Is Proving Your Existence Pointless? The Limitations of Memory and Science

[Kakorot]

People who try to prove with "facts" that God is either real or not real are just wasting their time. You don't have to try to prove anything. YOu cannot even prove that you exist. Because as soon as you do prove to me that you exist, then it becomes a memory, and who knows, the universe could have been created 2 seconds ago, and no one would be wise to it, because we could have all been created with our memories. So memory is not a reliable source for proof.
So it is scientifically unsound to say, "God isn't real there is no proof for his existence." because there is no proof for your's either. So what i am saying is, even with scientific data about the universe, u still can't be sure of how it actually works.
So God could still exist. Nothing can prove it or disprove it. Everything is faith.

 

[photon]

I think therefore I am? No, a bit lame I guess.

I used to think that my brain was the coolest part of my body. Then I thought, What's telling me that?

If God is making me think I've lived for a while, then he's doing a good job at it. It makes most sense to ourselves to think we don't have planted memories, so we assume we dont. It works, so why does it seem worth while to prove your existence when you can't. I am aware, and I live a life. If we aren't real, then its amazing how I care about things.

 

[Javelin_mad]

Deep very deep... There is a human quest for wanting to believe that there is a GOD of some sort because of the fear that we are alone... If it is that we are alone what is the point of continuing? if there is nothing to strive for, what is the point of the human race?

 

[Kakorot]

Exactly. And what I don't get about atheists is they believe there is no true purpose for themselves. They believe in no afterlife, so there ultimately is no point in doing anything during life if it all ends at death.
Now I ask, what is the point in believing that there is no point?

Let me just say i am not discriminating against atheists, I am only asking a question.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Life is a wonderful thing in itself. You don't have to sell yourself fairy tales to appreciate it. Self-actualization, whatever that means to each one of us, is sufficient. We all die in the end, believers and non, just don't get uptight about it.

 

[Thallium]

Proving your own existence seems to me desperate and an attempt that cannot make anything clearer whatsoever.

The mouth that pushes out the breath, the body that moves and touches the surroundings, vision and sound, motion and that there is something there is enough proof for me. More complicated than that it isn't.

 

[Kakorot]

watch the movie "the matrix" if u haven't already. That way you may be able to grasp this concept better.
and no, i don't believe in the matrix, but its a good movie to learn this idea of "reality" and what things are and what they could be.

 

[Thallium]

I am familiar with the subject. I have seen Matrix.

 

[FZ+]

Exactly. And what I don't get about atheists is they believe there is no true purpose for themselves. They believe in no afterlife, so there ultimately is no point in doing anything during life if it all ends at death.

This is something of a classic misconception.

Atheists don't believe that life has no point, but that we must apply that purpose ourselves. One might ask the counter-question: what is the point of living, if there is an infinitely superior afterlife beyond? In any case, the conclusion is that there is something of value in life regardless of its destination.

So God could still exist. Nothing can prove it or disprove it. Everything is faith.

There are levels of faith. And the qualifier of considering alternative theories, and guaging the fecundity of a hypothesis are still useful. In other words, believing yourself to exist has only alternatives that are far worse, and is also useful in making other conclusions. The same cannot be said for god.

No one, as far as I am aware, has ever said that any sort of God could not exist.

 

[Qurious]

Presuppositions must be made in this life (whether it is real or not) the only thing that matters is that the life we live is in OUR perception. Would the revelation that we were created not but two seconds ago by a being for its idle amuzement change the perception that we have existed the extent of our perceived lives? In my opinion I do not believe so. If a being (and let's assume it is telling the truth) reveals it just created us two seconds ago, but nothing about the way we live has been altered besides the fact residing in our minds that we were just created, our perceptions of the lives we have lived will have been no different than if the fact is true that if we were created in the normal flow of human understanding. It seems most would agree that we cannot prove anything to be completely 100% accurate so why would thinking about a tenet or idea that cannot ever be considered 100% accurate, and thus, impossible to prove change anything in our perception of life, as it is, now. As for the charge that atheists believe life has no point, this is your misinformed and usually religiously based ideal behind your obvious philosophical beliefs in god and the impossibility of anyone not believing in a higher-beings ability to appreciate life. I assure your assumption is incorrect. I love life for what's its worth, to me. Though the belief in a god has facets of applicability in the debate between what can be proved and what cannot be proved I do not believe that the personal beliefs of a individual, especially with regard to a higher being changes anything substantially.

