bmwguy
New Member
Here's my Philosophy on "The Non-Exsistance of Proof":
"What", I ask, "is Proof?" Proof is (at least in my Reality) not a sensible essence. Meaning, Proof's existence cannot be proved by any of our senses (taste, hearing, touch, seeing, smell, etc.). It is nothing more than that which we create it to be. Proof has; however, managed to permeate into Common-Reality, and thus, is generally accepted. Excluding God, Proof is arguably the only thing that has no essence at all, and yet, is still believed by the populace to exist. PROOF DOES NOT EXSIST! You may be outraged at such a bold claim, but consider this: can you prove that the last person you saw was really a true, living/breathing/rational human-being, and not a hallucination of your own mind? The carefully thought-out answer to my question would always be the same: NO. The only way to answer, "Yes" to my question would be to deny the existence of any and all forms of hallucinations (let alone supernatural-phenomena caused by God). True, the existence of proof is "relative" to each individual's own Reality. But if this is the case, then I argue that Proof has lost its esteemed purpose. For what good is it to try to "prove" that paper comes from trees when your Reality states that all paper is a synthetic substance?
Proof; however, does exist in one sense: the ability to prove one's own existence. Such a concept was contemplated as far back (in history) as the 1700s' by Rene Descartes. Descartes' Philosophy was (at its core) quite simple: "Cogito Ergo Sum". "I Think; Therefore, I Am". In order to even contemplate the question, "Do I Exist?", one must first exist to begin with. This, to me, is the only logical form of proof. Everything else may be probable, but never provable.
Finally, Does anything at all really need to be proved. I'd answer such a question with an emphatic, "NO!". I can live my life in light of the fact that I will never be able to prove that anyone (or anything) exists. Most things do exist. But their existence is not contingent on whether or not it (it's existence) is provable.
Stephen K. Donnelly
"What", I ask, "is Proof?" Proof is (at least in my Reality) not a sensible essence. Meaning, Proof's existence cannot be proved by any of our senses (taste, hearing, touch, seeing, smell, etc.). It is nothing more than that which we create it to be. Proof has; however, managed to permeate into Common-Reality, and thus, is generally accepted. Excluding God, Proof is arguably the only thing that has no essence at all, and yet, is still believed by the populace to exist. PROOF DOES NOT EXSIST! You may be outraged at such a bold claim, but consider this: can you prove that the last person you saw was really a true, living/breathing/rational human-being, and not a hallucination of your own mind? The carefully thought-out answer to my question would always be the same: NO. The only way to answer, "Yes" to my question would be to deny the existence of any and all forms of hallucinations (let alone supernatural-phenomena caused by God). True, the existence of proof is "relative" to each individual's own Reality. But if this is the case, then I argue that Proof has lost its esteemed purpose. For what good is it to try to "prove" that paper comes from trees when your Reality states that all paper is a synthetic substance?
Proof; however, does exist in one sense: the ability to prove one's own existence. Such a concept was contemplated as far back (in history) as the 1700s' by Rene Descartes. Descartes' Philosophy was (at its core) quite simple: "Cogito Ergo Sum". "I Think; Therefore, I Am". In order to even contemplate the question, "Do I Exist?", one must first exist to begin with. This, to me, is the only logical form of proof. Everything else may be probable, but never provable.
Finally, Does anything at all really need to be proved. I'd answer such a question with an emphatic, "NO!". I can live my life in light of the fact that I will never be able to prove that anyone (or anything) exists. Most things do exist. But their existence is not contingent on whether or not it (it's existence) is provable.
Stephen K. Donnelly