Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Brute Facts

Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 1:33:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm sorry... But this philosophy once again involves God :'(

I was doing some thinking regarding the logical absolutes, which Sye Ten parrots his presuppositional argument around (God is Logical by his nature, you cannot know anything without knowledge of God etc.).

From what I have seen, nobody has done what zmike suggested and just asserted them as a brute fact, which seems to be a win as an explanation over a presup since it makes at least one fewer brute assumption (sans God).

This also comes down to cosmology, if one asserts that space is a brute fact (and therefore quantum fluxuations, inflation and hence the Big Bang & the cosmos), doesn't that still make for a better explanation than asserting a causal God or mind?

I understand there are plenty of other ways of looking at the God hypothesis, this is assuming the 'personal causal entity' depicted by the KCA, etc, rather than a grand mind for example.

Further to this, what circumstances is it generally useful to assume something as a brute fact (without justification) simply because doing so makes for a simpler explanation?
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 2:03:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 1:33:47 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
I'm sorry... But this philosophy once again involves God :'(

I was doing some thinking regarding the logical absolutes, which Sye Ten parrots his presuppositional argument around (God is Logical by his nature, you cannot know anything without knowledge of God etc.).

From what I have seen, nobody has done what zmike suggested and just asserted them as a brute fact, which seems to be a win as an explanation over a presup since it makes at least one fewer brute assumption (sans God).

This also comes down to cosmology, if one asserts that space is a brute fact (and therefore quantum fluxuations, inflation and hence the Big Bang & the cosmos), doesn't that still make for a better explanation than asserting a causal God or mind?

I understand there are plenty of other ways of looking at the God hypothesis, this is assuming the 'personal causal entity' depicted by the KCA, etc, rather than a grand mind for example.

Further to this, what circumstances is it generally useful to assume something as a brute fact (without justification) simply because doing so makes for a simpler explanation?

Anything which dances around the edges of hard solispsism, I would think.

I think it's also sometimes valuable to agree on what you see to be brute facts axiomatically--even if you acknowledge you aren't proving them (and that, perhaps, they aren't as brutishly fact as you think).

For example, a theist who wants to say one interpretation of their holy book is "correct" is most likely looking for someone who agrees with the general concept that the book is correcct--they're looking for axiomatic agreement on that point.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 2:48:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 1:33:47 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
I'm sorry... But this philosophy once again involves God :'(

I was doing some thinking regarding the logical absolutes, which Sye Ten parrots his presuppositional argument around (God is Logical by his nature, you cannot know anything without knowledge of God etc.).

From what I have seen, nobody has done what zmike suggested and just asserted them as a brute fact, which seems to be a win as an explanation over a presup since it makes at least one fewer brute assumption (sans God).

How can a brute fact be an explanation? A brute fact, by definition, is without explanation.

"In contemporary philosophy, a brute fact is something that cannot be explained." [http://en.wikipedia.org...]


This also comes down to cosmology, if one asserts that space is a brute fact (and therefore quantum fluxuations, inflation and hence the Big Bang & the cosmos), doesn't that still make for a better explanation than asserting a causal God or mind?

Time and space aren't brute facts, they have explanations in quantum entanglement. [https://medium.com...]


I understand there are plenty of other ways of looking at the God hypothesis, this is assuming the 'personal causal entity' depicted by the KCA, etc, rather than a grand mind for example.

The two aren't mutually exclusive.


Further to this, what circumstances is it generally useful to assume something as a brute fact (without justification) simply because doing so makes for a simpler explanation?

Advocates of the PSR would argue that nothing is a brute fact. Everything has some explanation.
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 2:48:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I can see the presups going "How do you know they're a brute fact".
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 2:58:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 2:48:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 1:33:47 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
I'm sorry... But this philosophy once again involves God :'(

I was doing some thinking regarding the logical absolutes, which Sye Ten parrots his presuppositional argument around (God is Logical by his nature, you cannot know anything without knowledge of God etc.).

From what I have seen, nobody has done what zmike suggested and just asserted them as a brute fact, which seems to be a win as an explanation over a presup since it makes at least one fewer brute assumption (sans God).

How can a brute fact be an explanation? A brute fact, by definition, is without explanation.

Yes. Agreed.

"In contemporary philosophy, a brute fact is something that cannot be explained." [http://en.wikipedia.org...]

Cannot be, or is just left unexplained, presumed not to require one?


This also comes down to cosmology, if one asserts that space is a brute fact (and therefore quantum fluxuations, inflation and hence the Big Bang & the cosmos), doesn't that still make for a better explanation than asserting a causal God or mind?

