Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

An argument for the PSR

dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 1:16:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
PSR stands for Principle of Sufficient Reason, which states that nothing is without reason or cause.

My argument is as follows:

Any claim to the effect that something lacks a cause can have no basis in reality. That is, the absence of a cause has nothing real on which to be defined. Therefore, the absence of cause has no basis in reality on which to be considered "true". The non-existence of fairies, for instance, would be defined on the existence of a reality which does not include fairies. Lack of cause, however, is not implicit in anything real. It's simply an interpretation with no corresponding existence in reality's structure. On the other hand, relationships between aspects of reality (causes) are properly defined on the aspects themselves, and therefore have a basis.
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 4:55:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 1:16:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
PSR stands for Principle of Sufficient Reason, which states that nothing is without reason or cause.

My argument is as follows:

Any claim to the effect that something lacks a cause can have no basis in reality.

Evidence for this claim?

The absence of cause has no basis in reality on which to be considered "true".

So, something without a cause cannot exist in reality. How do we know this property of reality? Again, evidence for this claim? The premise also leads directly to your conclusion: if nothing without a cause can exist in reality, then everything in reality must have a cause. This relationship is logically necessary. Again, though, you need evidence.

The non-existence of fairies, for instance, would be defined on the existence of a reality which does not include fairies.

So, a world without fairies by definition does not have fairies. Similarly, then, a world without causes does not have causes.

Lack of cause, however, is not implicit in anything real. It's simply an interpretation with no corresponding existence in reality's structure.

Evidence? How do we know how reality is structured? You assume that reality is structured in some way and then set out to prove that reality is structured in that way.

On the other hand, relationships between aspects of reality (causes) are properly defined on the aspects themselves, and therefore have a basis.

So, what is your conclusion? That everything must have a cause or reason to be? Be clear.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 5:07:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 4:55:20 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 10/31/2014 1:16:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
PSR stands for Principle of Sufficient Reason, which states that nothing is without reason or cause.

My argument is as follows:

Any claim to the effect that something lacks a cause can have no basis in reality.

Evidence for this claim?

The absence of cause has no basis in reality on which to be considered "true".

So, something without a cause cannot exist in reality. How do we know this property of reality? Again, evidence for this claim? The premise also leads directly to your conclusion: if nothing without a cause can exist in reality, then everything in reality must have a cause. This relationship is logically necessary. Again, though, you need evidence.

The non-existence of fairies, for instance, would be defined on the existence of a reality which does not include fairies.

So, a world without fairies by definition does not have fairies. Similarly, then, a world without causes does not have causes.

Lack of cause, however, is not implicit in anything real. It's simply an interpretation with no corresponding existence in reality's structure.

Evidence? How do we know how reality is structured? You assume that reality is structured in some way and then set out to prove that reality is structured in that way.

On the other hand, relationships between aspects of reality (causes) are properly defined on the aspects themselves, and therefore have a basis.

So, what is your conclusion? That everything must have a cause or reason to be? Be clear.

To the extent that I think this argument is valid, I think all the premises are self-evident and therefore don't require further justification.
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 5:26:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 5:07:26 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/31/2014 4:55:20 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 10/31/2014 1:16:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
PSR stands for Principle of Sufficient Reason, which states that nothing is without reason or cause.

My argument is as follows:

Any claim to the effect that something lacks a cause can have no basis in reality.

Evidence for this claim?

The absence of cause has no basis in reality on which to be considered "true".

So, something without a cause cannot exist in reality. How do we know this property of reality? Again, evidence for this claim? The premise also leads directly to your conclusion: if nothing without a cause can exist in reality, then everything in reality must have a cause. This relationship is logically necessary. Again, though, you need evidence.

The non-existence of fairies, for instance, would be defined on the existence of a reality which does not include fairies.

So, a world without fairies by definition does not have fairies. Similarly, then, a world without causes does not have causes.

Lack of cause, however, is not implicit in anything real. It's simply an interpretation with no corresponding existence in reality's structure.

Evidence? How do we know how reality is structured? You assume that reality is structured in some way and then set out to prove that reality is structured in that way.

On the other hand, relationships between aspects of reality (causes) are properly defined on the aspects themselves, and therefore have a basis.

So, what is your conclusion? That everything must have a cause or reason to be? Be clear.

To the extent that I think this argument is valid, I think all the premises are self-evident and therefore don't require further justification.

So, your argument is that it is true because it is true.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 5:32:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 5:26:57 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 10/31/2014 5:07:26 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/31/2014 4:55:20 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 10/31/2014 1:16:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
PSR stands for Principle of Sufficient Reason, which states that nothing is without reason or cause.