 

[chroot]

"I exist" is an axiomatic statement. It cannot be argued, because, to argue it, you must first assume it is true. It must be true.

- Warren

 

[Tron3k]

And in the same vein, you can only prove something given some axioms. You can't just say "prove this" (unless the axiom system you are using is implicitly given).

 

[Nomolesteporfavor]

Saying the universe was created two seconds ago serves no practical purposes. Proof of the pudding is in the eating, you know, so that doesn't really go well with a universe that was created two seconds ago. No one really cares if it's not real and just memories or it's real and memories, it'll still taste good. What we have to do is do away with the people who want to take away our pudding.

 

[Kakorot]

"I exist" is an axiomatic statement. It cannot be argued, because, to argue it, you must first assume it is true. It must be true.

- Warren

But how do I know that we're not in some matrix world or something similar. There is no way to prove anything real. Sorry to burst your bubble. I don't mean to sound arrogant or anything, I'm simply stating this one thing as an "axiom" That nothing can truly be proven... (and I know about the whole implications of it being a paradox, there's no need to talk about it, I already understand it)

 

[the_truth]

ARGH.

I wrote an entire essay named basics in order to help people clear up this silly issue.

Nothing is for certain. Even this statement. (dispute this instead)

Though some things are more probable than others.

Ie. I pick up an apple and drop it 20 times, when i let go of the apple on the 21st time I will expect it to fall.

The same applies to my existence, your existence and god's existence if you want. It is called scientific method, the rest is history. Reasonning and logic also come in somewhere.

Enough of this garble I say.

 

[Thallium]

Right.

And 'the_truth' It is existence, not existence.

 

[Nomolesteporfavor]

I don't think that axiom is practical enough to be considered an axiom. Its purpose demeans conversations and I don't see how anyone is going to take it as valid argument to incur the wrath of God or something similar. Do you truly find it meaningful to say such a horrible thing? It serves a bad purpose, like having your pudding mugged from you. A nice substitute for this spontaneous axiom is a heartfelt "Chill out." I don't see what stating our inability to be 100% absolutely correct is meant to achieve except to cause complacency via annoyance, avoid death, or something like that. So chill out.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by Kakorot
But how do I know that we're not in some matrix world or something similar. There is no way to prove anything real.

It doesn't matter whether you exist in some matrix world or not. The "realness" of the universe is not in question. The statement "I exist" is absolutely true, because to argue it, you must first assume it is true. (You cannot argue it if you don't exist.) I suggest you think about it some more.

- Warren

 

[photon]

Im kind of leaning towards both warren's and "the_truth's" opinion.

I think of it as an algebraic equation like:
y=mx+b. There is no one answer, because we don't have all the axioms (values for m, x, y, and b.)
Therefore, we can use an infinite combination of numbers as long as they all add up to "y."

If we had all the axioms, facts, values, or whatever you want to call them, then we could come up with a definite "proof."

 

[NIT14]

This is exactly why I'm agnostic. We can't assume what we will never know. The only thing we know is that we know nothing. Just leave it at that.

 

[Canute]

There's lots of stuff we know. The original point was just that we can't prove any of it. In a nutshell what we can prove cannot be known for certain and what we can know for certain cannot be proved. (Strangely this can be proved).

A number of mathematicians and philosophers conclude that the incompleteness theorems prove that we cannot prove that we exist. Hence 'I exist' is sometimes taken to be a fundamental 'Goedel sentence' in disguise, undecidable in any formal system.

