Recurring, but incorrect questions/arguments (part 1)

[Ruqx]

This is actually correct, but in the way it is asserted (which is as an argument against God’s existence, when actually it demonstrates that yes, there must be something always, and it is Him) it entirely misses the point of the question, and it totally obfuscates what is meant by “nothing.”

You misunderstood the whole point. This thread is NOT about God’s existence (or nonexistence) it is simply a critique of ONE argument frequently presented by some apologists.

The whole question revolves around the difference between an actual “object” and the concept about that “object”. No concept exists without a conscious being who is able to conceptualize, to form a mental image about the object. Of course we are able to create brand new concepts, which have nothing to do with the actual reality… and “nothing” is one of them. (Or a unicorn, or a leprechaun, or…) But just because we are able to imagine something, it will not “translate” into ontological existence.

Now the idea of Ipsum Esse Subistens (Being Itself Subsisting) should make some sense as a “definition” for God.

You cannot “define” something into existence by stipulating a few Latin words. Besides, the existence of God is totally irrelevant for the purposes of this thread.

 

[e_c]

You misunderstood the whole point. This thread is NOT about God’s existence (or nonexistence) it is simply a critique of ONE argument frequently presented by some apologists.

And I am critiquing your critique. You clearly aren’t a fan of that.

The whole question revolves around the difference between an actual “object” and the concept about that “object”. No concept exists without a conscious being who is able to conceptualize, to form a mental image about the object. Of course we are able to create brand new concepts, which have nothing to do with the actual reality… and “nothing” is one of them. (Or a unicorn, or a leprechaun, or…) But just because we are able to imagine something, it will not “translate” into ontological existence.

If you want to discuss the problem of universals (which I would bet good money you did not do 10 seconds of research on), then start a thread that asks exactly that question. You don’t understand what you’re stepping on. You think it’s crystal clear that a “concept” has such and such a relation to an “object,” but it is not. This is the problem that has been the driving question of philosophy since Thales.

You cannot “define” something into existence by stipulating a few Latin words. Besides, the existence of God is totally irrelevant for the purposes of this thread.

This is also not the first time I’ve seen that move - “you can’t define something into existence.” I would like to see that broken down into a syllogism, bit by bit. I don’t have confidence you (or anyone) could do that very well, since it is not what has happened. But this is beside the point.

You say this thread is not about God’s existence, except you are directly attacking a preamble to an argument for God’s existence with your own explicit label of “apology.” So it is, by association, about God’s existence. You may as well say the presidential election is not about foreign policy, or economics, or domestic affairs, but that it is about who we are putting in office.

 

[HelenRose]

1. Why is there something, rather than nothing?

Some people even consider it a “fundamental” question, and they like to point out (with some smug condescension) that atheism has no answer to this “problem”. But they simply did not think it through. “Nothing” is just a concept, not an ontological entity. The question, however, presumes that “nothing” could be a valid state of affairs, while nothing is the total, complete lack of existence. To presume that the lack of existence “could” exist is lunacy.

Usually it comes with an accompanying question:

1. Why do atheists say that something comes from nothing?

Of course they do not. In the atheist worldview the Universe simply exists. It requires no explanation, it did not “come” from anywhere, it just exists. It is the ontological foundation of existence. There is no “before” or “outside” the universe.

So to summarize: Atheists do NOT believe that something came out of nothing. They do NOT consider the question: “why is there something rather than nothing” a valid question.

Would it be possible to have a conversation without these (and similar) misconceptions? We both might gain some insight and learn something new.

What I would like to know from an atheist is what do they do with their profound sense of gratitude for the beauty of the night sky? It does no good to be grateful to a thing. A thing does not care. We can only express gratitude to a creator who is aware of His Creation and of us. “Oh, God, the stars are so beautiful tonight.”

But I suppose an atheist can feel gratitude even if there is no one to receive that gratitude. It seems to me to be a rather lonely experience.

 

[Ruqx]

You say this thread is not about God’s existence, except you are directly attacking a preamble to an argument for God’s existence with your own explicit label of “apology.”

To be precise, I am only criticizing (not attacking) ONE of the many attempts to establish God’s existence without resorting to “revelation”. This particular attempt fails due to erroneous confusion of the “nothing as concept” and the “nothing as an ontological entity”. And there is nothing problematic about this distinction.

By the way, I would appreciate if you used the feature correctly to separate the quoted text from your reply. I am not interested in digging out your answer, even if it is marked in red.

 

[Ruqx]

What I would like to know from an atheist is what do they do with their profound sense of gratitude for the beauty of the night sky?

Speaking for myself, I feel no “gratitude”. I find it quite nice, but I find the intricacies of Mandelbrot set even more captivating, even though it is only the manifestation of the iteration of a quadratic equation.

But it has nothing to do with the current topic. Let’s not deviate from it.

 

[balto]

To be precise, I am only criticizing (not attacking) ONE of the many attempts to establish God’s existence without resorting to “revelation”. This particular attempt fails due to erroneous confusion of the “nothing as concept” and the “nothing as an ontological entity”. And there is nothing problematic about this distinction.

I am not aware of any argument for God’s existence that assumes that nothingness is a substance with real existence. This has been pointed out to you by fisherman_carl and e_c, so you have spent nearly 2 pages of this thread burning strawmen.

Now then, a charitable reading of the maxim “from nothing nothing comes” is that things cannot exist without sufficient reason explaining their existence. It is an affirmation of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, which you denied here:

Questions cannot go to infinity. One must stop somewhere at an unexplained and unexplainable FACT (usually called “brute fact”). For believers this point is “God”. God is the “final” explanation. God needs no explanation. The question: “where did God come from?” or “why does God exist?” are meaningless questions for the believers. Their answer, if they are willing to contemplate such a question at all, would be: “God simply exists”.

Again this distinction has already been pointed out to you by others. Anybody who affirms the PSR denies that there are “unexplained and unexplainable facts.” So rather than criticizing an argument that your interlocutors are not advancing, how about criticizing the argument they actually are making?

 

[Ruqx]

I am not aware of any argument for God’s existence that assumes that nothingness is a substance with real existence.

It is not my fault if people don’t realize what they say. Even if they do not state explicitly that “nothing” exists, it follows from the argument, quoted verbatim in the OP.

Anybody who affirms the PSR denies that there are “unexplained and unexplainable facts.” So rather than criticizing an argument that your interlocutors are not advancing, how about criticizing the argument they actually are making?

Because it has already been refuted. The PSR would lead to an infinite chain of “explanations”, which is clearly impossible. Just like in the axiomatic systems, where the axioms are unexplained “brute facts”, we need the same kinds of starting points; called “basic principles” which are the foundations of every explanation.

I have no special problem with believers asserting that God is the foundation of all explanations, and that God “simply” exists - as such God is an exception to the PSR. The problem is not that such a system is somehow illogical (it is NOT). The problem is that it has not been established. The problem is not with God’s alleged existence, it is with the attempts to establish God’s existence without “revelation”, on fully rational grounds.

 

[John_Martin]

By the way, "Ask and it will be given to you, … " is not a generic axiom; it is for those near to Jesus, his own, who participate in him as sons of his Father. You get into that relationship with him, and he will say it to you also, but it is not to those not near to him as his own.
It is written in words for you to see what you will have in being one with him, but only in being one with him will you have that promise that it will be given to you when you ask. All who ask apart from him are asking from someone they do not know, and without any promise of answer.
Seek to be his disciple first (seek first his Kingdom, and your citizenship in it), then all these things will be yours, all these promises.

 

[e_c]

My partitions (#'s) and emphases.

**1. **To be precise, I am only criticizing (not attacking) ONE of the many attempts to establish God’s existence without resorting to “revelation”. This particular attempt fails due to erroneous confusion of the “nothing as concept” and the “nothing as an ontological entity”. **And there is nothing problematic about this distinction. **

**2. **By the way, I would appreciate if you used the feature correctly to separate the quoted text from your reply. I am not interested in digging out your answer, even if it is marked in red.

**3. **It is not my fault if people don’t realize what they say. Even if they do not state explicitly that “nothing” exists, it follows from the argument, quoted verbatim in the OP.

**4. **Because it has already been refuted. The PSR would lead to an infinite chain of “explanations”, which is clearly impossible. Just like in the axiomatic systems, where the axioms are unexplained “brute facts”, we need the same kinds of starting points; called “basic principles” which are the foundations of every explanation.

**5. **I have no special problem with believers asserting that God is the foundation of all explanations, and that God “simply” exists - as such God is an exception to the PSR. The problem is not that such a system is somehow illogical (it is NOT). The problem is that it has not been established. The problem is not with God’s alleged existence, it is with the attempts to establish God’s existence without “revelation”, on fully rational grounds.

1. This is hardly just “one among many” arguments (or preambles). It is really THE argument/preamble. And since you’re clearly not a zealous apologist looking to refine his skill at defending the Christian faith through the quaestio, it seems you are just trying to rip this argument down.

The fact that you refuse to admit that this is more complicated than “we have concepts of objects, and they’re different, duh,” demonstrates your unwillingness to take philosophy seriously, both as a discipline and as an historical subject. For the third time, I invite you to do some research about how unbelievably complicated the problem of universals is. There is the Platonic/Aristotelian divide, the Medieval debate that began with Porphyry, was elucidated nicely by Thomas, then clouded by Scotus, and destroyed by Abelard and finally buried by Ockham. Then there’s Descartes, who ushered in the Rationalist/Empiricist/Idealist debate, which continues today in varied ways too complicated to try to get into. If you’ve never thought about that piece of wax with Descartes which he held to the fire that one evening, you’ve never really engaged the Western philosophical tradition. You simply MUST read the texts. “There is nothing new under the sun.” Someone has almost always had your thought before, go and see how it worked out in the history of ideas.

1. You need to do more anwer digging period. See above.
2. See #2. Maybe others are wise to something you aren’t.
3. Yes. You’re on to it. But the fact that you can’t make the simple distinction between existence by negation and existence by subsistence or inherence ruins it. Take away everything - that’s “nothing.” You don’t need to be Martin Heidegger to figure it out on this level, which is all that is necessary for refuting your critique. “Why is there something rather than nothing? Because existence is an absolute condition of the universe. We learn this BY EXPERIENCING THAT THERE ARE ACTUALLY THINGS THAT EXIST. Even if all else were removed, one could never destroy existence, because things CAN exist. And existence, on its own, subsisting without anything else (Ipsum Esse Subsistens!), this is what we call ‘God.’” So it’s not that “nothing can’t exist because it’s nothing, duh,” it’s that “nothing can’t exist because there will always at least be existence, or else even the idea of nothing/non-being is absurd, since there can’t be a negation of what isn’t in existence, even in existence in potential rather than in act.”
4. This is what we are heading toward though, no? You must now see how intimately tied your “critique” is to this question.

 

[petra22]

You cannot “define” something into existence by stipulating a few Latin words. Besides, the existence of God is totally irrelevant for the purposes of this thread.

I thought that was the whole point. “Where did all this stuff come from?”

 

[fred_conty]

1. Why is there something, rather than nothing?

Some people even consider it a “fundamental” question, and they like to point out (with some smug condescension) that atheism has no answer to this “problem”. But they simply did not think it through. “Nothing” is just a concept, not an ontological entity. The question, however, presumes that “nothing” could be a valid state of affairs, while nothing is the total, complete lack of existence. To presume that the lack of existence “could” exist is lunacy.

Usually it comes with an accompanying question:

1. Why do atheists say that something comes from nothing?

Of course they do not. In the atheist worldview the Universe simply exists. It requires no explanation, it did not “come” from anywhere, it just exists. It is the ontological foundation of existence. There is no “before” or “outside” the universe.

So to summarize: Atheists do NOT believe that something came out of nothing. They do NOT consider the question: “why is there something rather than nothing” a valid question.

Would it be possible to have a conversation without these (and similar) misconceptions? We both might gain some insight and learn something new.

One of the arguments of the OP is that is a theist says that God always existed. There is no proof of this, but this is merely a theory.

So therefore this theory does not eliminate the other theory that things always existed. By merely stating God always existed does not prove that God always existed. Even if one were to say he is the first cause or first mover of contingent beings. For the other theory would say that contingent beings need no first mover but always were without a mover.

Here is just one explaination why there must be a first cause.
peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm

Suppose I tell you there is a book that explains everything you want explained. You want that book very much. You ask me whether I have it. I say no, I have to get it from my wife. Does she have it? No, she has to get it from a neighbor. Does he have it? No, he has to get it from his teacher, who has to get it. . . et cetera, etcetera, ad infinitum. No one actually has the book. In that case, you will never get it. However long or short the chain of book borrowers may be, you will get the book only if someone actually has it and does not have to borrow it. Well, existence is like that book. Existence is handed down the chain of causes, from cause to effect. If there is no first cause, no being who is eternal and self-sufficient, no being who has existence by his own nature and does not have to borrow it from someone else, then the gift of existence can never be passed down the chain to others, and no one will ever get it. But we did get it. We exist. We got the gift of existence from our causes, down the chain, and so did every actual being in the universe, from atoms to archangels. Therefore there must be a first cause of existence, a God.

 

[balto]

It is not my fault if people don’t realize what they say. Even if they do not state explicitly that “nothing” exists, it follows from the argument, quoted verbatim in the OP.

It doesn’t follow from the argument, as I have provided the correct interpretation of the terms of the maxim. Regardless, I would rather investigate the rest of your reply more fully.

Because it has already been refuted. The PSR would lead to an infinite chain of “explanations”, which is clearly impossible. Just like in the axiomatic systems, where the axioms are unexplained “brute facts”, we need the same kinds of starting points; called “basic principles” which are the foundations of every explanation.

I am glad that we are in agreement that an infinite regress of explanations is impossible. What’s not clear to me is why you believe that the terminus of the regress must be inexplicable.

I can only surmise that you are having this difficulty because you are failing to distinguish between an explanation and a cause, and are interpreting an explanation as a cause. This is not surprising given that ordinarily a cause and explanation are the same thing, however their difference only becomes apparent as you approach the terminus of the explanatory regress.

An entity needs a explanation if there is some feature of its being that is not provided by its nature. For instance, a bush is not by nature on fire, hence if a bush happens to be on fire its “being on fire” requires explanation. A cause is that agent that provides the external explanation.

At the terminus of explanation, God if you will, so that I may label it, there is no aspect of God’s being that is unexplained by His nature. Hence His nature is consistent with PSR since His existence is fully explained by what He is without remainder, but yet He is uncaused because there is no aspect of His being that is not explained by His nature, hence no external agent is required to explain His existence.

I anticipate an objection to this somewhere.

 

[Ruqx]

1. This is hardly just “one among many” arguments (or preambles). It is really THE argument/preamble.

Actually Kreeft enumerates about 20 arguments.

The fact that you refuse to admit that this is more complicated than “we have concepts of objects, and they’re different, duh,” demonstrates your unwillingness to take philosophy seriously, both as a discipline and as an historical subject.

I do take good philosophy seriously. Concepts are different from objects. Objects exist independently from the observers, while concepts are formed by the observers, as long as the observers are able to conceptualize. I don’t have the foggiest idea why do you have problem with this obvious distinction.

For the third time, I invite you to do some research about how unbelievably complicated the problem of universals is.

No need to repeat it. I have been familiar with the concepts of “universals” and “abstract objects” and found them nonsensical.

1. See #2. Maybe others are wise to something you aren’t.

Or “maybe” it is the other way around. I stand firmly on the ground of reality and everything that is a logical corollary coming from the observation. I have no problem with extrapolating from the observed reality - but only as a hypothesis, which needs to be substantiated or falsified.

"Why is there something rather than nothing? Because existence is an absolute condition of the universe. We learn this BY EXPERIENCING THAT THERE ARE ACTUALLY THINGS THAT EXIST.

Sure. We directly experience the Universe, either via our senses, or their extensions. It is the apologists why try to posit the hypothetical that the universe “might” not exist. And again: “existence” is a concept. Before humanity appeared on the scene, there were no concepts, only objects.

I thought that was the whole point. “Where did all this stuff come from?”

Nope. The point is to show that the particular method presented by some apologists is incorrect. That does not exclude that there is a better (or maybe even a good) method, it only criticizes the presented ones.

One of the arguments of the OP is that is a theist says that God always existed.

The trouble is that the word “always” presupposed “time”, and time is only defined within the universe.

Here is just one explaination why there must be a first cause.
peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm

I am quite familiar with Kreeft’s arguments, and I am not impressed by them. Without going into details, the “picture” he presents is very simplistic and naïve. He supposes that the universe is a simple, uninterrupted causal chain which can be “mapped” unto the positive integers (first, second, third… etc). However, if humans have true, libertarian free will, then any instance of exercising that free will starts a brand new, uncaused causal chain.

It doesn’t follow from the argument, as I have provided the correct interpretation of the terms of the maxim. Regardless, I would rather investigate the rest of your reply more fully.

You provided your interpretation, which I reject.

What’s not clear to me is why you believe that the terminus of the regress must be inexplicable.

Again, simple reasoning. An explanation is to reduce something to an even more fundamental level. Just like the final axioms of logic or mathematics cannot be “explained”. Or taking a more complicated example, the “rules” of every game cannot be explained. There is no external reason that in chess the king can only move to its adjacent squares. This is a rule we all must agree upon, if we want to play chess. The movements of the pieces are “brute facts”, they need no explanation.

