Have you considered how The Principle of Sufficient Reason may apply here? — TheMadFool

Why would you think that I buy the principle of sufficient reason? I'm challenging the notion that there's any good justification for it.

Kindly provide an example... — TheMadFool

Any gap in our knowledge with regards to a "why" question would be an example. There's either a reason or there isn't. If you claim to know that there's a reason, then the burden is on you. Then we can take it from there. We've actually already done this earlier on when you asked me about the laws of nature. The known explanation only goes so far, and that's where I stop, and where you assume that there must be a further reason, and proceed to propose filling in the gap with God.

To my knowledge possibility has to do with logic and plausibility with knowledge. An atheistic position deals with the former - denying god is tantamount to asserting god is impossible. — TheMadFool

Your understanding is in need of improvement. Atheism encompasses both. There are many atheists who accept that there are conceptions of God which are logically possible. Atheism is defined primarily in terms of belief, rather than possibility. I am an atheist. I do not believe that God exists (unless you define "God" as something that I do believe exists, but that'd just be wordplay and sophistry). I also believe that God, according to some conceptions, does not exist, and according to some conceptions, can not exist.

They surely can't be saying god is simply implausible because if they are then they'd need to have access to a vast amount of knowledge - extending from the subatomic to the intergalactic - and that I'm confident they don't. So, I still think my focus on possibility is appropriate to the issue that concerns me. — TheMadFool

What? Why would that be necessary? It doesn't work like that. God, based on your conception and argument here, is implausible for someone like me. I haven't encountered good enough reason to believe. There may be none, but I haven't ruled it out. You haven't provided it here in this discussion.

Please read above. — TheMadFool

I have, and I stand by my claim. What you're referring to doesn't even begin to address all of the problems with your argument, which are many.

People think that when something is ordered it is by someone hence since the word is ordered it is by someone ? well, no, it is instead "People think that when something is ordered it is by someone hence since the word is ordered people think that it is by someone"

Because so far, i see no empirical reason for your room to be cleaned by someone, it is logic because how our society work and how things are going in our lives, but it is absolutely not a rule in itself

Also we know that for a room to be cleaned without any conscient intervention it is near from impossible because we know about science, but from a larger perspective (at the level of the universe or beyond ) we know almost nothing, so maybe what seems impossible from our perspective is common or logic in the larger one

Hence, god is a possibility as credible as any other.

You can't just presuppose teleology because that would beg the question. — Sapientia

As I said before, how we answer the question depends entirely on our presuppositions. Treating the laws of nature as brute facts is no more "scientifically" warranted than treating them as the intentional product of a creative intelligence.

I have not followed this thread for a while. However, you have stayed here from almost the beginning. So now, I am curious why you are so adamant about your brand of atheism? Can you prove there is no God? Or is this just a supposition? Perhaps you are just trying to improve your logic – is that it?

I only went as far as claiming that they could be brute facts, not that they are. That's more warranted than either position unless and until there's sufficient evidence to decide one way or the other. In such circumstances it's more reasonable to leave such presuppositions behind.

Ah, so you've returned, and your false dichotomies have returned with you, I see. Your black and white thinking has been a recurring problem throughout this discussion. You know, there's a large grey area between proof and just a supposition. It's neither. You also seem to have forgotten that I told you that I don't need to prove the antithesis. Given that I don't need to do so, you should stop asking me that, because it's irrelevant and an attempt to shift the burden of proof. As for why I've been doing what I've been doing here, it's much the same reason as everyone else: I'm convinced that I'm right. But I'm not so adamant that I can't be convinced otherwise. It's just that these arguments are old, the problems well known, and I'm able to pick up on that. That acts as a roadblock to forming belief. I'm not the kind of person who can crash right through to the other side, as you did prematurely and very early on.

There are many atheists who accept that there are conceptions of God which are logically possible. Atheism is defined primarily in terms of belief, rather than possibility. I am an atheist. I do not believe that God exists (unless you define "God" as something that I do believe exists, but that'd just be wordplay and sophistry). I also believe that God, according to some conceptions, does not exist, and according to some conceptions, can not exist. — Sapientia

I think what I am seeing is that you base your belief upon logic. You hold an atheist position because it is most logical to you. However, it annoys you that others bring emotion into the mix. Is your annoyance an emotion? Indeed, logic must be your God. I shall have no other logic before my logic. Did I get it right?

Try to play the ball, not the man.

Try to play the ball, not the man. — Sapientia

I would say the same to you. Answer the question - is logic your God?