Time and space aren't brute facts, they have explanations in quantum entanglement. [https://medium.com...]

You can keep pushing the ball back with what we know, but you yourself make the objection there is always 'something'. Whatever that something is, why not assert it as a brute fact 'that's just what it is, it may or may not have an exlpanation", which when put side by side a God argument, seems to require one less assumption (as God is a brute fact by definition AFAIK).


I understand there are plenty of other ways of looking at the God hypothesis, this is assuming the 'personal causal entity' depicted by the KCA, etc, rather than a grand mind for example.

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Ok.


Further to this, what circumstances is it generally useful to assume something as a brute fact (without justification) simply because doing so makes for a simpler explanation?

Advocates of the PSR would argue that nothing is a brute fact. Everything has some explanation.

PSR seems to inevitably lead to a circular, infinite or brute fact end-point, all of which are question-begging.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 3:27:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Well, lemme first harp on a valid point made by atheists. It's one thing to argue for a generic Creator God to the God of a specific religion. In fact, as a Christian my means was to argue for generic God except I needed to do otherwise. I think asserting brute facts is necessary since in any form of thinking there must be a basis which is presumed to be true and itself can't be proven (Godel's anyone :) ). So in maths we have arithmetic. 1+1=2 etc and no one challenges it. If you think about it you just accepted it without question and if I aked why its logical at best I'd get circular logic. In logic, you have 'correct reasoning' and the laws of logic. What makes them correct and why does the law of identity make sense ? As regards to science, assumptions are necessary. The inductive problem is well-known and we know how science was informed by British empricists eg Locke, Bacon who emphasized experiments as opposed to rationalists who emphasized the role of mathematical reasoning. As for what circumstances are necessary to assert a thing as brute fact it should be quite clear atm. I think the more abstract the issue is, the more axiomatic it would be, and the more you will need to assert a concept as factual. For example, in science the question of what approach is better (using arm-chair deductive inferences as opposed to experiment-based induction) is more abstract than the question of whether the solar system is geocentruc ir heliocentric. Or in ethics, the question of what is good is more abstract than whether killing is good, which is itself more abstract than whether killing a child is good, even that's more abstract than whether killing an unborn child is good etc . I can't give a one-size-fits-all formula, I admit exceptions may occur, maybe too often, but then that's my approach. The more abstract or fundamental the topic, the more circular logic is needed because of the postulate (like Godel's) I made, and the mire the need to assert a thing as brute fact.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 3:28:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 2:58:18 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/28/2014 2:48:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 1:33:47 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
I'm sorry... But this philosophy once again involves God :'(

I was doing some thinking regarding the logical absolutes, which Sye Ten parrots his presuppositional argument around (God is Logical by his nature, you cannot know anything without knowledge of God etc.).

From what I have seen, nobody has done what zmike suggested and just asserted them as a brute fact, which seems to be a win as an explanation over a presup since it makes at least one fewer brute assumption (sans God).

How can a brute fact be an explanation? A brute fact, by definition, is without explanation.

Yes. Agreed.

"In contemporary philosophy, a brute fact is something that cannot be explained." [http://en.wikipedia.org...]

Cannot be, or is just left unexplained, presumed not to require one?

Well, if it can be explained, then chances are it has an explanation, we just don't know what it is.



This also comes down to cosmology, if one asserts that space is a brute fact (and therefore quantum fluxuations, inflation and hence the Big Bang & the cosmos), doesn't that still make for a better explanation than asserting a causal God or mind?

Time and space aren't brute facts, they have explanations in quantum entanglement. [https://medium.com...]

You can keep pushing the ball back with what we know, but you yourself make the objection there is always 'something'. Whatever that something is, why not assert it as a brute fact 'that's just what it is, it may or may not have an exlpanation", which when put side by side a God argument, seems to require one less assumption (as God is a brute fact by definition AFAIK).

Because how can something not have an explanation? Would you ever walk into a room with a dead body and be like "oh, brute fact" lol



I understand there are plenty of other ways of looking at the God hypothesis, this is assuming the 'personal causal entity' depicted by the KCA, etc, rather than a grand mind for example.

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Ok.


Further to this, what circumstances is it generally useful to assume something as a brute fact (without justification) simply because doing so makes for a simpler explanation?

Advocates of the PSR would argue that nothing is a brute fact. Everything has some explanation.

PSR seems to inevitably lead to a circular, infinite or brute fact end-point, all of which are question-begging.

