Do We Exist? (faith, verse)

[(Q)]

This thread was started for two reasons - one is for the debate of whether or not the universe and everything in it exist.

The other reason is for those who can't seem to get past this concept.

If one is to debate the existence of ourselves, that's fine. But to acknowledge this as part of any other argument is completely pointless. One cannot possibly argue a topic or subject matter aside from the topic of existence if one cannot agree whether or not they exist.

Therefore it is blatanly obvious that if one proceeds to discuss a topic (aside from our existence) then one is obligated to presume we DO exist.

If one refuses to acknowledge that we do exist, then one is not ready to tackle any other subject other than that and should refrain from doing so until they have made their decision.

[Irenicas]

Hmmm... Not neccesarily. I can participate in a conversation even though I do not definitely know if I exist or not. I take what I believe to be my existence and do with it as I see fit, but that does not neccesarily mean that I am real. I have to take some things assumed to operate in the world, but that doesn't mean that they are neccesarily true. You cannot "ultimately" prove anything, because we can only rely on logic and our sense, both which are inherently flawed and cannot be relied upon. But some things... well, we have to take those for granted.

[Paraprakrti]

Do we exist?


Faith says so.

[(Q)]

You cannot "ultimately" prove anything, because we can only rely on logic and our sense, both which are inherently flawed and cannot be relied upon.

So, what else is there to rely if not your own logic and senses?

But some things... well, we have to take those for granted.

Those who are too lazy to find out anything for themselves would agree.

[Paraprakrti]

"So, what else is there to rely if not your own logic and senses?"

You rely on them because you have *faith* that they are sufficiently supplying you with factual data.

[Mr Spinkles]

That's not faith Prapraktri, it's confidence supported by overwhelming evidence. The definition of "faith" you have implied is believing something, despite the fact that it is NOT confirmed. That our logic and senses usually supply us with factual data is confirmed all the time.

Of course we exist. Even if life is some sort of massive dream, this life still exists--it just exists as a dream. Our existence is indisputable because, by definition, there is no such thing as something that is "nonexistent".

[Bryan X]

In response to the subject of the thread...

Uhhhh, no, we don't exist. I don't exist(how am I typing this?), this thread doesn't exist, this Forum doesn't exist, you don't exist, and the world, yep, you guessed it, doesn't exist. Now all that leads me to scratching my head. Someone help. And please don't say something that'll make me end up scratching my balls next.

[YawgmothsAvatar]

Originally Posted by Bryan X

In response to the subject of the thread...

Uhhhh, no, we don't exist. I don't exist(how am I typing this?), this thread doesn't exist, this Forum doesn't exist, you don't exist, and the world, yep, you guessed it, doesn't exist. Now all that leads me to scratching my head. Someone help. And please don't say something that'll make me end up scratching my balls next.

That's right. It is all an illusion created by an omnipotent demon to fool just you into thinking that you exist.

Or you are really a butterfly dreaming you are human.

Oh, no one post 'I think, therefore I am' as a proof. It uses the fallacy of assuming the conclusion.

What this "I think, therefore I am" implies is this:

I think
Therefore, I exist

The problem is that by saying that you think, you are assuming that you exist. The 'I' that is thinking must first exist to do so.

Take that, Descartes!

[Mr Spinkles]

Ok, before I said that even if everything is a dream, we still exist. I'd like to add that if everything is a dream, it is a very unusual one...most dreams make no sense and are very inconsistent. This "dream", however, has been repeatedly shown to be consistent and logical.

At any rate, I think I see what inspired this thread...I hear the following a lot:

"We can't *know* anything, which is why I have total faith in [insert religious beleifs here]. Not only that, but scientific laws, like thermodynamics for example, can't be *known* but require faith just like [insert religious beliefs here]. Since scientific laws aren't as fuzzy as [insert religious beliefs here], why do you choose to put your faith in scientific laws? Don't you find [insert religious beliefs here] more inspiring and positive than those depressing laws of thermodynamics?"

[Irenicas]

Ok, ok. You missed my point. You cannot porve that we exist. Sorry, but you can't. There is no absolutely accurate information that allows us to say that we do, or even more importantly, any of the rest of humanity does. But on the other hand, we cannot prove that we don't exist either. It's a situation where you cannot win - just like the existence of God. You may believe in one side of the argument, or have faith in it, but you can never actually prove it.

As for those who say we can trust our senses... I suggest you look at some optical illusions, or read about hearing tests where people think they heard something when they didn't, or how we can make something register a different taste than it should, or ANYTHING like that. Our senses are flawed. Logic? Also flawed. There are some things that we can prove logically, but everything else tells us is not true (I'm thinking of Zeno's paradox here mainly).