I don't need to prove the antithesis. — Sapientia

I don't need to prove the thesis - what I feel is enough. Can you say the same? I can accept that position, if, it is so for you.

It's a silly question, so it deserves a silly answer. Yes, logic is my God. I worship it five times a day and pray to it whenever things don't go my way. Satisfied?

Good for you, but this isn't the time or the place for that. This is a philosophy forum. If you want to share your feelings, but you're averse to critical thinking, then this probably isn't the right place for you. Try Facebook.

It's a silly question, so it deserves a silly answer. Yes, logic is my God. I worship it five times a day and pray to it whenever things don't go my way. Satisfied? — Sapientia

I think you are trivializing because it is a point of contention. The only thing that holds your position together is your logic. You disparage your own emotion – to say nothing of mine. I can take it – can you? I say suppositions are valid.

Good for you, but this isn't the time or the place for that. This is a philosophy forum. If you want to share your feelings, but you're averse to critical thinking, then this probably isn't the right place for you. Try Facebook. — Sapientia

One can have critical thinking about emotions. If we did not - I don't think we would have much to talk about. In addition, we cannot separate our feelings from our thoughts - critical thinking. Or perhaps you can Mr. Spock - I mean Mr. Sapientia.

Yes we can. I don't need to be Spock to be able to separate my feelings from my thoughts to the extent that I am able to avoid the fallacy of appealing to emotion.

Anyway, we should stop this, because it's a digression.

All of which is says nothing about God, the coherency of any notion of God or the existence of any God. I mean are our feelings we might talk about God?

Critical thinking shows us is appeals to emotion do not work because all that is at stake is our feelings, not an existing state or point of logic. All your "argument (if we could call it that; really it's mindless rehtoric)" does is talk about how someone cares about something. Reason, thought and even emotion have a wider scope. One is not arguing or following God just because they "feel" something is true.

One can certainly have critical thinking about emotions; in this discussion, you do not.

Yes we can. I don't need to be Spock to be able to separate my feelings from my thoughts to the extent that I am able to avoid the fallacy of appealing to emotion. — Sapientia

So, your argument rests upon the “supposition” that we must only use logic to substantiate our philosophical positions. In other words we must not let emotion into our critical thinking. No emotion – exactly how do we do that? More importantly – why would we want to try? Please show me how your arguments are devoid of emotion? Your logic is just a supposition in the final analysis. How do you determine this supposition is correct? My supposition is that it is impossible to separate emotion and logic. I think I have the stronger supposition. One always needs motivation to do anything – motivation always has an emotional component.

I only went as far as claiming that they could be brute facts, not that they are. — Sapientia

Would you likewise go as far as acknowledging that they could be the intentional product of a creative intelligence?

That's more warranted than either position unless and until there's sufficient evidence to decide one way or the other. — Sapientia

How should we determine what counts as evidence and how much is sufficient?

In such circumstances it's more reasonable to leave such presuppositions behind. — Sapientia

It is impossible to leave all of our presuppositions behind.

Why would you think that I buy the principle of sufficient reason? I'm challenging the notion that there's any good justification for it — Terrapin Station

If you deny PSR then please give me an example that disproves it.

There's either a reason or there isn't. If you claim to know that there's a reason, then the burden is on you. — Sapientia

Ok. My belief in the PSR is cemented by all the fields of knowledge from prehistory till now. The dinosaurs died because an asteroid hit the earth about 65 million years ago. Leibniz's PSR is suspect because he had theological agenda. And so on.

You reject the PSR. Give me proof why.

There are many atheists who accept that there are conceptions of God which are logically possible — Sapientia

That's great! That's reasonable.

What? Why would that be necessary? It doesn't work like that. — Sapientia

Take for example a man from Biblical times. With his background knowledge flying is implausible. Now consider a man from this century. With his background knowledge flying is not only plausible but also a reality. Comparing the two, who's knowledge is more extensive? Likewise before an atheist says God is implausible he must have knowledge of the entire universe - because that's the extent of the possibility that God exists - and that, we all know, isn't the case.

This has nothing to do with the original argument. — Srap Tasmaner

Michael raised an interesting objection and I responded.

It's hard to navigate the world of thoughts - with our errors and biases - and so I present my argument to the forum in the hope that others will see my mistakes or, preferably, confirm my beliefs.

If it looks like I'm making up stuff ''to hold it together'' I probably am but...are there any logical errors? That's the question that I care about.

PSR is incoherent.

The idea is built out of ignoring logical distinctions. PSR posed as the glue which logically distinguishes one thing from another, which allows us to say "why" a tree is tree rather than a rock (or anything else). Without PSR, supposedly, nothing can make sense.