The chain ends in something that is necessary, not something that is a brute fact.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 3:33:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 3:28:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 2:58:18 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/28/2014 2:48:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 1:33:47 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
I'm sorry... But this philosophy once again involves God :'(

I was doing some thinking regarding the logical absolutes, which Sye Ten parrots his presuppositional argument around (God is Logical by his nature, you cannot know anything without knowledge of God etc.).

From what I have seen, nobody has done what zmike suggested and just asserted them as a brute fact, which seems to be a win as an explanation over a presup since it makes at least one fewer brute assumption (sans God).

How can a brute fact be an explanation? A brute fact, by definition, is without explanation.

Yes. Agreed.

"In contemporary philosophy, a brute fact is something that cannot be explained." [http://en.wikipedia.org...]

Cannot be, or is just left unexplained, presumed not to require one?

Well, if it can be explained, then chances are it has an explanation, we just don't know what it is.

I agree with you there, but that's doesn't mean it cannot just be asserted as such and left alone when making comparing arguments/explanations.



This also comes down to cosmology, if one asserts that space is a brute fact (and therefore quantum fluxuations, inflation and hence the Big Bang & the cosmos), doesn't that still make for a better explanation than asserting a causal God or mind?

Time and space aren't brute facts, they have explanations in quantum entanglement. [https://medium.com...]

You can keep pushing the ball back with what we know, but you yourself make the objection there is always 'something'. Whatever that something is, why not assert it as a brute fact 'that's just what it is, it may or may not have an exlpanation", which when put side by side a God argument, seems to require one less assumption (as God is a brute fact by definition AFAIK).

Because how can something not have an explanation? Would you ever walk into a room with a dead body and be like "oh, brute fact" lol

That's not the point I am making..... The point is stated at the end.



I understand there are plenty of other ways of looking at the God hypothesis, this is assuming the 'personal causal entity' depicted by the KCA, etc, rather than a grand mind for example.

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Ok.


Further to this, what circumstances is it generally useful to assume something as a brute fact (without justification) simply because doing so makes for a simpler explanation?

Advocates of the PSR would argue that nothing is a brute fact. Everything has some explanation.

PSR seems to inevitably lead to a circular, infinite or brute fact end-point, all of which are question-begging.

The chain ends in something that is necessary, not something that is a brute fact.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 3:34:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 3:28:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The chain ends in something that is necessary, not something that is a brute fact.

Which itself will violate the PSR.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 3:37:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 3:34:33 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/28/2014 3:28:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The chain ends in something that is necessary, not something that is a brute fact.

Which itself will violate the PSR.

No it doesn't. Not at all lol
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 3:38:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 3:37:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 3:34:33 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/28/2014 3:28:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The chain ends in something that is necessary, not something that is a brute fact.

Which itself will violate the PSR.

No it doesn't. Not at all lol

Explain?
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 3:38:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 3:38:09 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/28/2014 3:37:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 3:34:33 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/28/2014 3:28:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The chain ends in something that is necessary, not something that is a brute fact.

Which itself will violate the PSR.

No it doesn't. Not at all lol

Explain?

Something that is necessary still has an explanation, it just isn't a causal one.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 3:39:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 3:38:50 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 3:38:09 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/28/2014 3:37:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 3:34:33 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/28/2014 3:28:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The chain ends in something that is necessary, not something that is a brute fact.

Which itself will violate the PSR.

No it doesn't. Not at all lol

Explain?

Something that is necessary still has an explanation, it just isn't a causal one.

So the dead body could be a necessary one? Given the right chain of logic?
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 3:42:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 3:39:48 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/28/2014 3:38:50 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 3:38:09 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/28/2014 3:37:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 3:34:33 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/28/2014 3:28:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The chain ends in something that is necessary, not something that is a brute fact.

Which itself will violate the PSR.

No it doesn't. Not at all lol

Explain?

Something that is necessary still has an explanation, it just isn't a causal one.

So the dead body could be a necessary one? Given the right chain of logic?

No, because a body is material, material things are contingent, not necessary.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 3:43:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 3:42:14 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 3:39:48 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/28/2014 3:38:50 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 3:38:09 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/28/2014 3:37:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 3:34:33 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/28/2014 3:28:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The chain ends in something that is necessary, not something that is a brute fact.

Which itself will violate the PSR.

No it doesn't. Not at all lol

Explain?

Something that is necessary still has an explanation, it just isn't a causal one.

So the dead body could be a necessary one? Given the right chain of logic?

No, because a body is material, material things are contingent, not necessary.

Mm, interesting, I guess I learned something.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...