I can not prove that I exist.

It seems my opponent doesn't understand the simple nature of my argument. I'm also going to call her first paragraph out on a straw man (hopefully this was just her misunderstanding and not an intentional straw man of my argument). It is impossible to be mistaken about one's own existence. If we do not exist then we cannot be mistaken. To say that existence is not what it is, implies a contradiction. So, in short.... A = A Definition of exist from earlier: 1 a : to have real being whether material or spiritual b : to have being in a specified place or with respect to understood limitations or conditions To say that consciousness is not what it is, implies a contradiction. So, again in short.... B = B Definition of consciousness (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) 1 a : the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself b : the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact c : awareness; especially : concern for some social or political cause 2 : the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought : mind 3 : the totality of conscious states of an individual 4 : the normal state of conscious life 5 : the upper level of mental life of which the person is aware as contrasted with unconscious processes What my opponent is claiming is "circular reasoning" is not circular reasoning; it is self evident (they are axioms, which is why my opponent is confusing them with circular reasoning). It is A = A. Whatever thinks, exists, is self evident (logical axiom). To go against it would be to also go against the instantiation principle, which states: "Whatever has the property F, exists." "Proper logical flow of argument is that existence is already assumed or pre-supposed in order for thinking to occur," Philosopher Soren Kierkegaard. It all boils down to language. If my opponent does not agree that "existence exists" then she is committing a contradiction. If someone refuses to acknowledge this statement, all logical argument stops. For, if existence doesn't exist (all this means is, existence is what it is - like saying a chair is a chair, or red is red) - then nor does logic (which my opponent is attempting to use). If my opponent can not use logic, for it would not exist, then she has no argument. Basics that refute part one of my opponent's argument against me (and to clarify to her what type of reasoning I am using, as was her first question to me): "An axomatic concept is the identification of a primary fact of reality, which cannot be analyzed, i.e., reduced to other facts or broken into component parts. It is implicit in all facts and in all knowledge. It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced, which requires no proof or explanation, but on which all proofs and explanations rest." -- Ayn Rand My two axioms were Consciousness and Existence. On part two of my opponent's argument, that nothing can be proven: "One can study what exists and how consciousness functions; but one cannot analyze (or "prove") existence as such, or consciousness as such. These are irreducible primaries. (An attempt to "prove" them is self-contradictory: it is an attempt to "prove" existence by means of nonexistence, and consciousness by means of unconsciousness.)" -- Ayn Rand So, again, consciousness and existence are axioms. Existence exists. And as I stated before, the act of grasping that statement (of being able to think it) implies the two axioms I presented earlier: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness (which is the ability to perceive that which exists). Perceive (through my opponent's own source) 1 a : to attain awareness or understanding of b : to regard as being such 2 : to become aware of through the senses; especially : see, observe Thus, through the axioms of consciousness and existence, I can logically prove that I exist (which, to clarify for my opponent, a logical proof is - a formal series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else necessarily follows from it http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) Now for a quick argument against my opponent saying that nothing can be proven (though logical proofs exist... things CAN be unproven (like contradictions, etc) so this is rather strange of my opponent to say (that things can't be unproven or proven)): What my opponent has essentially said here is that she is subscribing to solipsism - but even those who believe solipsism do not deny that they have no proof of their own mind. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Easy enough. Regards, Vi