 

[the_truth]

Thallium,

"ARGH.

I wrote an entire essay named basics in order to help people clear up this silly issue.

Nothing is for certain. Even this statement. (dispute this instead)

Though some things are more probable than others.

Ie. I pick up an apple and drop it 20 times, when i let go of the apple on the 21st time I will expect it to fall.

The same applies to my existence, your existence and god's existence if you want. It is called scientific method, the rest is history. Reasonning and logic also come in somewhere.

Enough of this garble I say."

Do you agree with me now? Or did my usage of the word 'garble' render my entire argument to be false?

 

[the_truth]

"Nothing can be completely proved."
Canute

"People who try to prove with "facts" that God is either real or not real are just wasting their time. You don't have to try to prove anything. YOu cannot even prove that you exist. Because as soon as you do prove to me that you exist, then it becomes a memory, and who knows, the universe could have been created 2 seconds ago, and no one would be wise to it, because we could have all been created with our memories."\
Kakorot

Kakorot is right, we cannot completely prove that we exist. We however, can assume that we exist from the evidence presented.

It is still possible to think that it is 100% certain that you exist, though this cannot be proved.


"I exist" is an axiomatic statement. It cannot be argued, because, to argue it, you must first assume it is true. It must be true.

- Warren

You can only argue about something if there is a counter point to argue to, if there is a counterpoint to argue to, then there is an argument. In an argument as to whether I exist or not, there are both points and counter points. "I exist" can be argued.


"This is exactly why I'm agnostic. We can't assume what we will never know. The only thing we know is that we know nothing. Just leave it at that."

Same reason for me.

 

[Thallium]

Yes the_truth, I agree with you there.

To NIT 14 "This is exactly why I'm agnostic. We can't assume what we will never know. The only thing we know is that we know nothing. Just leave it at that."

That might be right. It is important to handle EVERYTHING with skepticism, but to create a theory and accept it as true, at least helps us figure out what things are and what they are not if the theory eventually fails and what we assume gives us a starting point and a field to attach to, though this is in itself ignorance and folly.

In the end, we are curious and seeking beings. It might be better to have something than nothing at all. Are there other opiniond on this?

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by the_truth
Nothing is for certain.

NIT 14 "This is exactly why I'm agnostic. We can't assume what we will never know. The only thing we know is that we know nothing. Just leave it at that."

These statements muddle provability and certainty. There is plenty we can know for certain. For instance you know you exist, you know how you are feeling, you know what you plan to do later etc. But there is nothing that can be proved for certain. Muddling up certainty and proof leads to confusion.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by the_truth
"I exist" can be argued.

Not without first assuming it is true.

- Warren

 

[Thallium]

I took this excerpt from a search I did on Google. For the dispute about what scientific theory is and is not.

SCIENTIFIC THEORY
WordNet Dictionary

Definition: a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"

See Also: Arrhenius theory of dissociation, atomic theory, big bang theory, big-bang theory, cell doctrine, cell theory, corpuscular theory, corpuscular theory of light, Einstein's theory of relativity, game theory, germ theory, gravitational theory, indeterminacy principle, information theory, kinetic theory, kinetic theory of gases, nebular hypothesis, Newton's theory of gravitation, organicism, Ostwald's theory of indicators, planetesimal hypothesis, quantum theory, relativity, relativity theory, science, scientific discipline, supersymmetry, theory, theory of dissociation, theory of electrolytic dissociation, theory of evolution, theory of games, theory of gravitation, theory of gravity, theory of indicators, theory of inheritance, theory of organic evolution, theory of relativity, uncertainty principle, undulatory theory, wave theory, wave theory of light

And then these!
http://atheism,about.com/library/FAQs/evo/blfaq_sci_what.htm

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by chroot
Not without first assuming it is true.

- Warren

Are you suggesting it's possible to assume it's true when in fact it might be false? That's self-contradictory.

