You're contradicting yourself. You used the word ''hence'' which is an instance of PSR. — TheMadFool

You have zero understanding of the difference between (a) thinking about something in terms of reasons, (b) there being a reason for something, (c) there being a principle regarding there being a reason for everything and (d) feeling that there needs to be a reason for everything.

However I can give you evidence for PSR e.g. 6 million jews were killed in ww2 because of Nazi Germany's race philosophy. The WTC was attacked because of radical Islam. Water turns to ice because the temperature falls to or below 0 degree celsius — TheMadFool

You could give 50 billion reasons for different things, where we can assume that they're really reasons for things and not simply ways that we think about things and their connections to each other. But that's in no way evidence of a principle that everything must have a reason. You apparently have zero understanding of what principles are in general.

Think of it this way: suppose that someone says, "No, the principle is actually a Reason Exception Principle--REP: For every billion facts in the universe, fifteen have no reason for occurring, although the acausality of those fifteen things necessarily remains empirically unknown to us." That's incompatible with the PSR. And listing 50 billion reasons for different things is just as much support of the REP as it is support of the PSR, because the REP claims that the vast majority of things have a reason, and doesn't claim that we do not empirically know those reasons.

So what you need is evidence of the principle, qua the principle..

Give me a counterexample to the PSR.

That there are reasons for some things is not that there are reasons for everything — Michael

Give me a counterexample to the PSR.



Give me a counterexample to the PSR.

1. Learn how the burden of proof works.

2. Pay closer attention.

Give me a counterexample to the PSR. — TheMadFool

I gave you some suggested examples in that very post. There might be no explanation for why there is something rather than nothing. There might be no explanation for why the fundamental features of the world are the way they are.

Give me a counterexample to the PSR. — TheMadFool

Give me something that actually supports the supposed principle. (Or at least attempt to demonstrate that you have some understanding of what a principle is and why it's different than any particular empirical evidence.)

Are you saying the similarity is that there are principles at all, or that the principles themselves are similar? — Srap Tasmaner

there are principles at all
— Srap Tasmaner

That's it. — TheMadFool

Is the relation between my house and its principles the same as the relation between the universe and its principles? — Srap Tasmaner

To the extent that we can posit a creator of the principles. — TheMadFool

So we've agreed that the principles that somehow relate to the house or to my building the house are not similar to the principles that somehow relate to the universe or to God creating the universe.

If I understand your last post, the idea is that what matters is that the builder or creator is the source of the principles that relate to the project. My ideas about the house guide the building of the house and determine the result; God's ideas about the universe guide his creation of it and determine the result. To say something is designed is to say that it embodies some person's ideas. Is that it?

So, absent direct evidence like watching someone design and build something, we can tell something is designed if we can tell that the principles of its organization were someone's ideas. In the presence of something designed, we feel it was done deliberately, or intentionally, or on purpose, at any rate that it didn't just happen, that there was an agency at work in addition to natural processes.

We can be wrong about this. Sometimes trees just happen to grow in circles. But if they are very precisely spaced, or if they line up with constellations or something, we may suspect they were planted. An archaeologist can spot a broken arrowhead where laymen would only see one rock among others. Pattern is not everything though, because nature is full of patterns.

And now we're right back where we started, because the claim is that the existence of patterns in nature is indeed evidence that nature is the way it is deliberately. We clearly cannot reach this conclusion the same way we determine, say, that the shape of this rock must have been deliberately imparted to it by a skilled craftsman. That method is comparative. Natural processes are known to shape rocks in certain ways, and this isn't one of them.

Since we cannot evaluate the universe comparatively--we are not in a position to say something like, this neat, orderly universe appears to have been made deliberately, but those other messy universes seem to have just happened--we must hold that design, deliberate intent, etc. can be apparent in a thing without reference to anything else. The object must wear its designedness on its sleeve.

The problem we encounter immediately though is that concepts are comparative by nature. Even though it is conceivable that, having acquired, say, the concept [red], you could tell something is red without comparing it to anything not red, you could not possibly acquire such a concept in the first place.

In this case, if designedness is to play the role demanded, it must be an innate concept. We must be born with the ability to recognize what is the result of deliberate, intentional design and what is not. And note that it has to be this particular concept. It will not do to say we are born with the ability to recognize patterns or something. No one is disputing that there are patterns in nature. What's at issue is whether those patterns are designed, whether the universe itself is designed, and we must be able to recognize this without comparing the universe to anything else.

