Total Posts:49|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

We cannot know if we exist

Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 10:41:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
How do we know we exist? We don't, we simply assume that our senses give us truth, but knowledge is gained by logical deduction or induction from certain axioms.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 10:48:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Nah, what's in front of us is what's in front of us, it's what's behind what's in front of us that we can never certainly (or perhaps "logically") know.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 12:01:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 10:41:36 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
How do we know we exist? We don't, we simply assume that our senses give us truth, but knowledge is gained by logical deduction or induction from certain axioms.

You said we cannot know we exist because we naively assume that "our" senses give us truth. However, if there exists such things as "our" senses then that necessarily entails that "we" exist. Therefore, your own post presupposes that you know we exist lol
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 3:40:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 12:01:00 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 9/7/2014 10:41:36 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
How do we know we exist? We don't, we simply assume that our senses give us truth, but knowledge is gained by logical deduction or induction from certain axioms.

You said we cannot know we exist because we naively assume that "our" senses give us truth. However, if there exists such things as "our" senses then that necessarily entails that "we" exist. Therefore, your own post presupposes that you know we exist lol

that's IF there exists such a thing. I'm just assuming there is.
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 3:41:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 10:53:57 AM, XLAV wrote:
"I think, therefore I am"
- Rene Descartes

If thinking implies existence, you already assumed that you exist by thinking, hence circular reasoning.
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 3:43:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 1:03:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
How do you know that "we cannot know if we exist". On what is this based?

Simply because anything that we reason about our natural senses is circular reasoning. There is theoretical knowledge and what some call "awareness", but most of awareness is simply logic based on assumptions without evidence.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 3:50:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 3:43:13 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 9/7/2014 1:03:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
How do you know that "we cannot know if we exist". On what is this based?

Simply because anything that we reason about our natural senses is circular reasoning. There is theoretical knowledge and what some call "awareness", but most of awareness is simply logic based on assumptions without evidence.

How is that not self-refuting?
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 3:55:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 3:50:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/7/2014 3:43:13 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 9/7/2014 1:03:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
How do you know that "we cannot know if we exist". On what is this based?

Simply because anything that we reason about our natural senses is circular reasoning. There is theoretical knowledge and what some call "awareness", but most of awareness is simply logic based on assumptions without evidence.

How is that not self-refuting?

Think about the goals of science, logic, and philosophy, what are they trying to accomplish? Knowledge about how the world works and what it consists of. Philosophers have been debating the concept of existence for years and i think we can never know that we exist because the very 1st thing we do when we're born is start with the assumption that we exist.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 4:35:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
We cannot know if we exist. I do and I know it. It's your problem if you can't decide or figure out if you exist. Yours and yours alone.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 5:10:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 4:35:20 PM, sadolite wrote:
We cannot know if we exist. I do and I know it. It's your problem if you can't decide or figure out if you exist. Yours and yours alone.

How do you know?
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 6:10:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 5:10:42 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 9/7/2014 4:35:20 PM, sadolite wrote:
We cannot know if we exist. I do and I know it. It's your problem if you can't decide or figure out if you exist. Yours and yours alone.

How do you know?

That's easy, don't pay your bills.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 6:19:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 6:10:05 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/7/2014 5:10:42 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 9/7/2014 4:35:20 PM, sadolite wrote:
We cannot know if we exist. I do and I know it. It's your problem if you can't decide or figure out if you exist. Yours and yours alone.

How do you know?

That's easy, don't pay your bills.

Not understanding..
numberwang
Posts: 1,917
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 6:24:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 10:41:36 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
How do we know we exist? We don't, we simply assume that our senses give us truth, but knowledge is gained by logical deduction or induction from certain axioms.

Basal assumptions, google them.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 6:34:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 6:19:41 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 9/7/2014 6:10:05 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/7/2014 5:10:42 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 9/7/2014 4:35:20 PM, sadolite wrote:
We cannot know if we exist. I do and I know it. It's your problem if you can't decide or figure out if you exist. Yours and yours alone.

