Humans cannot prove anything other than their own existence.

"Since Uranus and Neptune are both cold planets, I define that this planet is also cold. My work gets published in textbooks and websites and it is pretty much soon understood that this new planet is cold. Well, 100 years later we actually find out that the blue and white atmosphere of this planet is actually water and clouds, and the average surface temperature is actually 150 degrees Fahrenheit. So, I defined something to be, does that make it right? No." Wrong. We define something if we have never known what it is before. For example, if the planet was COLD, then you would define it as COLD, but since it turns out it is hot, we define it as hot. We don't define it if we don't know what it is. But we know what grass is because we see it, we know what green is because we see it and have compared similar things to being green (such as living leaves). Your example is flawed mostly because it deals with a belief, not with a definition. You have no proof for the belief either. You simply say it is cold. Why? The mere fact that the planet is there in the first place proves its existence. "You have DEFINED it in your own personal world that believing in a God is flawed, otherwise, you would belief in God." Hahahaha, I never said this. I am an atheist, yes. I do not believe God exists. I think it is stupid to think he does. Does that mean my utopia in definition excludes religion? No. One very important thing in which I think is that if you are a Christian, then you believe God made everything. Including science, medicine, the ability to create and destroy life, technology, all things which people such as yourself are opposed to. The thing is most people don't believe this. So in my utopia that I have defined is there no religion? No. There's just a more logical idea behind existence. "Which so far, your only argument is that if we define something to be so, it is. Which is maybe the largest fallacious argument I've ever seen." Why is it fallacious? You do know you've just put a quality to something that doesn't exist (my argument), but you acknowledge it anyway. Yes, because WE (the dominant race, which has yet to be proven to be fallible) have the ability to do so. We HAVE TO define everything. Otherwise there would be chaos in confusion. Is that your perfect utopia? "It is impossible to define existence, so therefore nothing truly exists." We have the ability to decide our own fate, and we do this by defining everything around us. Including our own universe and everything in it. So if truly nothing exists to you, why don't you kill yourself, because nothing exists and therefore there is nothing to live for? You won't, because you know we exist. The thing you won't accept is that YOU have the power to define existence. You haven't. Nowhere do you define existence. You just say, "I think, therefore I am." That is not YOUR definition of existence. If existence is merely thinking, then why not define what thinking is? No? Why? Because I think (and know) that your arguments would fail miserably. I am thinking. Why? Because I am human, just as you have stated yourself. Scientists have had devices that could look at the chemical processes, stresses, and insides of the brain and the body. You say you think, and we can show that by the devices that we can put on your head, skull, and body. The same thing can happen to me. Science has shown existence. "The debate is not centered around belief, it is centered around proof." Then why do you answer my arguments with belief: 1. You believe human senses are fallible 2. You believe humanity itself is flawed 3. You believe the planet beyond Naptune and Uranus is cold You have centered your arguments around belief. The belief that you think, therefore you are. "Where is it illogical? Is it illogical that we can't achieve this God-like status? Well, isn't that a flaw? Meaning that humans are flawed, meaning that I've won this debate (sorta-kinda). How is it a logical fallacy? How can the truth be false? Cause all I'm telling is the truth, my opponent doesn't seem like he can handle it." Never heard of the call to perfection? No wonder you believe in God. Look it up. "Call to perfection". It is not a flaw that we can't achieve a God-like status. It all depends on your definition of God. In which if you had one, then it must exist. Let me just point out to everyone that he says he cannot prove anything exists, but he believes: Christian God, planets, humanity, mistakes, red and blue shirts, Rene Descartes, and his own self exist. I thought you just said that you cannot prove these exist? "The following link exposes just one of the flaws in our senses, sight to be specific." That is not a flaw. We see the same color, but our brain interprets it differently. Why? Because we have the ability to decide for ourselves. Optical illusions prove the ability that we have the mind to differentiate between things. They are meant to question us. Not a fallacy of the senses, but a realization of the thought process. "The opposite of being flawed is being perfect. My opponent argues that we are not flawed. Therefore, we must be perfect." Define perfect. Wait . . . you forgot again didn't you. You haven't define flawed or perfect. And why use the term we, if ‘we' are not the same (as in you exist and I don't)? Perfection is ideally different among many different people. I would go as far as to say that making mistakes is part of perfection. We cannot be perfection without making mistakes. "So, how can a flawed being come up with the perfect answer." I agree, how can you come up with the perfect answer lol "I mean, come on, definition is truth? Yeah right. VOTE PRO!!! Con admitted humans we're flawed, which allowed me to win. GIVE ALL 7 TO PRO!" Vote for everyone worshipping you and your lone existence? How can anyone vote for you if they don't exist? Definition IS truth. We have been given the ability by ourselves to do so. Truth doesn't even exist to you! Only you do. And if only you exist, thenw hat are you? Nothing? Since only you exist, but nothing else can be proven to exist, everything that makes you does not exist, and therefore you do not exist. That is the wrong way to go about it. You basically don't WANT to exist. May I point out my opponent NEVER defined existence. Neither did he show how our senses and how humanity is flawed. Two things which were KEY to his argument was never revealed by him. I had to define existence for him. Why did he not define it? Because he knew he would have a more difficult time contradicting the definition that humanity has put on existence. Existence is not merely, "I think, therefore I am." Even the saying itself did not imply that "only I know I think, therefore only I know that I exist." It implied that many people can think, therefore existence is wide-spread. On another note, why are we here if none of us can prove each other's existence? Why live? We are powerful entities. We have something to live for. Why get a job, or a wife, or love, or feel (or participate in a debate with me) if NOTHING exists? Another thing, if I was part of Republican95's imagination, and so were you, I am sure he wouldn't mind giving his address in the comment bar so we can go to his house and force him to drown himself. Because water doesn't exist right? So nothing bad would happen. Hell, bad doesn't exist either. Actually, the floor he walks on doesn't exist, right? HEAR ME everyone, for will define existence right here, right now: "Existence: the ability to live and think and decide on what specific objects, actions, ideas, and descriptions are and are not in a sense that defines everything." "I think, therefore I am." My opponent obviously did not THINK about his argument. Therefore, he must not exist and it would be pointless to vote for someone who doesn't exist. Vote for me :P