People often wonder...

if you can prove that you exist (some of my friends talk about this kinda stuff.) Anyway, I was thinking, and it's really simple to prove that you exist. Ok, can you prove that you DON'T exist? If you can't prove that you don't exist, then obviously, you must exist.

Am I right, or is this wrong?

Or, is it possible to prove that you don't exist?

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by kyle8921

If you can't prove that you don't exist, then obviously, you must exist.

Nope. Being unable to prove something doesn't imply the opposite.

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

Nope. Being unable to prove something doesn't imply the opposite.

Why not?

Hm...

Ok, let's say that "object A" is either an apple or a lemon. If you can prove that "object A" is not a lemon, then it must be an apple, being that it has to be one of those two, right?

[geokker]

I can't prove you've got a bomb in your pocket - doesn't mean you don't.

[Qfwfq]

Even better, Geokker:

I can't prove that you don't have a bomb in your pocket..............

Originally Posted by kyle8921

Ok, let's say that "object A" is either an apple or a lemon. If you can prove that "object A" is not a lemon, then it must be an apple, being that it has to be one of those two, right?

Correct, providing the aut-aut is certain, but you were talking about being unable to prove and not about having proven one of two complementary asserts.

[Tormod]

The short version is that it is impossible to prove the non-existence of anything because of limitations in the scientific model. We can only assume that things don't exist, we can't prove it.

Say for example I can imagine that a certain compound exists, but chemically it is not possible. Yet I can only show that, according to this and that law, it cannot exist. But it is not empirically possible to prove that it cannot exist *under every circumstance*.

[Boerseun]

... like the man said:

"Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence"

[bumab]

As for proving you exist, Descartes "I think... therefore I exist" statements is one of the most well defended statements in philosophy, from Meditations on First Philosophy

[Eclogite]

I heard an amusing variant of Descartes famous dictum on the radio earlier in the week. (For the majority of you not resident in or familiar with the UK, you need to know that Tesco is a very large chain of supermarkets.)
It was suggested that the correct philosophical take on existence was not Descartes' Cogito ergo sum: I think, therefore I am; but rather Tesco ergo sum, I shop therfore I am.

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by bumab

As for proving you exist, Descartes "I think... therefore I exist" statements is one of the most well defended statements in philosophy, from Meditations on First Philosophy

This is from the nitpicking department...but how would that help me prove that *you* exist?