How do you know?

That's easy, don't pay your bills.

Not understanding..

It makes perfect sense that you don't understand from my perspective. Can't make it any simpler than that. Can't help you on this one. You're on your own. Good luck with that not knowing if you exist thing.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 6:51:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 6:34:09 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/7/2014 6:19:41 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 9/7/2014 6:10:05 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/7/2014 5:10:42 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 9/7/2014 4:35:20 PM, sadolite wrote:
We cannot know if we exist. I do and I know it. It's your problem if you can't decide or figure out if you exist. Yours and yours alone.

How do you know?

That's easy, don't pay your bills.

Not understanding..

It makes perfect sense that you don't understand from my perspective. Can't make it any simpler than that. Can't help you on this one. You're on your own. Good luck with that not knowing if you exist thing.

Okay.. Well if I don't pay my bills, im still assuming that anything outside of myself exists without actually knowing so??
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 7:07:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 3:41:28 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 9/7/2014 10:53:57 AM, XLAV wrote:
"I think, therefore I am"
- Rene Descartes

If thinking implies existence, you already assumed that you exist by thinking, hence circular reasoning.

Circular reasoning is logically valid, and so if the premise "I think" is true then it must necessarily follow that the conclusion "I exist" is true. The alternative is that the premise "I think" can be true while "I exist" is false, but you've just acknowledged that this cannot be the case by claiming that "I think" presupposes "I exist". Hence you must show that the premise "I think" is false, but this is clearly absurd since we are using thought to assess the soundness of Descartes' argument and whether it is possible to know if one exists.
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 7:12:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 7:07:30 PM, Enji wrote:
At 9/7/2014 3:41:28 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 9/7/2014 10:53:57 AM, XLAV wrote:
"I think, therefore I am"
- Rene Descartes

If thinking implies existence, you already assumed that you exist by thinking, hence circular reasoning.

Circular reasoning is logically valid, and so if the premise "I think" is true then it must necessarily follow that the conclusion "I exist" is true. The alternative is that the premise "I think" can be true while "I exist" is false, but you've just acknowledged that this cannot be the case by claiming that "I think" presupposes "I exist". Hence you must show that the premise "I think" is false, but this is clearly absurd since we are using thought to assess the soundness of Descartes' argument and whether it is possible to know if one exists.

Circular reasoning is not valid. You can't use what you're trying to prove to prove it. You already defined existing as thinking.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 7:19:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 7:12:04 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 9/7/2014 7:07:30 PM, Enji wrote:
At 9/7/2014 3:41:28 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 9/7/2014 10:53:57 AM, XLAV wrote:
"I think, therefore I am"
- Rene Descartes

If thinking implies existence, you already assumed that you exist by thinking, hence circular reasoning.

Circular reasoning is logically valid, and so if the premise "I think" is true then it must necessarily follow that the conclusion "I exist" is true. The alternative is that the premise "I think" can be true while "I exist" is false, but you've just acknowledged that this cannot be the case by claiming that "I think" presupposes "I exist". Hence you must show that the premise "I think" is false, but this is clearly absurd since we are using thought to assess the soundness of Descartes' argument and whether it is possible to know if one exists.

Circular reasoning is not valid. You can't use what you're trying to prove to prove it. You already defined existing as thinking.

Descartes argument can be put simply as:
1. [I think] -> [I exist]
2. [I think]
3. :. [I exist]

This is classic modus ponens, which is a logically valid form of argumentation.

The alleged problem of circularity, which you note, is that the premise [I think] presupposes [I exist], but it's because of this circularity that Descartes is able to claim that [I think] implies [I exist], since the necessary alternative is that I think and I do not exist - which is absurd.