Note also that the issue here is not whether there are different sorts of design. We could, for the moment, allow that there might be human design, ant design, divine design, and so on, and that it may be possible to acquire those distinctions through experience. The issue is whether they are all types of one and the same thing and whether you can tell they are just by looking, from the moment you're born.

Demea objects that the argument's conclusion is only probable, but Philo responds that the real problem is that the analogy is so weak. He launches a battery of arguments to show just how weak it is. The dissimilarities between human artifacts and the universe are more striking than their similarities. We only experience a tiny part of the universe for a short time; much of what we do experience is unknown to us. How can we legitimately infer anything about remote parts of the universe, much less the universe as a whole?

Philo, however, moves quickly away from chipping at the argument's strength to questioning the intelligibility of its conclusion. We have no experience of the origin of a universe. Since causal inference requires a basis in experienced constant conjunction between two kinds of things, how can we legitimately draw any conclusion whatsoever about the origin of the universe? Does it even require a cause? One or many? Does the cause of the universe itself require a cause? The problem, then, is not just that the analogy is weak; the real problem is that it attempts to take us beyond what we can know. — Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy

I gave you some suggested examples in that very post. There might be no explanation for why there is something rather than nothing. There might be no explanation for why the fundamental features of the world are the way they are. — Michael

the real problem is that it attempts to take us beyond what we can know. — Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy

I think it is true for most of us – that we have no way to know answers for certain questions. That is our lot. Do we not ask the questions? Most people don’t, but some of us do. Most people rely on other people’s answers. However, there are people who claim to receive direct communication with the divine or devil. Do we believe them – I don’t. I personally am waiting for an infinitely advance alien to beam me up and take me away to paradise. I am sure it is going to happen soon.

In the mean time I muddle around and play with what I have. Natural organization seems real to me. Life on this planet seems very fortunate. Consciousness is a real blessing. Love is a gift to me. I don’t know why I have these “things”. But I speculate and I am thankful. I think I am lucky. As an atheist – do you feel lucky to have life – consciousness – love – are you thankful? If you are thankful – to what – the universe – luckiness? If you are not thankful – that seems sad.

There might be no explanation for why there is something rather than nothing. There might be no explanation for why the fundamental features of the world are the way they are. — Michael

Notice that you've used "might" which is the truth - we don't know - and that's insufficient as evidence against PSR. I need stronger evidence than just doubt to deny a well established principle. Please read my reply to Terrapin Station below.

Give me something that actually supports the supposed principle. — Terrapin Station

A) 65 million years ago: The dinosaurs were killed because of an asteroid

B) Now: Terrorist attacks in the West [/i]because[/i] of ISIS ideology

And also EVERYTHING between A and B serves as evidence for the PSR.

The problem, then, is not just that the analogy is weak; the real problem is that it attempts to take us beyond what we can know. — Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy

This is the 21st century. So many discoveries have been made in science and mathematical laws dominate them. Do you think if Philo or Demea knew what we know they'd be so confident in pronouncing judgments like that? Also, their arguments seem to be classic examples of argument from ignorance. I think we can let that slide because they were arguing with theists who believe in the god of scripture.

The issue is whether they are all types of one and the same thing and whether you can tell they are just by looking, from the moment you're born. — Srap Tasmaner

I can't understand you. Can you simplify?

This is the 21st century. — TheMadFool

Yet you're clinging to an argument that was refuted way back in the 18th century.

So many discoveries have been made in science and mathematical laws dominate them. Do you think if Philo or Demea knew what we know they'd be so confident in pronouncing judgements like that? — TheMadFool

The main thrust of Philo's argument is applicable today, as it was back then. The dissimilarities between human artifacts and the universe are more striking than their similarities. Vast swathes of the universe remain unknown to us. How can we legitimately infer anything of this sort about remote parts of the universe, much less the universe as a whole?

Also, their arguments seem to be classic examples of argument from ignorance. — TheMadFool

Philo is the one you need to pay attention to. And no, not at all. Hume was a cautious sceptic.

I think we can let that slide because they were arguing with theists who believe in the god of scripture. — TheMadFool

There's nothing there to let slide. And bringing up the god of scripture seems to be a red herring you employ to evade addressing the parts of the argument that are relevant to your argument here. The basic structure is the same, even if yours doesn't go on to conclude that the designer is the god of scripture.

