“The simple answer is that you couldn’t.

 

Go on try it – and if you’re serious about the matter and are honest in your arguments, logical reasoning and method, you will soon find yourself lost in interminable reasoning wrangles.

 

I say – that it is easier to prove the existence of God, than to prove your own reality.  

 

Why? - You can at least postulate God’s existence - accept that as a reasonable working hypothesis and then spend the rest of your life trying to prove or disprove it. 

 

Then you die – and you’re dead.

 

Is that evidence of your former ‘reality’ or ‘unreality?’

 

Well, that too is something, which would have to be examined – if you could - since you may find yourself, in a habitation - such as 'Heaven,' where such a pursuit was pointless - since with all the fun - paradise and all that - why bother? - You don't want to return back to your previous state do you? - Real or unreal.

 

Alternatively, you may find yourself in 'Hell' - where the proof of your reality, may not be permitted?  - As a "frivolous topic" - pointless - since you ain't going anywhere - and anyway - the unquenchable eternal flames - you feel - make your "new reality" - obvious.

​

If you're in neither 'Heaven' or 'Hell,' then you are in some kind of flux state - limbo - a changing state - so you now have also in addition that uncertainty, to contend with.

​

Anyway - the good thing is - where ever you end up - as a bonus - you would also hopefully, have an answer to the existence of God - does She / He / It exist?

 

However, in trying to prove your own reality – you could not use the God postulate / hypothesis argument above about proving that God exists.  This is the "strict position" - the rigorous one - and the above hypothesis, will not do as a starting point - although most of us ‘exist’ and ‘function’ on that basis – on that assumption - and look at the sorry state most of our lives are in. 

 

One “crisis” after another. 

 

It is as if someone, or something somewhere - was trying to assist us in our efforts, that our hypothesis - that we are real - is correct - and that we truly do exist – and that is so - because our lives are so miserable! - and we can "feel it."

 

What - to be ‘miserable’ is to be real?  - I’d rather take a “Punch in the mouth!”

 

The “Punch in the mouth!” argument – or, the “Slap in the face” - they are interchangeable – is really not an argument at all – but an act of terror!

 

It is generally used when someone, usually of a lower intelligence than the “Seeker Of Truth Inquirer” (SOTI) – (this is what this enquiry is all about, isn’t it?) - but not necessarily so - "the threatening assailant" ("the puncher") - has had enough.

 

“Wanna know - if you ’exist’ or not? - Cum'on ere an' lemme give you a punch in the mouth – then we can talk…..”

 

“I didn’t say ‘exist’- the question is – am I real or not? - it’s a different proposition.”

 

“Alright then, I’ll rephrase my offer - Wanna know if you’re ‘real’ or not Cum'on ere an' lemme give you a punch in the mouth – then we can talk…..”

 

“Why are you shouting? –

It does nothing to strengthen your argument….”

 

“Shouting, you haven’t heard SHOUTING!!!....”

 

“....Oi you two - CAN YOU SHUT THE FUCK UP!? - Can't you see - we're trying to do - some Therapy here………”