The question, then, is "Is the premise [I think] true?" And since you're asking this question and attempting to ascertain its truth, of course it must be. Therefore I can know that I exist.
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 7:33:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 7:19:04 PM, Enji wrote:
At 9/7/2014 7:12:04 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 9/7/2014 7:07:30 PM, Enji wrote:
At 9/7/2014 3:41:28 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 9/7/2014 10:53:57 AM, XLAV wrote:
"I think, therefore I am"
- Rene Descartes

If thinking implies existence, you already assumed that you exist by thinking, hence circular reasoning.

Circular reasoning is logically valid, and so if the premise "I think" is true then it must necessarily follow that the conclusion "I exist" is true. The alternative is that the premise "I think" can be true while "I exist" is false, but you've just acknowledged that this cannot be the case by claiming that "I think" presupposes "I exist". Hence you must show that the premise "I think" is false, but this is clearly absurd since we are using thought to assess the soundness of Descartes' argument and whether it is possible to know if one exists.

Circular reasoning is not valid. You can't use what you're trying to prove to prove it. You already defined existing as thinking.

Descartes argument can be put simply as:
1. [I think] -> [I exist]
2. [I think]
3. :. [I exist]

This is classic modus ponens, which is a logically valid form of argumentation.

The alleged problem of circularity, which you note, is that the premise [I think] presupposes [I exist], but it's because of this circularity that Descartes is able to claim that [I think] implies [I exist], since the necessary alternative is that I think and I do not exist - which is absurd.

The question, then, is "Is the premise [I think] true?" And since you're asking this question and attempting to ascertain its truth, of course it must be. Therefore I can know that I exist.

Making the argument "I think and I do not exist" doesn't strengthen his argument. What is thinking? Existing. What is existing? Thinking. Circular reasoning.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 7:42:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 7:33:44 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 9/7/2014 7:19:04 PM, Enji wrote:
At 9/7/2014 7:12:04 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 9/7/2014 7:07:30 PM, Enji wrote:
At 9/7/2014 3:41:28 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 9/7/2014 10:53:57 AM, XLAV wrote:
"I think, therefore I am"
- Rene Descartes

If thinking implies existence, you already assumed that you exist by thinking, hence circular reasoning.

Circular reasoning is logically valid, and so if the premise "I think" is true then it must necessarily follow that the conclusion "I exist" is true. The alternative is that the premise "I think" can be true while "I exist" is false, but you've just acknowledged that this cannot be the case by claiming that "I think" presupposes "I exist". Hence you must show that the premise "I think" is false, but this is clearly absurd since we are using thought to assess the soundness of Descartes' argument and whether it is possible to know if one exists.

Circular reasoning is not valid. You can't use what you're trying to prove to prove it. You already defined existing as thinking.

Descartes argument can be put simply as:
1. [I think] -> [I exist]
2. [I think]
3. :. [I exist]

This is classic modus ponens, which is a logically valid form of argumentation.

The alleged problem of circularity, which you note, is that the premise [I think] presupposes [I exist], but it's because of this circularity that Descartes is able to claim that [I think] implies [I exist], since the necessary alternative is that I think and I do not exist - which is absurd.

The question, then, is "Is the premise [I think] true?" And since you're asking this question and attempting to ascertain its truth, of course it must be. Therefore I can know that I exist.

Making the argument "I think and I do not exist" doesn't strengthen his argument. What is thinking? Existing. What is existing? Thinking. Circular reasoning.

If you wish to claim Descartes argument fails to prove its conclusion, then you have two options: (1) you must establish that the claim "I think and I do not exist" is true or plausible, or (2) you must establish that it's possible that the premise "I think" is false.

As I stated above, the claim "I think and I do not exist" is clearly false -- and you've acknowledged that it is false -- as is the negation of the premise "I think." Hence the conclusion must follow.

Secondly, according to the argument existing is not thinking; that's an example of affirming the consequent, which is deductively invalid.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 8:11:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 10:41:36 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
How do we know we exist? We don't, we simply assume that our senses give us truth, but knowledge is gained by logical deduction or induction from certain axioms.

