Can One believe And Not Exist?

and that's exactly what should happen when you attempt to entice an argument from a postion your opponent has not claimed. They should simply refuse to represent that position you have attempted to place on them, since it is not their position.
 
But since that's what you predicted would happen, i guess you already "knew" that was going to happen... which makes me wonder why you'd go to the trouble of such a futile and arbitrary tactic.

 

How can one have a rational argument with you when you always toss strawmans around ?

 

 
I don't think it targets anything specific but I assume many people of faith would take it as an insult.

 

 
You denying that his reasoning has valid foundation, does not invalidate that foundation.
 
His first response to your question, was a critique of that question... and you proceeded to attempt to frame that critique as a position he hadn't taken, and then insisted he produce an argument from the position you defined for him. So, expecting him to refuse to produce an argument from a position you generated for him, was a good expectation. Although it seems your "i knew it" was actually cynicism, due to having expected the opposite of what you sarcastically claimed to have expected... as if you actually expected someone else to argue from the position you provide for them, despite that definition being incompatible with their own.
 
But you have a point (which is part of what Descartes was expressing): there must be a mutual realm of agreeable definitions, a common starting point, from which rational discourse may begin. Otherwise, it's not going to work very well.
 
Descartes was saying "in order for us to have rational discourse about existence, we must first agree that we exist. I think i exist, so let's go with that."
 
I don't think it's irrational to assume we exist... but we should be careful how we define "exist," as well as how we define what we believe ourselves, and others, to be.
 
 
edit: and i've seen far too much of people not being careful with their definitions of various things (and non-things).

 

Well since belief isn't anything that's real you can't really make this certain truth, belief, reality are all subjective, so this whole question is kind of answerless because it is too ambigious.
 
Well I believe what you say is true. I don't believe I exist in the sense I am a human body. The human body is just something I use as a carry of the concious being that I believe I am. I use this body to contact other conciuos beings that I believe may possibly exist: I cannot prove anyone exist. I also cannot prove that I exist so I just go with phrase a certain philosopher of French descent said ,which is "I think therefore I am". If I can't prove I exist doesn't state whethere I exist or not, and what I believe in this matter does not matter in the end so I will not become a man searching for endless answers. I know I can continue to live so I will. I know I come in contact with things i cannot control, which are other human beings and the enviroment. I know I can ask questions and look for answers. Though most importantly, I know I a finite time to reside in this human body so I want to use that time wisely and leave a memorable footprint in the made measurement that other humans call time.

 

i would suggest that all human judgment is fallible, but that some are sharper and more refined than others.
 
I believe we are real, and we do exist... but... well, in short, we could all be wrong. There's a slim chance, but it's still a chance, so we should be careful with absolutes, especially in philosophy.
 
Some things can be said to be self-evident, and for the most part, we can say our own existence is indeed self-evident... but to apply that same reasoning, that same logical formula, we can prove that the formula itself is flawed, even if it has shown to produce an acceptable result on the topic of existence.
 
We can say "i think i am real, therefore i must be real."
 
That's acceptable, and seems right.
 
But if we change it, plug in a different topic, the formula breaks, as thus:
 
"i think i am dead, therefore i must be dead."
 
I know that seems a bit absurd, but the point is that the formula can break if you plug in other factors besides "existence."
 
I could think any number of bizarre things, and just thinking those things does not make them true.
 
However, if i think something that is true, then such a statement cannot necessarily be refuted, due to the belief in self-evident truth, which involves the belief that our phanerons are accurate enough to allow us to experience "reality" directly and purely enough, to determine, just by observation, whether a thing is or isn't true.
 
But then you have the problem of people abusing that particular condition, and insisting that something is true, despite it not being observable by anyone else, aside from those people who agree to insist they have observed something that cannot be tested (aka theists).

 

the person either exists or doesn't exist... regardless of what or whether they believe.
 
I will grant that "something" must exist, in order for an entity that believes itself to be "a person," to believe itself to exist.
 
But a non-thing, non-person, non-physical-entity, could also "exist," right?
 
Do ideas "exist?" Does a mind "exist?" Mind is not tangible, many would argue a mind is not even observable... so if "all is mind," then do we even really exist at all? Is reality real? Or not? And if reality can be said to be different enough from what we believe it is, then do "we" exist? Or does something else exist, resulting in "we" believing ourselves to be real?
 
It's quite a deep question, and most would default to the easy assumption. In the easy assumption, sure, we have to first exist, before we can anything else. Kinda like i was saying the other day in the "preeminence of mind" thread. Seems like you're arguing the opposite of what effy was saying, even though you seemed to side with effy in that thread.
 
If mind is preeminent, we don't really exist. ^^
 
 
Edit: and i'll thank you to adjust your assertion to "counter-obfuscation." I'm no obfuscator.

 

 
If mind were preeminent, we could cease to exist, or even "un-exist," by simply believing we don't.
 
 
edit: orrr... we could even say that because matter cannot be effortlessly reconfigured to our whim by sheer will, that we don't actually exist... unless mind is not preeminent.