In this suggestion, though, people are ignoring how things have already been defined as distinct in themselves. We are asking how the tree is defined in the first instance. We've already accounted for the logical distinction which we supposedly have to explain. The meaning and logical distinction are already there in the first instance. PSR is doing no work at all.

PSR is incoherent — TheWillowOfDarkness

BECAUSE...

The idea is built out of ignoring logical distinctions. PSR posed as the glue which logically distinguishes one thing from another, which allows us to say "why" a tree is tree rather than a rock (or anything else). Without PSR, supposedly, nothing can make sense.

In this suggestion, though, people are ignoring how things have already been defined as distinct in themselves. We are asking how the tree is defined in the first instance. We've already accounted for the logical distinction which we supposedly have to explain. The meaning and logical distinction are already there in the first instance. PSR is doing no work at all. — TheWillowOfDarkness

You've just PSR to reject PSR. Self-contradictory?

Please explain.

I didn't appeal to PSR at all. My point was logical discintion are given in-themsleves, so need no force of PSR to make them so. The question: "What makes a tree a tree and not a rock?" is just a red-herring. There is no such force. The logical distinction of tree is just itself. To suggest we need PSR acting to make the logical distinction of tree is only to ignore the distinction itself.

I didn't appeal to PSR at all. — TheWillowOfDarkness

From wikipedia:

"The principle has a variety of expressions, all of which are perhaps best summarized by the following:

1) For every entity X, if X exists, then there is a sufficient explanation for why X exists.

2)For every event E, if E occurs, then there is a sufficient explanation for why E occurs.

3)For every proposition P, if P is true, then there is a sufficient explanation for why P is true."

I think you did. Look at 3). Please explain.

I think you did. — theMadFool

I can't see the PSR, in variant 3 or any other variant, being invoked in Willow's post, implicitly or explicitly. In which part of the post do you believe it was invoked, and what makes you believe it was invoked there?

My guess, based on your upper texting of 'because' in your post, is that you are thinking that providing a reason for something is using the PSR.

That is not correct.

Providing a reason is saying 'look, here is a reason', whereas invoking the PSR is assuming there must be a reason even if we can't see one. It's the difference between the proposition (which almost everybody believes):

1. Some things have explanations

and the proposition (which is the PSR, which is not widely believed outside the Rationalist camp)

2. All things have explanations.

3)For every proposition P, if P is true, then there is a sufficient explanation for why P is true." — TheMadFool

Even this one displays the rejection of logical distinction I'm calling out.

If P (the meaning of tree} is true, then there must be a sufficient explanation (what is this? PSR supposedly) which is distinct and allows P (the meaning of tree to be true).

But the very question this asks in the first instance is incoherent. The meaning of tree is a logical truth. It is necessary. There is no instance where the meaning of tree is not the meaning of tree-- it cannot be false.

The supposition of PSR is being used to ground a truth when it isn't required. P is a logical discintion and so is not contingent. There are no other possibilities we need to justify the elimination of with PSR.

No doubt there is a "explanation" or description of these logical truths; I am giving it right now, but it doesn't make use of or have dependence on PSR.

and the proposition (which is the PSR, which is not widely believed outside the Rationalist camp)

2. All things have explanations. — andrewk

There is quite a bit of irony in that. Some rationalists (e.g. Spinoza) reject PSR precisely because it amounts to doubting the logical structure of reality.

The rationalists who don't reject PSR are actually thinking like empiricists. To them logical structure (e.g. the meaning of tree) is treated like a contingent state which may or may not be. Supposedly, PSR must be there to make every logical distinction, else something else might be true in place of that logical distinction-- "We must find the (efficient) cause of logical structure. It must be PSR."

To advocate PSR is to reject the logical structure of reality.

Thanks andrewk. You're always there to keep me (and others) on track.

Your objection as pertains to the discussion between me and @TheWillowOfDarkness implies that you don't accept the PSR (at least not in the way I'm using it).

All I want from you and TheWillowOfDarkness is ONE example which falsifies the PSR. I'm not asking for much am I?

If you deny PSR then please give me an example that disproves it. — TheMadFool

Either you disprove that P or you accept that P?

A counter-example to the PSR would be a proof of non-existence. Proving the non-existence of something is rarely possible, except in maths.

For any phenomenon, however bizarre and seemingly inexplicable, how could one ever prove that there is not some reason for it that is hidden from our view?

There are plenty of things for which we have no explanations. Dark Matter is one that springs to mind. It is entirely possible that there is no explanation. But how could we ever know for sure that there isn't one?