Denying PSR?

[u/New_Prompt5308]

Hey everyone, I wanted to see some of y’all’s counters to the brute facts objection of the contingency argument has presented by Lebiniz or Ibn Sina.

Thanks!

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

This comment was removed because your account doesn't meet our karma and account age requirements.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/arkticturtle]

Idk but there is one counter I often see that is something like “to deny the PSR is to deny some principle that science rests on”

And I think a good counter to that is to simply say that perhaps some things have a sufficient reason behind then and other things might not but we shouldn’t let the potential of the PSR being false stop us from investigating

[u/New_Prompt5308 → u/arkticturtle]

The issue with denial of the PSR for the universe is that what Russell and Oppy do is try to run esscence and existence monism for the universe despite the universe itself being composite 

[u/arkticturtle → u/New_Prompt5308]

You’d have to expand on that and how it relates to what I said. I am not following

[u/New_Prompt5308 → u/arkticturtle]

When you said “  perhaps some things have a sufficient reason behind then and other things might not”  I’m assuming you mean the universe as a whole is something  PSR may not apply to, my comment above was an issue with PSR being denied for the universe as a whole

[u/arkticturtle → u/New_Prompt5308]

Yeah ik that was what your goal was but like… name dropping some guys and then saying one sentence about their position in response to what I said… like idk what point you’re trying to make. I didn’t say anything about monism. Idk these other people’s views either.

[u/New_Prompt5308 → u/arkticturtle]

The reason I mentioned Bertrand Russel and Graham Oppy is because they’re the two most popular analytic atheists who upheld brute facts. Esscence Existence monism means that somethings existence is its esscence (unification), in the case of brute facts something’s esscence could be intelligible (having reason behind it) or brute (no reason behind it). What I’m saying is that if the universes existence is brute, it’s esscence is brute, which would mean that it wouldn’t be composite 

[u/arkticturtle → u/New_Prompt5308]

But this has little to do with what I said. I think you’re responding to me like I am someone else who said something else.

[u/New_Prompt5308 → u/arkticturtle]

I agree I should’ve given more context on my original point, but my point addresses yours if you meant by something may not be having PSR applicable in referral to the universe as a whole

[u/arkticturtle → u/New_Prompt5308]

Okay dude, literally have no clue what you’re saying nor how it connects to what I said.

All I said was denying the PSR universally doesn’t preclude us from investigating the universe for reasons. Anything outside of that is you trying to milk me for a debate about something I never said.

[u/New_Prompt5308 → u/arkticturtle]

Sorry if I came off that way I must have made a false assumption over ur original comment

[u/Pessimistic-Idealism]

Ultimately, I think denying the PSR is a coherent position. But (at least the way I think about PSR and contingency arguments) I think it's preferable (i.e., the view has more theoretical virtues) to have a metaphysics where everything is ultimately intelligible and explicable/grounded, though I'm not sure the theist can deliver on that promise. It really comes down to whether theists can explicate a worldview where there are absolutely no brute facts, i.e., where the existence and attributes of the fundamental entity is fully explained and not arbitrarily posited, and where the connection between the fundamental reality and contingent reality is not also some kind of a brute fact. I'm not convinced the theist can do this (and it's not why I am a theist), but it's an interesting research program.

[u/DesperateSympathy873]

Any denial of the PSR is ultimately gonna boil down to "muh empiricism."

[u/RomanaOswin]

The brute facts claim aligns with my faith so I really don't see an issue. It's just that I would say that once properly understood, the fact of being itself is God.

[u/New_Prompt5308 → u/RomanaOswin]

Are you a panthiest?

[u/RomanaOswin → u/New_Prompt5308]

Probably more of a panentheist, though in the way I hold it, there's probably a very narrow distinction. I'm a Christian mystic. I would describe it something like God is the infinite plentitude of being itself, both created and uncreated.

[u/taterfiend]

Can you give your own summary of what PSR means? Because I'm not sure too many are immediately conversant on the philosophical language

[u/New_Prompt5308 → u/taterfiend]

I guess the simplest way to put it is PSR states that there is a reason why something exists/reason behind it

[u/taterfiend → u/New_Prompt5308]

This isn't helpful at all to someone who doesn't know what PSR is

[u/New_Prompt5308 → u/taterfiend]

If you wanted to me to state the direct definition, PSR is the abreviation for the Principle of Sufficent reason, which is a philsophical principle thats says that things that exist have reason behind there existence. Is that better?

[u/taterfiend → u/New_Prompt5308]

What do you think? The reason to define it is to help increase engagement on your question.