[Micah] > Nothing can be shown to exist independent of humans. [Case] > You are advocating some weird brand of solipsism. [Craig previously] > What is the argument for this claim? E.g.,: > 1) Nothing can be shown to exist independent of humans > 2) No other humans can be shown to exist independent of me > 3) :. Nothing can be shown to exist independent of me
[Case] > Actually with solipsism only number three is needed. Yes, if you're just CALLING someone a solipsist, nothing but 3) is needed. But your claim was that 3) followed from Micah's 1). So I ask: where's your argument, if it is not 1) - 3)? [Case] > Micah's statement, "Nothing can be shown to exist independent of humans," is > perhaps a tautology since the showing of existence requires someone to show > it to. [Craig] Now you've really stepped in it. Originally you presented a reductio argument: a) if 1) then 3) b) 3) is false (because solipsism is false) c) :. 1) is false [Case] I've stepped in it? This was your trail of droppings not mine. I believe I called your "easy as 1, 2, 3" formulation whopper jawed. But Micah's statement is a tautology in its own right. [Craig] Now you're stuck with: a) 1) leads to 3) b) 1) is a tautology c) :. 3) is true (solipsism is true) [Case] I'm stuck with it? As it gets piled deeper I may be stuck in it. But just out of curiosity are you defending Micah here or is there a point of your own you would like to make? Because if there is a point of your own in here some place maybe you could start over and we could discuss it. moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