Any argument against it depends on first precisely defining 'I' and 'exists', and that won't help much, especially if it's changed to "something that is thought to be 'I' exists", or similar.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by Canute
Are you suggesting it's possible to assume it's true when in fact it might be false? That's self-contradictory.

That's precisely the point. It must be true. It is not arguable.

- Warren

 

[the_truth]

I fail to see the point with this Warren quote. Are you claiming that in order to argue, you must first exist in order to argue? This doesn't seem relevant to the discussion.

Besides, for all you know you may have been programmed to believe that something which does not exist cannot argue. When in fact 2+2=5 and something does not need to exist in order to argue, but it is so completely beyond your imagination to correct this 'error that in every possible circumstance of things you cannot consider it to be true.

It is not unreasonable to assume that something requires existence in order to argue.


"These statements muddle provability and certainty. There is plenty we can know for certain. For instance you know you exist, you know how you are feeling, you know what you plan to do later etc. But there is nothing that can be proved for certain. Muddling up certainty and proof leads to confusion."

This is due to ambiguity?

Definitions.

Certain (100% absolute certainty)

Near certain, assumed, verified (assumed certain, generalizations that occur over and over again until it would be unreasonable to assume that they will not occur again)
Examples.
2+2=4
I exist

Near impossible, Lunacy (assumed impossible, something for which there is no evidence, but may exist)
Examples.
There is a teapot orbitting Pluto.
A giant magic psychic beetle from the other side of the universe is stealing the Earth's water using it's mind powers.

Impossible (0% certain, absolute impossibility)

it would be lunacy to state that there is a teapot orbitting pluto, just as it is lunacy to state that I do not exist. As whatever I am I must exist to type all this.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by the_truth
Are you claiming that in order to argue, you must first exist in order to argue? This doesn't seem relevant to the discussion.

The topic of this thread is "Proving You Exist." I am merely repeated a well-known tenet of philosophy that the statement "I exist" is inarguable. It must be true. It seems highly relevant.

It is not unreasonable to assume that something requires existence in order to argue.

Therefore, you agree with me. If you are able to ask "Do I exist?" you must first exist. The answer to this question is always "yes," and cannot be "no." Conundrum solved.

- Warren

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by chroot
That's precisely the point. It must be true. It is not arguable.

- Warren

I'm sorry but I muddled my posts up. I was actually agreeing with you but misread who said what.

But I've half changed my mind since then. Being very pedantic I would argue that 'I exist' is in only one sense a certainty, in another it is an assumption (an assumption about the definitions). But this isn't important here.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by the_truth
I fail to see the point with this Warren quote. Are you claiming that in order to argue, you must first exist in order to argue? This doesn't seem relevant to the discussion.

It's very relevant. It means that 'I exist' is an example of certain but unprovable knowledge.

Besides, for all you know you may have been programmed to believe that something which does not exist cannot argue.

How can something that doesn't exist be programmed to think that it does?

I'm afraid I find your definitions completely muddled. I think if you're going to post defintions you should take them from a good dictionary.

 

[photon]

the_truth knows his stuff. the_truth does not lie.
(No pun intended)

Seriously, he has a point.
Us not existing is considered lunacy, so we assume it false. Just as we call a teacup orbiting Pluto false lunacy.
But, we don't say there is 0% possibility that a teacup really is orbiting pluto, so we call it extremely unprobable.

As he said before, if you drop an apple 20 times and it falls, you'd expect it to fall on the 21st also.

But, the Magic Man could have just made apples fall up and down at intervals of 20 using his Magic Mushroom.
(mushrooms can't fall up, only apples and bananas. oranges fall sideways)

However, we all need some kind of safety bar to hold onto. (In a loud, mysterious, decrecendo voice with a wave of the hand,) "And there was religion"

 

[Canute]

We can't seem to get past the idea that 'I exist' is an assumption. It isn't. It has to be certain knowledge. By comparison we can never be certain that there is not a teapot in orbit around Pluto, it's just a bit unlikely.