That depends on your Metaphysical model. In order to prove your existence, you have to accept the following premises as axioms:

1. Existence exists (there exists something objective, which is tangible). 2. All sensory perception refers to actual existence.

If you accept these two premises, then proving your existence is simple: you perceive yourself.

P1: I perceive "myself." P2: All perception refers to "existence." C1: "Myself" is within "existence." P3 (C1): "Myself is within "existence." P4: "Existence" exists. C2: "Myself" exists.

If you do not accept those axioms, then I don't think that you can prove your own existence (Descart notwithstanding). BUT you CAN prove that the statement "I do not exist" is an intellectual dead-end. Perception is the only thing we have going for us in terms of determining what is and isn't real. If we cannot lean on our own perceptions, then we have literally nothing to go on. If you don't exist, then your perceptions don't refer to anything; in which case you cannot posit anything at all.

You cannot disprove "I do not exist," but you can prove that it is a vacuous statement.

That presupposes that your pain exists.

Not that it matters. If you don't exist, then all discussion reduces to chasing your own tail.

I am willing to accept the axiom that my perceptions correspond to something in reality.

What seems to follow from that is that I exist.

Even God develops.

But at the end of the day, saying "Newton's Laws are not absolute!" doesn't them any less relevant, if you know what I mean.

I never thought of it that way.

I guess it's sort of obvious, though. Sure explains why all the thinkers' level of insanity seems to correlate directly to the number of "facts" that are available.

Peter Kinnon wrote:Descartes has presumed the existence of language and of logic and the validity of this logic.

So then, you do not "presume the existence of logic?"

...Fair enough, I guess.