Total Posts:5|Showing Posts:1-5
Jump to topic:

Arguments for PSR

dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 5:55:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
"The principle of sufficient reason states that nothing is without reason."

1. In order for a statement to be justified, it must follow from (be implicated by) facts which are already taken for granted. That is, justification mirrors explanation (something is explained by virtue of the things which imply it) . Therefore, there can be no reason to think something is without explanation. Since there is no reason to think so, any argument to the effect that "it is possible that X is without explanation" is necessarily unjustifiable. Since it is unjustifiable, the only justifiable position to take is the alternative: that it has an explanation.

2. Something's "lack of explanation" has nothing to be defined on, and can thus have no basis in reality. It can't be defined on the object itself, because the existence of the object is not decidable and thus cannot be relied on.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2015 2:06:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/15/2015 5:55:42 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"The principle of sufficient reason states that nothing is without reason."

1. In order for a statement to be justified, it must follow from (be implicated by) facts which are already taken for granted. That is, justification mirrors explanation (something is explained by virtue of the things which imply it) . Therefore, there can be no reason to think something is without explanation. Since there is no reason to think so, any argument to the effect that "it is possible that X is without explanation" is necessarily unjustifiable. Since it is unjustifiable, the only justifiable position to take is the alternative: that it has an explanation.

2. Something's "lack of explanation" has nothing to be defined on, and can thus have no basis in reality. It can't be defined on the object itself, because the existence of the object is not decidable and thus cannot be relied on.

Strange no one has posted here. Maybe you should have made your title "wet grass".

I don't think the basics of even justifying how evidence is identified is a concept many know of.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 4:21:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
In other words, if you claim that X is the reason that some aspect of reality Y is causeless, then you've identified its cause, since the existence of a causeless Y could be attributed to X, and have thus contradicted yourself.
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 4:53:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
In other words, if you claim that X is the reason that some aspect of reality Y is causeless, then you've identified its cause, since the existence of a causeless Y could be attributed to X, and have thus contradicted yourself.

Ok. I will try to avoid claiming that X is the reason some aspect of reality Y is causeless ever again.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 7:21:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 4:53:16 PM, kp98 wrote:
In other words, if you claim that X is the reason that some aspect of reality Y is causeless, then you've identified its cause, since the existence of a causeless Y could be attributed to X, and have thus contradicted yourself.

Ok. I will try to avoid claiming that X is the reason some aspect of reality Y is causeless ever again.

lol