Prove to me your existence

Suppose, you have a figment of imagination that you don` t exist. If you are right, then you don` t exist, but if you don` t exist, then you cannot be imagining that you don` t exist. this is a contradiction. Suppose you are wrong, then you exist, and what you say is wrong.

'Prove to me your existence'
You have just done it for me by accepting things can be proven and that I can be the one to do so, for you but not only by you.

In other words nothing is real that we cannot accept or expect will give us an answer.

You have no answers unless you have been given them.
You have no truth unless someone trusts you.

The only things that do not exist is that which has no answers.

Makes you wonder if all that exists is but the holy question?

But it is just as likely that these holy questions are the only things that do not exist.

All in the answer, all in the conclusion.

Please find for me or ask me any question that doe snot at its beginning suppose something or other.
Find for me a question that does not have an answer of or in it.

Ask me a question that knows nothing.
Ask me a question that asks nothing.

You can still find answers that can never been questions (can still find) but cannot find any questions that can never been answers (can never find)

Exist for me an unexistence.

Because if you're a figment of my imagination, "you" are not really proving anything to me--I am proving it to myself. If you're a dream character of mine, then "you" as a being separate from my own consciousness, would not exist anyway, and therefore would not be able to prove anything at all.

If I perceive you trying to prove something to me, that means one of two things: 1) you exist, or 2) you exist only as a conscious/subconscious division of me. If #2 is true, then I (as a figment) would essentially be trying to prove to myself that I (my figment) exist--and that other minds also exist--whilst simultaneously already "knowing" that I (my conscious self) alone exist and that no other minds exist. That would probably mean I was insane, but there you have it. (It makes my head hurt...)

(BTW, all of what I just said was me having intellectual fun with a wacky philosophical concept to which I do not in any way subscribe. Go figure.)

But the argument is quite independent of who (or who does not) present it, and can be evaluated on its own merits. Clearly, if X does not exist, then it cannot be proved that X exists. But you cannot just suppose that X does not exist, and then conclude that since he does not, the argument to show he does must be wrong. To do that is to beg the question.

I can only prove I exist to myself, I can't to you.

Well, isn't that, at least, a relief? What if it were the other way around, and you could prove it only to others, but not to yourself? You would be constantly nagging everyone for the proof. What a pain that would be!