The Thomistic Cosmological Argument

[MindOverMatter]

Some, like Richard Swinburne, would agree that whatever is the First Cause (in our case, the First Mover) would have to be a brute fact. I won’t get into this, though, since I want to keep the discussion away from any presumption about the PSR. By “necessary”, I didn’t mean logically necessary, but metaphysically necessary.

I think that i might disagree with Swinburne about brute facts. I agree that there is such a thing as a brute fact; but i am not sure what he exactly means by it. The problem i have with the concept of a brute fact is that it can be abused. There are false ideas about what can and can’t be a legitimate brute fact. I can see the effectiveness of saying that if we cannot infer why something exists logically speaking, then it is a brute fact, since it does away with the need to understand something when the explanation is incomprehensible; as in it would be a logical impossibility for their to be an answer. But this can be mistaken for an epistemological or an empirical brute fact. I think that a scientific brute fact is valid, but only in so far as it limits itself to the empirical principles of knowledge and doesn’t over step its epistemological boundaries in to the metaphysical by saying that since science cannot understand phenomena “A” that therefore “A” has no possible explanation. It might not have a “scientific explanation”; but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it doesn’t have a metaphysical one. So to say that this phenomena is a scientific brute fact, can only mean to say that empirical science has reached its limits in so far as attaining scientific knowledge. Its epistemological; not logical.

But i disagree with philosophical brute facts that rely purely upon an epistemological principle, since how can one possibly know that a thing is a brute fact just because its beyond our comprehension? Logical Inference must play a part. Because It seems to me that a philosophical brute fact cannot simply be epistemological, but rather the “attributes” of a particular phenomena has to make it a brute fact in order for it to be logically valid. The nature of a particular being must be as such that it has to exist and can have no precedent explanation; i.e, a “perfect timeless being” cannot be caused in to existence because it is perfect and timeless, and we infer it because it explains that which begins to exist. But notice that we are not left with out an explanation of the brute fact, since the explanation exists within its attributes. This is not an epistemological brute fact, but is instead a “logical brute fact”, like “all bachelors are unmarried”.

However, the principle of brute fact becomes a fallacy if it is to mean that something has no explanation of its existence. Atheists have used it in a manner that is not valid. They have used it as a means to avoid any inference that implies the transcendence of the physical order to a higher explanation. For instance they might say that physical law is a brute fact. But this version of a brute fact seems to me to be an arbitrary invention that has no real basis in logic, accept to fill in a “gap” that doesn’t fit with somebodies intellectual paradigm, i.e. there is only “physical reality”. This Idea of a brute fact invites people to believe that a thing can exist for no reason whats so ever. But it is of my understanding that, in so far as logic is concerned, that which is the root of reality has the explanation of its self in the nature of its self. A true brute fact explains existence by its metaphysical attributes.

Do you agree with my idea of a brute fact?

 

[wussup]

I think that i might disagree with Swinburne about brute facts. I agree that there is such a thing as a brute fact; but i am not sure what he exactly means by it.
My understanding of his conception of brute fact is that he is subjegating the PSF to a brute fact by suggesting the big bang is the scientifically unexplained brute fact. I am with you on this.

The problem i have with the concept of a brute fact is that it can be abused. There are false ideas about what can and can’t be a legitimate brute fact. I can see the effectiveness of saying that if we cannot infer why something exists logically speaking, then it is a brute fact, since it does away with the need to understand something when the explanation is incomprehensible; as in it would be a logical impossibility for their to be an answer. But this can be mistaken for an epistemological or an empirical brute fact. I think that a scientific brute fact is valid, but only in so far as it limits itself to the empirical principles of knowledge and doesn’t over step its epistemological boundaries in to the metaphysical by saying that since science cannot understand phenomena “A” that therefore “A” has no possible explanation. It might not have a “scientific explanation”; but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it doesn’t have a metaphysical one. So to say that this phenomena is a scientific brute fact, can only mean to say that empirical science has reached its limits in so far as attaining scientific knowledge. Its epistemological; not logical.

 

[punkforchrist]

MindOverMatter, I want to commend you and others for the thoughtfulness with which you’re considering these issues.

The problem of a “brute fact” is a challenging, complex one. For one thing, there are brute facts with respect to things, and then there are brute facts with respect to states of affairs. Swinburne believes that brute facts apply to both categories. My own opinion is that there are not brute facts with respect to things; but I haven’t decided yet whether I believe (some) states of affairs may be brute.

Concerning scientific “brute facts,” I would prefer to call them something else. We might call it an “unknown,” since that stresses our lack of comprehension, as opposed to the positive assertion that there really isn’t an explanation.

 

[wussup]

Re Brute facts…I suggest their are only brute facts regarding things, and even then only with caveats. For example, water is two parts hydrogen one part oxygen held together by a hydrogen bond at about 104 degrees. This is an adequate chemical explanation, but what of the parts within? Is there really atoms or are the something much more different. An argument could be made these are complex wave phenomenon we really do not know much about, but that we have defined certain attributes we observe by the aforementioned criteria. How much do we brutally know about the universe we live in? Not really all that much.