The reason for knowing we exist is for the mere fact we know we don't exist. In other words, in order to know that which is not, we must know that which is. For illustration, I know that which is not me only because I know that which is me.
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 8:17:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 8:11:31 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 9/7/2014 10:41:36 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
How do we know we exist? We don't, we simply assume that our senses give us truth, but knowledge is gained by logical deduction or induction from certain axioms.

The reason for knowing we exist is for the mere fact we know we don't exist. In other words, in order to know that which is not, we must know that which is. For illustration, I know that which is not me only because I know that which is me.

That's also circular. Knowing what is not you doesn't imply you are aware of you self.
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 8:17:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 7:42:47 PM, Enji wrote:
At 9/7/2014 7:33:44 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 9/7/2014 7:19:04 PM, Enji wrote:
At 9/7/2014 7:12:04 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 9/7/2014 7:07:30 PM, Enji wrote:
At 9/7/2014 3:41:28 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 9/7/2014 10:53:57 AM, XLAV wrote:
"I think, therefore I am"
- Rene Descartes

If thinking implies existence, you already assumed that you exist by thinking, hence circular reasoning.

Circular reasoning is logically valid, and so if the premise "I think" is true then it must necessarily follow that the conclusion "I exist" is true. The alternative is that the premise "I think" can be true while "I exist" is false, but you've just acknowledged that this cannot be the case by claiming that "I think" presupposes "I exist". Hence you must show that the premise "I think" is false, but this is clearly absurd since we are using thought to assess the soundness of Descartes' argument and whether it is possible to know if one exists.

Circular reasoning is not valid. You can't use what you're trying to prove to prove it. You already defined existing as thinking.

Descartes argument can be put simply as:
1. [I think] -> [I exist]
2. [I think]
3. :. [I exist]

This is classic modus ponens, which is a logically valid form of argumentation.

The alleged problem of circularity, which you note, is that the premise [I think] presupposes [I exist], but it's because of this circularity that Descartes is able to claim that [I think] implies [I exist], since the necessary alternative is that I think and I do not exist - which is absurd.

The question, then, is "Is the premise [I think] true?" And since you're asking this question and attempting to ascertain its truth, of course it must be. Therefore I can know that I exist.

Making the argument "I think and I do not exist" doesn't strengthen his argument. What is thinking? Existing. What is existing? Thinking. Circular reasoning.

If you wish to claim Descartes argument fails to prove its conclusion, then you have two options: (1) you must establish that the claim "I think and I do not exist" is true or plausible, or (2) you must establish that it's possible that the premise "I think" is false.

As I stated above, the claim "I think and I do not exist" is clearly false -- and you've acknowledged that it is false -- as is the negation of the premise "I think." Hence the conclusion must follow.

Secondly, according to the argument existing is not thinking; that's an example of affirming the consequent, which is deductively invalid.

What are your definitions?
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 8:28:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 8:17:44 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
What are your definitions?
I'm not playing any word games, but here's some definitions.

To exist is to have objective reality or being (not necessarily to exist in a material sense).
To think is to use faculty of reasoning or understanding to question the world and assess knowledge.
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 8:35:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 8:28:38 PM, Enji wrote:
At 9/7/2014 8:17:44 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
What are your definitions?
I'm not playing any word games, but here's some definitions.

To exist is to have objective reality or being (not necessarily to exist in a material sense).
To think is to use faculty of reasoning or understanding to question the world and assess knowledge.

What do you mean?
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 9:01:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 8:35:36 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 9/7/2014 8:28:38 PM, Enji wrote:
At 9/7/2014 8:17:44 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
What are your definitions?
I'm not playing any word games, but here's some definitions.

To exist is to have objective reality or being (not necessarily to exist in a material sense).
To think is to use faculty of reasoning or understanding to question the world and assess knowledge.

What do you mean?

What do you mean what do I mean? What's unclear?

