Axl: Thanks for the logic trail; I think I understand your position better now. However
, I still disagree. Here's why:
You exist. Since all created things have a creator, there was someone who created you. Because of the biologic drive to protect one's species, these creators would have stayed around while you developed.
Who has been present throughout your development? Your parents. So, we know your parents exist as well.
Starting off from that jump point, anyone your parents talked to that you could both see has to exist also, so add everyone you and your parents have ever met to the list of people who exist.
Then, use the same jump point for all the people who your family has met. Who have they
met? This train continues indefinitely.
This being said, however, I completely acknowledge a few logical gaps. What if you were schizophrenic, and the instant you were born, you imagined everybody, and your true parents are really visiting their crazy daughter in an asylum as she imagines a world full of imaginary people, including fake parents who look nothing like her real parents?
What if we lived in the matrix, and it was all a lie?
Those are all perfectly logical points, and I applaud you for bringing them up.
I cant see inside your mind, so how do I know you exist?
If you think about this then you will find it makes sense. In fact, if you cant even contemplate this theory, then what are you doing on a philosophy board? (cinnthesia, zane)
This statement epitomizes the problems with this train of thought, though. While you are right in thinking that you cannot, to a perfect, empirical, 100% objective truth, prove that anyone else exists...you also cannot prove they don't
exist. That was the crux of my argument. In the end, while you can doubt the nature of your existence(and of God's, since you brought that up), and that questioning is very healthy(keeps you open to alternative ideas), you cannot prove either side.
Have I proved myself as a "true philosopher" now? :wink: