Recurring, but incorrect questions/arguments (part 1)

[ccmnxc]

Also, feel like I need to key in on this:

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.

I’m not sure how you concluded that the PSR leads to an infinite chain of explanations. We agree that is impossible (it is even one of the primary premises in Rationalist versions of the Cosmlogical Argument that the PSR can’t lead to an infinite explanatory chain). Rather, the chain terminates in a necessary being - and necessity does not violate the PSR.
And if any non-trivial formulation of the PSR is true, there cannot be a brute-fact exception; said exception would simply falsify the PSR. But to conclude that something is indeed a brute-fact, one of two things needs to happen: You either need to simply assert it as being true, or you need to give a reason for it to be true. To simply assert it is to beg the question and to committ special pleading besides. To give a reason is to undermine its being brute in the first place.

 

[ccmnxc]

1. Okay, let’s go with what you say as being true. Why cannot one just ask “Why does anything exist at all?”
2. Perhaps this may not apply to you, but I’ve heard the whole “virtual particle” counter-example come up too many times to believe that atheists, by and large, tend not to say something comes from nothing. Maybe most don’t, but plenty do.

Also, one last quesiton. Does the name Solmyr ring a bell at all?

 

[Ruqx]

1. Okay, let’s go with what you say as being true. Why cannot one just ask “Why does anything exist at all?”

I am sorry for the possible miscommunication. You (or anyone else) can ask anything you want to. I am not some kind of enforcer who can limit your right to ask any question. But not all questions have a rational answer. As for this question, the answer is simple: “Nothing” is not a valid state of affairs. “Nothing” in not an ontological entity. The proposition “Nothing can exist” or “Nothing exists” is nonsensical.

1. Perhaps this may not apply to you, but I’ve heard the whole “virtual particle” counter-example come up too many times to believe that atheists, by and large, tend not to say something comes from nothing. Maybe most don’t, but plenty do.

I cannot answer for other atheists. But to refer to “virtual particles” as “coming something from nothing” is metaphysically incorrect. “Virtual particles” are not “nothing”. “Vacuum” is not “nothing”. Nothing is only a concept, like a “null world” or a “null set” which would have no elements in it.

And if any non-trivial formulation of the PSR is true, there cannot be a brute-fact exception; said exception would simply falsify the PSR.

Of course. That is the point.
"http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sufficient-reason/:

Formally, the Principle states (PSR): For every fact F, there must be an explanation why F is the case.

But then, we would arrive at another fact, which would also need an explanation, and so on… Either there is a fact which does not need an explanation (a basic principle or an axiom), and then the PSR is refuted, or we have an infinite descent.

But to conclude that something is indeed a brute-fact, one of two things needs to happen: You either need to simply assert it as being true, or you need to give a reason for it to be true. To simply assert it is to beg the question and to committ special pleading besides. To give a reason is to undermine its being brute in the first place.

You are wrong. To quote a fact is not “begging the question”.

Logically Fallacious - Webpages

www.logicallyfallacious.com

Any form of argument where the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises. Many people use the phrase “begging the question” incorrectly when they use it to mean, “prompts one to ask the question”. That is NOT the correct usage. Begging the question is a form of circular reasoning.

 

[ccmnxc]

I am sorry for the possible miscommunication. You (or anyone else) can ask anything you want to. I am not some kind of enforcer who can limit your right to ask any question. But not all questions have a rational answer. As for this question, the answer is simple: “Nothing” is not a valid state of affairs. “Nothing” in not an ontological entity. The proposition “Nothing can exist” or “Nothing exists” is nonsensical.

I’m not following the first part of the response here. I was merely rephrasing the question to avoid your point about nothingness. But let’s push deeper. Take the set of all existent (non-abstract) things. Is a null set possible, and if it is possible, how might one describe that concretely? If it is not possible, where do things go wrong - when we subtract the last thing from the set before it becomes empty? Why can’t this subtraction happen in real life?

I cannot answer for other atheists. But to refer to “virtual particles” as “coming something from nothing” is metaphysically incorrect. “Virtual particles” are not “nothing”. “Vacuum” is not “nothing”. Nothing is only a concept, like a “null world” or a “null set” which would have no elements in it.

Well, I suppose we can drop that point then.

Originally Posted by plato.stanford.edu/entries/sufficient-reason/

Formally, the Principle states (PSR): For every fact F, there must be an explanation why F is the case.
But then, we would arrive at another fact, which would also need an explanation, and so on… Either there is a fact which does not need an explanation (a basic principle or an axiom), and then the PSR is refuted, or we have an infinite descent.

Well here is where we start getting into problems with modality. First off, as I mentioned before, there are multiple ways to formulate the PSR. There are three relevant examples:
Unrestricted PSR: For every fact F, there is an explanation for why F.
Restricted PSR: For every contingent fact F, there is an explanation for why F.
Scholastic PSR: For every being, there is a reason for its existing simpliciter and for its existing in such-and-such a way.

You could even strengthen the first two by making them necessary (that is, for every (contingent) fact F, necessarily, there is an explanation for why F).

So as I said, these different formulations will get you to different places. For the Unrestricted PSR, one could say it is necessarily true that God exists, but then one might ask “Why necessarily F?” The PSR defender has a couple options, they might say “Because, necessarily, necessarily F.” This leads to an infinite regress, though some may say it is a benign rather than vicious one. Another option is to say that “Necessarily F” is self-explanatory once one understands exactly what “Necessarily F” means.
For example, Aquinas argues against Anselm’s Ontological Argument because what essentially happens is we are required to understand God’s essence, which we cannot, as finite creatures do. It is metaphysically possible, but not for us. Thus, the proposition “Necessarily, God exists” can be factually cashed out in a broadly possible sense, but we, with our finite intellects, cannot do it. So it is true, but we cannot know the inner-workings of the proposition’s self-explanatoryness.

If we go with the restricted PSR, then this problem goes away inasmuch as God’s existence is a necessary fact, but since the restricted PSR is only for contingent facts, we need to seek no further explanation.

For the Scholastic PSR, facts and propositions drop out entirely in favor of beings, which renders the above objection a non-starter.

So…pick your poison.

You are wrong. To quote a fact is not “begging the question”.

Depends; if you are asserting an unestablished fact, it is indeed begging the question. However, perhaps I could have been a little more clear here. Either bruteness has an explanation or it doesn’t. If it does have an explanation, it is no longer brute. If it does not, then bruteness is itself a brute fact, and you cannot say “It is a brute fact that brute facts exist” without begging the question.

 

[Ruqx]

I’m not following the first part of the response here. I was merely rephrasing the question to avoid your point about nothingness. But let’s push deeper. Take the set of all existent (non-abstract) things. Is a null set possible, and if it is possible, how might one describe that concretely? If it is not possible, where do things go wrong - when we subtract the last thing from the set before it becomes empty? Why can’t this subtraction happen in real life?

The “null set” is an abstract concept - a different phrase for “nothing”. As for the thought experiment you suggested, a successive removal of concrete objects - well that flies in the face of the “conservation laws”, which are very well established. The thought experiment is nice, but cannot be carried out.

Now, let’s contemplate it nevertheless - after all that is what thought experiments are for. Let’s suppose that the “null set” (or “nothing”) can exist ontologically. The fun starts with the concept of possible worlds. We live in our actual world, which is obviously “possible”. However some elements do not “need” (logically) be existing. Another possible world is where there is an oak tree at a certain position, instead of a pine tree. Or another world, where Hitler died in his infancy so the Third Reich and Nazism was never established (I bet Hitler is spinning in his grave… ). The definition of a “necessary” existence is “something” that exists in every possible world.

So is there something that exists necessarily? To establish it, one must examine each and every possible world (of which there are infinitely many!) and find out if there is “something” that is present in every one of them. Observe that this usage of “necessary” has nothing to do with “logical necessity”. Now, if the “null world” exists ontologically, then by definition - there cannot be a "necessarily existing object (or being) - since the “null world” has no elements. This would immediately eliminate God as “necessarily” existing.

Now, if we restrict the possible worlds to those worlds, which are not empty, which have “something” (anything) in them, then we face a different issue. Mind you, the “something” does not need to be a physical object. It that case we observe two possible worlds, one which contains one electron and another one, which contains an anti-electron (positron). These two worlds are not empty, and they have nothing in common. So even in this case there is no necessary existence.