If an argument is sound, then it successfully proves its conclusion. A sound argument is a deductively valid argument where the premises are true. As I established above, the argument 'I think therefore I am' can be framed as a simple, valid modus ponens argument as follows:
1. [I think] -> [I exist]
2. [I think]
3. :. [I exist]

Since the argument is valid, if the premises are true then the conclusion must necessarily be true.

If premise 1. were false, then it must be the case that [I think] and not [I exist]. However, if I did not exist then it would not be possible for me to think; therefore premise 1. must be true. You concede that the implication here must be true when you state that thought presupposes existence.

If premise 2. were false, then I wouldn't be able to use the faculty of reasoning to assess the validity of this argument, or to determine whether the premises of the argument are true. If I doubt that I am thinking, then I affirm the truth that I am thinking. Hence premise 2. must be true.

The argument is valid and the premises are true, therefore the argument is sound and successfully proves "I exist".

As I mentioned previously, if this conclusion is false, then at least one of the premises must be false. You must defend "I think and I do not exist" or you must disprove the introspective evidence for "I think". Failing to do this, the argument stands.

Previously, you made the comment "What is thinking? Existing. What is existing? Thinking. Circular reasoning." This isn't an accurate representation of the argument. Thinking does entail existing, however existing does not entail thinking. Looking at the first premise, it's simple to see why this is case; I think therefore I exist is a valid form of argument, but I exist therefore I think is a converse error.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 9:04:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 9:01:16 PM, Enji wrote:
At 9/7/2014 8:35:36 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 9/7/2014 8:28:38 PM, Enji wrote:
At 9/7/2014 8:17:44 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
What are your definitions?
I'm not playing any word games, but here's some definitions.

To exist is to have objective reality or being (not necessarily to exist in a material sense).
To think is to use faculty of reasoning or understanding to question the world and assess knowledge.

What do you mean?

What do you mean what do I mean? What's unclear?

If an argument is sound, then it successfully proves its conclusion. A sound argument is a deductively valid argument where the premises are true. As I established above, the argument 'I think therefore I am' can be framed as a simple, valid modus ponens argument as follows:
1. [I think] -> [I exist]
2. [I think]
3. :. [I exist]

Since the argument is valid, if the premises are true then the conclusion must necessarily be true.

If premise 1. were false, then it must be the case that [I think] and not [I exist]. However, if I did not exist then it would not be possible for me to think; therefore premise 1. must be true. You concede that the implication here must be true when you state that thought presupposes existence.

If premise 2. were false, then I wouldn't be able to use the faculty of reasoning to assess the validity of this argument, or to determine whether the premises of the argument are true. If I doubt that I am thinking, then I affirm the truth that I am thinking. Hence premise 2. must be true.

The argument is valid and the premises are true, therefore the argument is sound and successfully proves "I exist".

As I mentioned previously, if this conclusion is false, then at least one of the premises must be false. You must defend "I think and I do not exist" or you must disprove the introspective evidence for "I think". Failing to do this, the argument stands.

Previously, you made the comment "What is thinking? Existing. What is existing? Thinking. Circular reasoning." This isn't an accurate representation of the argument. Thinking does entail existing, however existing does not entail thinking. Looking at the first premise, it's simple to see why this is case; I think therefore I exist is a valid form of argument, but I exist therefore I think is a converse error.

Doesn't the 'I' in 'I think' presuppose there is an 'I', and hence the argument begs the question, since it's trying to justify that there is an 'I' in the first place?
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 9:14:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 9:04:08 PM, Envisage wrote:
Doesn't the 'I' in 'I think' presuppose there is an 'I', and hence the argument begs the question, since it's trying to justify that there is an 'I' in the first place?

I mentioned above that the argument is circular (because as you state it begs the question, not for Truth_seeker's criticism which I addressed). However the argument is deductively valid. Since the argument is logically valid, if the argument fails to prove its conclusion then it must be the case that at least one of the premises is false. I'm claiming that both of the premises are true, so the argument is sound.