Absolutely NOTHING can be proven except the existence on one's self?

Answer 1

By claiming that "only I exist" one makes an assertion that entails that perception of an absolute reality is impossible, because only concepts of the consciousness exist. The mechanism of perception is self evident, but the "only I exist" solipsist interpretation believes that an object of perception is totally illusory. On the other hand, the solipsist must realize that perception is given BY perceptual stimuli. Thus there is a contradiction. Solipsism is inherently flawed because it attempts to redefine reality as an illusion. Reality is self evident, not ad-hoc.

Answer 2

Interesting argument. I would say that atheists and theists are irrational to the same extent. To believe firmly that something does or does not exist without any proof whatsoever is irrational. By the way, the colors in nature can, in fact, be explained by evolution. The bright colors of flowers are meant to catch the eye of, and attract animals to either eat the plants fruit and therefore spread its seeds or attract an insect, such as a bee, to pollinate it or spread its own pollen. Flamingos are pink, not because it is advantageous, but because of what they eat. The algae and crustaceans that they eat contain pigments called carotenoids which cause the orange and pink color you see on a flamingo. I think a better argument to make would have been the large, decorative tails of the male peacock which makes them much slower and therefore easier for predators to catch. The only explanation for their large tails is that it is used to attract mates and that males with bigger tails must be stronger and better at flying because they have all that extra weight. You have to remember that evolution isn't who survives, its who can survive long enough to mate. The only truly rational religious view is that of the agnostic, which is I don't know if god exists and you don't either.

Answer 3

If nothing can be proven except the existence on one's self, then can you prove the non-existence on everything but the self?

Answer 4

Cogito Ergo Sum....
But that's only from a philosophical viewpoint. No, I can't prove to you that I'm writing this, but somehow, I take it on faith, you believe you're reading it.

If we go with the viewpoint that the only reality that exists is in our mind, then we have no reason to do the things we do, such as eating or procreating.

I'll keep eating and interacting with what I believe are people. Remember, that when Rene Descartes said the above statement, that was a starting point, not the end of his line of reasoning.

Answer 5

After a combined total of 38 hours I can prove the existence of 4 children I gave birth to.

Answer 6

Not even that, the closest is "I think therefore I am" which is completely self-referential.

The best we can do is test our assumptions of the world with evidence. If it works, it works, if it doesn't it doesn't.

That places mathematics and science closest to the truth - from repeated testing, we find consistency (if not proof).

Religion sits at the other end - evidence and testing consistently conclude its assumptions are wrong.

So, what do people perceive as the "truth" - you got it!

Answer 7

Place a needle in an upright position in a cork or fruit. Bring you finger down on the needle and exert pressure. There will quicling be proof of the needles existance.

Answer 8

Of course, but in the end you just have to guess with everything else, don't you? Things would be pretty boring if we just sat around thinking about our own existence until we stop existing.

Answer 9

OK, so prove YOU exist. I say that you are a figment of my imagination. Prove you are not.

Answer 10

And when you pr oven yourself,whats been pr oven?Can you say were your identity or memory's are? the brain researchers cant.