It is important to point out that a “possible world” is one which does not contain a logically contradictory state of affairs.

First off, as I mentioned before, there are multiple ways to formulate the PSR. There are three relevant examples:
Unrestricted PSR: For every fact F, there is an explanation for why F.
Restricted PSR: For every contingent fact F, there is an explanation for why F.
Scholastic PSR: For every being, there is a reason for its existing simpliciter and for its existing in such-and-such a way.

What you established here that even the ones who propose the “PSR” cannot agree what “PSR” is all about. Why should I (or anyone) take them seriously, if they have no idea what the subject is?

But, let’s have fun.

The first one leads to either an infinite descent, or ends with some fact, which requires no explanation - in other words it is a brute fact.

So as I said, these different formulations will get you to different places. For the Unrestricted PSR, one could say it is necessarily true that God exists, but then one might ask “Why necessarily F?”

Well, if you just “say” that God exists, then all you presented is an unsubstantiated assertion, and I see no reason why to even address it. Show me that God exists first, and that God “must” exist necessarily. Very difficult task I think. To say that God is the ontological foundation of all existence will get you nowhere.

Depends; if you are asserting an unestablished fact, it is indeed begging the question. However, perhaps I could have been a little more clear here. Either bruteness has an explanation or it doesn’t. If it does have an explanation, it is no longer brute. If it does not, then bruteness is itself a brute fact, and you cannot say “It is a brute fact that brute facts exist” without begging the question.

Begging the question is just another form of circular reasoning. Stating that the universe exists requires no special explanation, since we all directly experience it. Saying that God exists is a different problem, since we do not and (presumably) cannot experience God directly. “Question begging” simply means that one tries to establish the veracity of a claim by introducing it as one of the premises.

Let me give an example of a “brute fact”. We all experience that the virtual size of the Sun and the Moon are approximately the same - when viewed from the Earth. So when our kid asks “why is there a Solar eclipse?”. We present the answer: “Since the virtual size of the Sun and the Moon are about the same, it looks like that the Moon ‘hides’ the Sun”. (We have a smart kid who understands the concept of ratios and virtual sizes.) So we gave an answer which conforms to the “sufficient reason”.

But now that kid presses on: “Why is the virtual size of the Sun and the Moon the same?”. To which we reply: “Because the diameters of them have the same ratio, as the distance from the Earth.” And draw a simple diagram…

But then that inquisitive kid asks: “Why are the ratios of the diameters the same as the distances?”. And the only reply is: “They just are”. A few million years ago the Moon might have been closer, and in a few millions years the Moon might be farther away. There is no reason why the ratios are what they are. This is a brute fact. No explanation and no need for an explanation.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

This is in defiance of science as well as philosophy.

Science does assert that the universe did indeed begin to exist.

And good old common sense and reasoning tells us that the universe could not have existed in the infinite past.

As an analogy:
Imagine that you want to display your marble collection. You want to display them when you’ve counted all of them.

So if you have 12 marbles, you will display them pretty quickly.

If you have a million marbles, it will take quite a long time to get to the day when you can display them. But you would, eventually, get to the day.

But if you have an infinite number of marbles, you will never get to the day when you display your marbles. There will always be one more marble to count.

But I see your marble display. (That is, in this parallel, equal to “TODAY”. Today is happening, therefore that means you’ve displayed your marbles).

Therefore, I can conclude that you didn’t have an infinite number of marbles.

 

[PRmerger]

The “why” question is often regarded as an invalid question because it presumes some kind of intent and excludes indifferent natural forces.

And I find this dismissal so curious. Very curious indeed!

It is the antithesis of Science to regard the “why” as an “invalid question”.

“Why did this green thing appear on my bread? And why after I ate it did it make my sore throat stop hurting?”

“Why do these pea plants show certain patterns of inheritance?”

“Why do drivers have to drive with both panes of a double front window open to stop sleet from accumulating?”

Imagine if these questions weren’t asked.

It seems oh-so-peculiar that Science advocates will embrace the “why” in everything…except when the answer becomes: God. Then, curiously, it’s “Well, that’s an invalid question”.

 

[petra22]

I’m reading and I’m learning and I appreciate it…Thanks!