At the terminus of explanation, God if you will, so that I may label it, there is no aspect of God’s being that is unexplained by His nature.

God’s nature is simply “defined” to be what you want it to be. This is a usual error committed by those, who try to define something (like God) INTO existence. Using the GCB (greatest conceivable being) as an example, the original argument assumed that “existence” is greater than “non-existence”, and as such a “maximally great being” MUST exist - by definition.

 

[petra22]

God’s nature is simply “defined” to be what you want it to be. This is a usual error committed by those, who try to define something (like God) INTO existence. Using the GCB (greatest conceivable being) as an example, the original argument assumed that “existence” is greater than “non-existence”, and as such a “maximally great being” MUST exist - by definition.

I’m trying to keep up here but I’m limited… you are trying to negate a beginning of all this stuff and say there was nothing? or there was always this stuff with no beginning? Yet how are we able to test this stuff and give an approximate age for it? It HAD a beginning…No?

 

[Ruqx]

I’m trying to keep up here but I’m limited… you are trying to negate a beginning of all this stuff and say there was nothing? or there was always this stuff with no beginning? Yet how are we able to test this stuff and give an approximate age for it? It HAD a beginning…No?

No, I do not say any of that. I say that the questions are syntactically correct and semantically meaningless. Just because you have a bunch of perfectly good words, it does not follow that stringing them together will result in a meaningful question or proposition.

“When did you stop beating your spouse?” is a meaningless question. “What exists outside the universe?” is another one. The direction of “north” cannot be defined for the North Pole. I am about to start a new thread about this very subject.

 

[e_c]

**1. **Actually Kreeft enumerates about 20 arguments.

**2. **I do take good philosophy seriously. Concepts are different from objects. Objects exist independently from the observers, while concepts are formed by the observers, as long as the observers are able to conceptualize. I don’t have the foggiest idea why do you have problem with this obvious distinction.

**3. **No need to repeat it. I have been familiar with the concepts of “universals” and “abstract objects” and found them nonsensical.

**4. **Or “maybe” it is the other way around. I stand firmly on the ground of reality and everything that is a logical corollary coming from the observation. I have no problem with extrapolating from the observed reality - but only as a hypothesis, which needs to be substantiated or falsified.

**5. **Sure. We directly experience the Universe, either via our senses, or their extensions. It is the apologists why try to posit the hypothetical that the universe “might” not exist. And again: “existence” is a concept. Before humanity appeared on the scene, there were no concepts, only objects.

I’ll let the others focus on their discussions with you, and I will only focus on mine for now.

1. The strongest ones all find their root in the preamble which you are attacking.
2. Because it is not so obvious as you think, and the particulars of how it works matter quite a bit and are even less obvious. Go read some Berkeley and come back with the same confidence that it’s obvious. Here:

earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/berkeley1713.pdf

1. That’s because you are either a logical positivist (as is evidenced by your obsession with semantics and meanings of words being grounded in observable objects) or perhaps some kind of nominalist.** Let me ask you this - if something is unverifiable to the senses by its nature, is it able to be known? If so, how?**
2. See above.
3. The Scotists tried to treat existence as an attribute, and that failed them. You are here going a step further and saying that existence is only a CONCEPT. You can’t have thought that through very much. Existence is something radically different - period. (Remember, concepts can’t exist without existence, so a concept of existence is preceded by actual existence in itself…)

 

[Ruqx]

1. The strongest ones all find their root in the preamble which you are attacking.

Which are the “strongest” ones are subjective assessments. What one may consider “strong” could be very weak for another.

1. Because it is not so obvious as you think, and the particulars of how it works matter quite a bit and are even less obvious.

What is obvious and what is not? To the uneducated person nothing is obvious.

1. That’s because you are either a logical positivist (as is evidenced by your obsession with semantics and meanings of words being grounded in observable objects) or perhaps some kind of nominalist.

Nope, I am not a logical positivist. Nominalist might be closer, but I refuse to be “boxed” in into some arbitrary system. By the way, the meanings of words are the result of mutual agreement. A few vowels and consonants put side by side have no intrinsic “meaning”. The meaning is assigned by the participants who exchange information in a communication channel.

** Let me ask you this - if something is unverifiable to the senses by its nature, is it able to be known? If so, how?**

The answer is a resounding “OF COURSE”! Any and all correct propositions in any and all axiomatic systems can be known. It is impossible to verify empirically a proposition about all prime numbers (for example).

On the other hand, what happens outside the light cone, or below the event horizon of a black hole cannot be known, because no information is obtainable from those “places”. Or what is happening inside someone’s dream. Or what goes on in someone’s subconscious. In order to know something in the objective reality, one needs information about it.

1. The Scotists tried to treat existence as an attribute, and that failed them. You are here going a step further and saying that existence is only a CONCEPT. You can’t have thought that through very much. Existence is something radically different - period. (Remember, concepts can’t exist without existence, so a concept of existence is preceded by actual existence in itself…)

For the follower of Plato, the ideal “forms” (concepts) come first and reality merely is a “crude” approximation. And “concepts” cannot exist without someone who is able to conceptualize. But from that it does not follow that any imagined concept has a referent in reality. The word “existence” does not describe an ontological entity.

 

[e_c]

The answer is a resounding “OF COURSE”! Any and all correct propositions in any and all axiomatic systems can be known. It is impossible to verify empirically a proposition about all prime numbers (for example).

On the other hand, what happens outside the light cone, or below the event horizon of a black hole cannot be known, because no information is obtainable from those “places”. Or what is happening inside someone’s dream. Or what goes on in someone’s subconscious. In order to know something in the objective reality, one needs information about it.

Let’s just zoom in on this.

You seem to be saying that all we can know is what we can observe or conclude from axioms. But of course, we can’t know the axioms are true except by observation, or maybe these axioms aren’t truth apt at all and are therefore meaningless for knowledge. So all knowledge is through observation.

This is positivism.

 

[Ruqx]

Let’s just zoom in on this.

You seem to be saying that all we can know is what we can observe or conclude from axioms. But of course, we can’t know the axioms are true except by observation, or maybe these axioms aren’t truth apt at all and are therefore meaningless for knowledge. So all knowledge is through observation.

This is positivism.

My first intent was to present a long answer, but then I realized that I have no idea what you mean by the phrase “we can’t know [if] the axioms are true?” Do you mean “if the axioms correctly reflect the objective reality?”. Because that is what it looks like.

Please enlighten me.

 

[balto]

God’s nature is simply “defined” to be what you want it to be. This is a usual error committed by those, who try to define something (like God) INTO existence. Using the GCB (greatest conceivable being) as an example, the original argument assumed that “existence” is greater than “non-existence”, and as such a “maximally great being” MUST exist - by definition.

If you want to discuss the ontological argument, you should start a thread on it. This is the ontological argument:

1. As maximally perfect being, “God” has all perfections.
2. Existence is a perfection
3. Therefore, God has existence.

This argument appears to commit the fallacy of the four terms, since “God” in 1 is taken to mean our conception of God, whereas God in 3 corresponds to God as actually existing. You won’t see me defending it for that reason. However you were the first to present this argument in this thread, so I am not sure why you are attributing it to me or anyone else on the thread.

I actually have not advanced an argument for God’s existence in this thread. You are trying to present a common argument and are attempting to interpret it thusly:

1. Some things exist that might not have existed (why is there something rather than nothing)
2. What may have not existed has its existence explained by another
3. There cannot be an infinite regress of explanations.
4. Therefore, there exists some reality that is not explained.
5. This reality we call God.
6. But by PSR, God’s existence is also fully explained (by PSR).

God’s definition does not factor into any of the above premises, so He is not being “defined into existence.” 1 and 2 are supported empirically. You already said you accept 3. 4 follows from 1, 2, and 3. You seem to accept this, but have some aversion to the labeling of it as “God”, in step 5, which is inconsequential. Call it whatever you like. And then you say that 6 cannot be true.

However if you revise your argument to include your stated definition of “explanation” as “able to be reduced to a more fundamental level”, one can see why this is the case:

1. Some things exist that might not have existed (why is there something rather than nothing)
2. What may have not existed can be reduced to a more fundamental level
3. There cannot be an infinite regress of reductions to more fundamental levels.
4. Therefore, there exists some reality that is not reducible to a more fundamental level.
5. This reality we call God.
6. But by PSR, God’s existence is also reducible to a more fundamental level (by PSR).

But no one would make this argument if they thought PSR meant “everything can be reduced to a more fundamental level” since it directly contradicts premise 3. I am not aware of anyone who is advancing the above argument.