence of God. I do not believe this is what Anselm is doing with his proof.

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.

I don’t know that I agree with this. I see Anselm as a realist who already presupposes that things really exist outside of the individual mind. He is trying to give an argument for God’s existence, not that all things other than God do really exist. The fact that he starts in the mind with an idea of God does not make him a solipsist if he already presupposes that things do exist outside of the mind. I don’t see that he is trying to prove reality outside of the mind in general; only that God does exist (just like many other things) outside of the mind. Your thoughts?

 

[tdgesq]

keep in mind that descartes was attempting to demonstrate to himself that he existed, not to anyone else.

This is a great point. Accepting the beginning of Descartes’ argument, all you can do is assure yourself that you exist. But the OP asked that you prove (to us Catholics) that you exist, just as you demand that we prove that God exists. Show me how cogito ergo sum proves to other minds, other people, that you exist.

 

[RobNY]

(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:

Your ‘convince you’ argument reminded me a little bit of Augustine:

On Free Will, Bk. II

First, then, to begin with what is most obvious, I ask you: “Do you exist?” Are you perhaps afraid to be deceived by that question? But if you did not exist it would be impossible for your to be deceived.

And just for everyone’s fun, this excerpt from Abu Ali al-Husayn ibn Sina-- just Avicenna for short-- perhaps might possibly have a small relevance to the issue at hand.

We shall say, therefore, that someone from among us ought to be thought of as if he were created all at once and full grown, but with his eyes covered so that he would not see external things. And he would be so created as if he were moving in the air - or in a void, in such a way that the density of the air would not touch him that he might sense it. And his limbs would be, as it were, spread out in such a way that they would not come together or touch one another.

Now let him see if he affirms the being of his essence. For he will have no doubt about affirming that he exists. Yet he will not affirm outward things about his limbs, or interior things about what is inside him, neither his mind nor his brain, nor anything else outside him. But he, whose length or breadth or depth he will not affirm, will affirm that he exists. If, however, it were possible for him at that time to imagine a hand or another limb, still he would not imagine it to be a part of him, or necessary to his essence.

Now you know that what is affirmed is other than what is not affirmed, and what is granted is other than what is not granted. And, because the essence that he affirms to exist is proper to him, insofar as he is that very essence, and is something besides his body and his limbs, which he does not affirm, therefore, once he has been awakened, he has a pathway to proceed in full wakefulness to knowing that the being of his soul is other than the being of his body. Indeed, he does not need the body in order to know the soul and perceive it. But if he is a dullard, he will have to turn to that way [and rely on the body to gain a knowledge of the soul].

If anyone else can quote random philosophers who think of strange things like this, it will be much appreciated.

 

[john_doran]

This is a great point. Accepting the beginning of Descartes’ argument, all you can do is assure yourself that you exist. But the OP asked that you prove (to us Catholics) that you exist, just as you demand that we prove that God exists. Show me how cogito ergo sum proves to other minds, other people, that you exist.

it doesn’t, and it isn’t supposed to - that was my point.

my further point was that it is simply not possible to prove the existence of other minds, at least not in any sense of “prove” that atheists use when they demand proof from theists of god’s existence. but then, it’s also not possible for atheists to prove many of their own most basic beliefs in that way…

 

[tdgesq]

it doesn’t, and it isn’t supposed to - that was my point.

my further point was that it is simply not possible to prove the existence of other minds, at least not in any sense of “prove” that atheists use when they demand proof from theists of god’s existence. but then, it’s also not possible for atheists to prove many of their own most basic beliefs in that way…

Dude, I agree with you. I hate trying to convey things over the internet sometimes. I agree with your position against Everstruggling.

 

[john_doran]

If anyone else can quote random philosophers who think of strange things like this, it will be much appreciated.

the avicenna quote is just a longer version of descartes’ (and augustine’s) own (alleged) demonstration that you are your immaterial soul (i.e. that the thinking “I” is not a body). saul kripke articulates a similar argument, but in the third person.

 

[john_doran]

Dude, I agree with you. I hate trying to convey things over the internet sometimes. I agree with your position against Everstruggling.

ahh - gotcha.

sorry about the misunderstanding.

 

[Kitty_Chan]

Hello,
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.

Oh I dont know Ive been around this block several times and I generally get a headache!

Im guessing I would state that George is on the currancy, he wrote and signed the constitution, and there was statues of his likeness. I think wed have to go back before the industrial age to get a good candiate . . .

Also JMJ and et el

disclaimer no one was actually harmed in the following example, because perhaps they didnt exist. . . . .

One thing that always interested me in these debates about existance is this scenario:

If one is wondering if they exist. . . . Say, if I was to haul off and kick them in the shins, they may know they exist, they would know pain but perhaps it wouldnt be enough to prove it.

If I was to choke them, then self preservation would kick in and Im positive they would know they exist!

And certainly be aware of my existance!

What say??

 

[Mirdath]

I don’t know that I agree with this. I see Anselm as a realist who already presupposes that things really exist outside of the individual mind. He is trying to give an argument for God’s existence, not that all things other than God do really exist. The fact that he starts in the mind with an idea of God does not make him a solipsist if he already presupposes that things do exist outside of the mind. I don’t see that he is trying to prove reality outside of the mind in general; only that God does exist (just like many other things) outside of the mind. Your thoughts?

I wasn’t accusing Anselm of solipsism – it’s just that his ontological argument does not rely on any suppositions of existence outside the mind. It doesn’t matter if he thought reality was an illusion created by his mind or not: as long as he can imagine the Most Perfect Being, that’s enough.

Here is a summary of Descartes’ Meditations on the First Philosophy. If you compare the argument in section V with Anselm’s I think you’ll find they’re essentially the same.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

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.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Everstruggling:

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.

Yes.

Speaking quantumly: you have put a non-God meter at your observation post and therefore see a non-God world.

What kind of world would you see if you put a God-meter at your observation post?

Everstruggling:

So, I haven’t proved that I exist. But I believe that I have shown that my standards for belief are mostly consistent.

Fair enough. Within the parameters that you have set. And using the meters which you have selected to make your observations.

Everstruggling:

I don’t have a special bias against the idea of God.

The meters you have selected might however.

By the way I wonder if it is possible to have a non-God world or only a world where a non-God meter does not allow God-worldliness to be observed.

:hypno:

 

[Ani_Ibi]

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.

Further to observation:

When the Europeans first came to NA, the First Nations could not see them because they came in large ships and the FN had no experience of large ships.

As soon as the Europeans disembarked into small boats, the FN could see them presumably because the FN had experience of small boats.

Similarly the Europeans could not see bison. Instead they saw a kind of ‘deer’ because the Euros had experience of deer.

After a period of time which allowed both FN and Euros to gain firsthand experience with large ships and bison respectively, both were able to see previously unseeable things.

Waddupwidat?

Here are some things to consider:

1. Seeing things which are not there is sometimes thought of as insane. Were the FN and Euros insane for seeing large ships and bison respectively after a period of firsthand experience? If so, then what is the role of firsthand experience in sanity?
2. Seeing is one thing. Theorizing is another. Is it logical to assume the existence of large ships and bison as explanations for the arrival of the Euros and the ‘buffalo jump’ respectively?
3. Hebrew 11:1 says that faith is the evidence of things unseen and the proof of things hoped for. Is this not a metaphor for theoretical science?
4. Can God be seen by means of a period of firsthand experience?
5. Similary can God be unseen by means of a period of firsthand experience?
6. Would you agree that insanity is – among other things – the seeing (observation) of things whose existence cannot be theorized (is not logical)?
7. So seeing a God-world which cannot be theorized (is not logical) is insane?
8. And unseeing a God-world which can be theorized (is logical) is similarly insane?
9. Can we theorize the existence of God then? Is the existence of God logical? If so, in part or in total?
10. As far as theorizing goes, does God not function as a kind of universal constant in some kind of formula? If so, then what is the formula? (This reminds me of Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy which posits that the answer to the riddle of the universe is 42 but that everybody forgot the question.)

:hypno: :juggle: :newidea: :harp:

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Im guessing I would state that George is on the currancy, he wrote and signed the constitution, and there was statues of his likeness. I think wed have to go back before the industrial age to get a good candiate . . .

George Washington didn’t write the Constitution, the Congress did. His signature appeared on it, but how do I know that it wasn’t forged. Congress probable just made up George Washington to bolster their claims of a new nation. Currency, paintings and statues are just artwork, not a living person - an artist’s imaginative work copied by future artists.

Parallel:
God didn’t write the Bible, but inspired it - George Washington didn’t write the Constitution but inspired it, particularly in using a presidential system rather than a monarch system. God did, though, physically write the two tablets containing the law given to Moses. And we can say that He signed the Bible with His approval when He guided the Councils that defined the Canon.

We have more than just paintings and statues of Jesus (though we have those, too). We have the Shroud of Turin and the Veil of Veronica that bear His likeness from His Blood. And we have:

https://secure14.inno-tech.com/marianweb/assets/images/products/9226_p.jpg
https://secure14.inno-tech.com/marianweb/assets/images/products/25875_p.jpg

Oh I dont know Ive been around this block several times and I generally get a headache!

O.K. Take two aspirins and call me in the morning.

 

[john_doran]

By the way I wonder if it is possible to have a non-God world or only a world where a non-God meter does not allow God-worldliness to be observed.

the latter: god is a necessary being, which means he exists in all possible worlds, which means that any world without him is impossible.

 

[Truthstalker]

the latter: god is a necessary being, which means he exists in all possible worlds, which means that any world without him is impossible.

My suspicion is that this is a circular argument: I presuppose God exists, therefore He exists.

Is it any less reasonable to say God exists than that you exist?

 

[john_doran]

My suspicion is that this is a circular argument: I presuppose God exists, therefore He exists.

it’s not an argument for god’s existence…

think of it as a conditional proposition: if god exists and is necessary, then there is no possible world in which god does not exist.

Truthstalker:

Is it any less reasonable to say God exists than that you exist?

depends who’s doing the “saying”; while it may be less reasonable for me to deny my existence than to deny god’s existence, i would venture to say that it may be equally unreasonable for someone else to deny my existence and god’s existence.

but i may have missed your point…

 

[b_justb]

img=birthcertificate.jpg
img=socialsecuritycard.jpg
img=pictureofparentalunits.jpg
img=recentpaystub
img=my2007taxreturnform
img=driverselicense

That should do it