Humans cannot prove anything other than their own existence.

So the idea is that I, as a Human Being, cannot prove anything beyond my own existence. First, I present the definitions of certain things: Human: http://dictionary.reference.com... Being: http://dictionary.reference.com... Existence: http://dictionary.reference.com... So Being = existence = continuance of being or life = human. Basically what you are saying is that I can't prove that you exist. I also can't prove the earth is round, or that grass is green, or that there is a God (well, God doesn't exist). So how can I win against you at all if I can't even prove anything existence? I'll tell you. Look at the words I have posted above this line. Actually, look at the words all over this page. ACTUALLY, look at all the words and pictures everywhere. What are they? I'll tell you. They are definitions. Of what? Of things. For example, when I type grass, you see green leaves spurting from the ground. When I type blue, you see the color blue. When I type your mom, you see your mom (unless she died during your birth). What gives me the power to make you look at these things? In other words, how come when I type a word, you see it, or you question it? Because we, as Human Beings, have defined things ourselves. Grass is grass. Blue is blue. Your mom is your mom. Why? Because when the formation of language began, we had to differentiate ourselves from the just beings at the same time. We had to take our Homo Sapien selves, and turn us into Homo Sapien Sapien (A "thinking thinking man"). In other words, we not only have the ability to think, but we have the ability to question our own existence. Now how does that work? How can I prove that the grass is green? Because us Humans have defined it so. The grass is green because I said so, and you said so, and thousands of said so. It isn't a controversial issue. It's a form of life that cannot understand itself, so we decide for it that it can be what it is . . . grass. How do I know the earth is round? Because I have defined round for myself, along with the agreeance of many others, and we have seen pictures of the earth taken far away, and we have decided that it is round. Why? Because we said so. So what's one of the major ways we define more than our own existence? Well if we had the ability to define our own existence, and think for ourselves, along with every other person on this planet in the past 50 billion whatever years, then I think we have the ability not only to define existence of ourselves, but of others. Why do you exist? Because you are similar to me. You can think like I do. You are living. You not only think, but you question me. If I opened up you and me I am sure we would see the same body parts. Now time for me to take a look at your points: "We, as humans, experience the world through our senses. Our senses are fallible. So, we actually don't know anything, everything that we think we know is actually based on varying degrees of belief (which puts thinking the grass in green on the same level as bigfoot and ghosts)." You assume we know nothing because our senses are capable of mistakes? What mistakes are these? Are they mistakes by the senses or mistakes by what the mind perceives the senses to be? I am just wondering how you go to the conclusion that our senses are "fallible". I think what you are trying to say is, and correct me if I am wrong, but what you are trying to say is that our senses are our experiences as in I can see, smell, taste, touch, hear the sand blowing. But how do we know that the sand is really sand and how to we know if it is blowing? Well, we have defined it that way. We defined sand. We defined blowing. We did not create it, but we saw it and attached it to words and definitions that WE understand, and that YOU place your own existence upon. "The only things humans can prove is that we exist, however, we cannot prove the existence of anyone other than our self. I think therefore I am. It means, that in order to be thinking about my own existence, something must be thinking. That thing must be me, so, therefore, I exist." I think you are wrong. Why? Because I also think. I just questioned your motives on what you were saying. Besides, what am I if I do not exist? Am I just here? If I traveled to your house and you saw me, what would you say I am? Without existence, what am I? "Every other person in the world other than ourself might just be figments of our imagination." But imagination is of the mind. If I slap you in the face, you might think differently. Although you might say that the pain would be of the mind, it is not. The thought of the pain in which we define it is, but not the pain itself. The pain exists. The thought of the pain exists. Therefore, it exists, because we have defined it as so. Think of it this way, you have defined your own existence with "I think, therefore I am". Someone who thought that up must also exist, because you are using it for your argument of existence. That person would be Rene Descartes. And he defined his existence not by that simple saying, but by many things. Through thoughts and words and definitions, and experiences. You yourself have admitted to experiences. What's the point of experience if it isn't real? And if you are the only one that exists, and everyone else is nothing, then why not just kill yourself, because you have no reason to exist other than to exist, which doesn't make any sense to you. Now, please I ask, do not say bullsh** such as "I have refuted my opponents argument, therefore I am wIINNINGNGNGN!!!!" It makes you look stupid.