[Case] > the statement: "Nothing can be shown to exist independent of humans" is fraught with problems....it implies at best a kind of naive idealism. [Craig] So, you've switched your position from the tautology implying solipsism to its implying naive idealism. But your problem remains, if naive idealism is implied by a tautology, why isn't it true? Consider the following: 1) Nothing exists other than me. (Solipsism) 2) Nothing exists other than humans. (Naive Idealism) 3) Nothing other than me can be shown to exist. (External World Skepticism) 4) No humans other than me can be shown to exist. (Other Minds Skepticism) 5) Nothing can be shown to exist independent of humans. 6) Nothing can be shown to exist, unless it could be shown for humans. 7) Nothing exists, unless it could exist for humans. 5) does not imply any of 1) - 4). 5) is ambiguous between 6) & 7).
[Case] What is with the number lists? Are they supposed to mean something? Is "naïve idealism" actually a school of thought? Who knew? The statement is rubbish however you label or number 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/