My argument is as follows:

Any claim to the effect that something lacks a cause can have no basis in reality.

Evidence for this claim?

The absence of cause has no basis in reality on which to be considered "true".

So, something without a cause cannot exist in reality. How do we know this property of reality? Again, evidence for this claim? The premise also leads directly to your conclusion: if nothing without a cause can exist in reality, then everything in reality must have a cause. This relationship is logically necessary. Again, though, you need evidence.

The non-existence of fairies, for instance, would be defined on the existence of a reality which does not include fairies.

So, a world without fairies by definition does not have fairies. Similarly, then, a world without causes does not have causes.

Lack of cause, however, is not implicit in anything real. It's simply an interpretation with no corresponding existence in reality's structure.

Evidence? How do we know how reality is structured? You assume that reality is structured in some way and then set out to prove that reality is structured in that way.

On the other hand, relationships between aspects of reality (causes) are properly defined on the aspects themselves, and therefore have a basis.

So, what is your conclusion? That everything must have a cause or reason to be? Be clear.

To the extent that I think this argument is valid, I think all the premises are self-evident and therefore don't require further justification.

So, your argument is that it is true because it is true.

Ultimately, yes. Circular logic is justified when the premises are universal (when relativization leads to inconsistency). If this seems unreasonable, it shouldn't, for logic can be justified in exactly the same way.
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 5:32:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 5:26:57 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 10/31/2014 5:07:26 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/31/2014 4:55:20 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 10/31/2014 1:16:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
PSR stands for Principle of Sufficient Reason, which states that nothing is without reason or cause.

My argument is as follows:

Any claim to the effect that something lacks a cause can have no basis in reality.

Evidence for this claim?

The absence of cause has no basis in reality on which to be considered "true".

So, something without a cause cannot exist in reality. How do we know this property of reality? Again, evidence for this claim? The premise also leads directly to your conclusion: if nothing without a cause can exist in reality, then everything in reality must have a cause. This relationship is logically necessary. Again, though, you need evidence.

The non-existence of fairies, for instance, would be defined on the existence of a reality which does not include fairies.

So, a world without fairies by definition does not have fairies. Similarly, then, a world without causes does not have causes.

Lack of cause, however, is not implicit in anything real. It's simply an interpretation with no corresponding existence in reality's structure.

Evidence? How do we know how reality is structured? You assume that reality is structured in some way and then set out to prove that reality is structured in that way.

On the other hand, relationships between aspects of reality (causes) are properly defined on the aspects themselves, and therefore have a basis.

So, what is your conclusion? That everything must have a cause or reason to be? Be clear.

To the extent that I think this argument is valid, I think all the premises are self-evident and therefore don't require further justification.

So, your argument is that it is true because it is true.

That's like saying that I am right because I am right. Lol.
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 5:34:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
PSR stands for Principle of Sufficient Reason, which states that nothing is without reason or cause.

My argument is as follows:

Any claim to the effect that something lacks a cause can have no basis in reality.

Evidence for this claim?

The absence of cause has no basis in reality on which to be considered "true".

So, something without a cause cannot exist in reality. How do we know this property of reality? Again, evidence for this claim? The premise also leads directly to your conclusion: if nothing without a cause can exist in reality, then everything in reality must have a cause. This relationship is logically necessary. Again, though, you need evidence.

The non-existence of fairies, for instance, would be defined on the existence of a reality which does not include fairies.

So, a world without fairies by definition does not have fairies. Similarly, then, a world without causes does not have causes.

Lack of cause, however, is not implicit in anything real. It's simply an interpretation with no corresponding existence in reality's structure.

Evidence? How do we know how reality is structured? You assume that reality is structured in some way and then set out to prove that reality is structured in that way.

On the other hand, relationships between aspects of reality (causes) are properly defined on the aspects themselves, and therefore have a basis.

So, what is your conclusion? That everything must have a cause or reason to be? Be clear.

To the extent that I think this argument is valid, I think all the premises are self-evident and therefore don't require further justification.

So, your argument is that it is true because it is true.

Ultimately, yes. Circular logic is justified when the premises are universal (when relativization leads to inconsistency). If this seems unreasonable, it shouldn't, for logic can be justified in exactly the same way.

You can justify your premises though. You just choose not to. Prove reality in-itself is structured in the way you say it is. Show that Hume is wrong.
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 5:39:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If all effects require a cause, then reality cannot exist because it had to have been caused. If reality had to have been caused, then something had to have caused the cause. Ad infinitum. If you assume reality has always existed, then you believe in something which is uncaused. Why is there something rather than nothing?