Michael

Except it isn't the case, and so isn't true. The planets and the Sun all revolve around the Solar System's barycenter (which, incidentally, sometimes ...

I'd argue that being red is not much different to being tasty. It's a relational category. The difference is that one is a product of us interacting w...

By definition? I don't know if it being a relational category is known a priori. Isn't it an a posteriori determination? I'd say that it falls into th...

I'd agree that it isn't true, but only because I don't like liquorice (and so it isn't true for me). I don't know why you'd think it not truth-apt. It...

I don't think I agreed that. I only responded by saying that the "for me" part is what distinguishes a subjective truth from an objective truth. If a ...

Yes, but "I like liquorice" and "liquorice is tasty" are not the same proposition. The former says something about you and the latter says something a...

I think a lot of the time there's this unconscious (or conscious) commitment to essentialism, and people want to know what this "essence" is. Other ti...

I don't think so. There's a difference between "X is true (or false) for everyone" and "X can't be true for some and false for others". For example, i...

Yes?

I'd say that objective truths are those truths that aren't subjective truths. So, "liquorice is tasty" can be true for some but not for others, and so...

I think that's all it really means to be subjectively true. That it's true for someone. Whereas you wouldn't say "light is faster than sound for me (b...

As I predicted it appeared after someone else posted. It seems to be that it believed there to be only 9 pages when in fact there should have been 10.

We know that inflation began at some point, but not that the infinitely hot, infinitely massive initial singularity had a beginning. If you lose the p...

The problem will be with the second premise. The cosmological argument assumes that the universe isn't an eternal thing. One might also argue against ...

What is the whole point of the argument? That it contradicts itself? Then the argument fails. It's very simple.

Wayfarer, you're clearly in denial and wasting my time. The cosmological argument contradicts itself. It can't use as a premise "everything has a begi...

I was addressing Metaphysician Undiscovered's formulation of the argument here, where he says "all things have a beginning".

The universe. Furthermore, if you want to argue that the universe must have a beginning because everything has a beginning then you're back to the cos...

Actually, the problem was with the claim "all things have a beginning".

This post isn't showing. Appears in my recent comments list and still shows me as the latest post in the discussion info. It'll probably appear when s...

None of that changes the fact that something must be the fundamental thing from which macroscopic objects are composed. It might be fermions, it might...

Yes, and I've shown that the cosmological argument fails.

If the Standard Model is correct then bosons and fermions. If superstring theory is correct then superstring. Another theory suggests quantum foam. Re...

Your attempt to avoid is obvious. The fundamental things that make up the universe are not compounded. Therefore, if non-compounded things do not have...

So, like the fundamental waves/particles(/superstrings/whatever) that make up the universe? They're not composed of anything. Therefore, if non-compou...

Can you give me an example of a non-compounded thing (whatever that's supposed to mean)?

To avoid an infinite regress. If everything that has a beginning has a cause and if this proposed God has a beginning then it has a cause. What caused...

Perhaps to distinguish between something like "light is faster than sound" and "liquorice is tasty". The former is said to be objectively true and the...

I came over to get away from Hanover. Oh no! That was mean. I stand by it.

I believe they solicit them on street corners.

Regarding the link, I find that kind of semantic quibbling to be empty. What's the significance in saying "God is, but God doesn't exist" or something...

Making babies without eggs may be possible, say scientists Also, eggs fertilised without sperm Guess that means we're all expendable.

Which is what? That there's a beginningless, uncaused cause, i.e. God? That contradicts the initial premise that everything has a beginning (and so a ...

I wonder how long till blueblood finds his way here. We're lacking in the "white people were used as shoe leather" posts.

No, he's totally serious.

What makes such things supernatural as opposed to unexplained natural phenomena?

This is wrong. Pointing out what is entailed by someone else's position is a big part of arguing against that position. Realists might argue that idea...

Once again I can see this going nowhere, so let's stop.

No, entailment is one proposition following from one or more others according to the rules of logic.

Yes, it's irrelevant if I believe that it entails that but it's not irrelevant if it does entail that. And I'm trying to show you that it does. Given ...

It's a commitment to a particular kind of relationship between what we see and what there (objectively) is, which entails a particular account of trut...

Because you're just one person. A long-standing Wikipedia article on a major philosophical issue is more likely to accurately describe the view as it ...

Well, here's an article on naive realism. It describes it as I've described it (see the section "Theory"). So it's not just about what I think naive r...

I've already gone over that. If the apple you see and it being red is perception independent then the truth of "there is a red apple" is perception-in...

I'd say that to call yourself a naive realist but to not claim that the objects we perceive and the properties we perceive them to have are perception...

Sure. You can believe that the world is nothing but subjective sense-data but nonetheless call yourself a naive realist. Or you can believe in God but...

I thought that you were saying that my characterisation of naive realism was incorrect, and asked me to defend it. I then referred back to our previou...

I explained in the twice-previous post the relationship between naive realism and truth. If there being a red apple is perception-independent (a requi...

I tried that but it didn't get anywhere as you refused to address the pertinent question. I'm not going through all that again.

As I've already explained, the naive realist view is that, in the veridical case, the objects we see and the properties we see them to have are percep...