Yet you're clinging to an argument that was refuted way back in the 18th century — Sapientia

The refutation is equally old and actually less plausible given the evidence we've accumulated through science.

Vast swathes of the universe remain unknown to us. How can we legitimately infer anything of this sort about remote parts of the universe, much less the universe as a whole? — Sapientia

I'm glad you brought that up. It applies in equal measure to atheism. In fact I'd go further and say it applies more to atheism than theism because the proof of theism may be found on Earth or on some remote star system but the proof of atheism has to include the entire universe.

And bringing up the god of scripture seems to be a red herring you employ to evade addressing the parts of the argument that are relevant to your argument here. — Sapientia

No red herring here. The strongest refutations are against the god of scripture. My God is only a creator, nothing more and nothing less. Where I found relevance I responded accordingly.

A) 65 million years ago: The dinosaurs were killed because of an asteroid — TheMadFool

You apparently didn't understand this:

You could give 50 billion reasons for different things, where we can assume that they're really reasons for things and not simply ways that we think about things and their connections to each other. But that's in no way evidence of a principle that everything must have a reason. — Terrapin Station

If that's the case then science should be thrown out the window. After all it relies on induction (multiple observations confirming a principle stated in a scientific hypothesis), the same methodology I've used to support PSR.

Another thing...you haven't given me a counterexample that disproves the PSR.

I can't understand you. Can you simplify? — TheMadFool

If there's something specific you don't get, ask me.

The whole thing please

I just don't have it in me, man. If you ask me a more specific question, I'll try to answer.

The refutation is equally old and actually less plausible given the evidence we've accumulated through science. — TheMadFool

It's equally old and seems to have settled the matter for a very long time right up to the present. You haven't been able to overcome the objections that were raised back then and which I've been trying to bring to your attention in this discussion. You keep ignoring important parts of what I've been saying. For example, you talk of what you claim to be evidence accumulated by science, but I've explained the problem with that: hasty generalisation. Are you going to respond to that or carry on ignoring it? You're trying to stretch science and knowledge way beyond where they're able to go. The problem is not science, it's you.

I'm glad you brought that up. It applies in equal measure to atheism. In fact I'd go further and say it applies more to atheism than theism because the proof of theism may be found on Earth or on some remote star system but the proof of atheism has to include the entire universe. — TheMadFool

So you accept that the criticism applies to your argument? Yes or no? If so, that's a big concession. You haven't given me the impression that you realise the gravity of biting that bullet.

You're falling back into making your earlier error where you mistake atheism for one version of it. Remember, this version is not my version in general or by default, and not the version of others in this discussion. However, I would take a harder stance if absence of evidence is evidence of absence - another issue I've raised and you've avoided.

No red herring here. The strongest refutations are against the god of scripture. My God is only a creator, nothing more and nothing less. Where I found relevance I responded accordingly. — TheMadFool

It is a red herring. And you haven't explained in necessary detail why you don't think those other criticisms apply. You've dismissed them because of a mistaken belief which you haven't properly explained. Just an excuse, it seems. Or, as above, you've avoided giving a clear answer, and expounding on it, but have instead shifted the focus on to your impoverished understanding of atheism, which, as you've shown, is quite resistant to correction.

No problem. Thanks

For example, you talk of what you claim to be evidence accumulated by science, but I've explained the problem with that: hasty generalisation. — Sapientia

Hasty generalization?! All the mathematical laws written in scientific books and journals amount to nothing then?

You're falling back into making your earlier error where you mistake atheism for one version of it. — Sapientia

Thanks. I can see that I've overlooked the nuances of what atheism means. Yet, my concern is why (going back to my OP) atheists would infer a person from an ordered room and find it hard to do the same with the universe. This hasn't been adequately explained by you.

Hasty generalization?! All the mathematical laws written in scientific books and journals amount to nothing then? — TheMadFool

They don't amount to what you'd need to make your argument work.

Thanks. I can see that I've overlooked the nuances of what atheism means. Yet, my concern is why (going back to my OP) atheists would infer a person from an ordered room and find it hard to do the same with the universe. This hasn't been adequately explained by you. — TheMadFool

Well, I think it has, so you can go over what I've already contributed and raise a specific concern. Or not. But I'm not going to humour you. I think the effort has been more one-sided rather than quid pro quo.

If that's the case then science should be thrown out the window. After all it relies on induction (multiple observations confirming a principle stated in a scientific hypothesis), the same methodology I've used to support PSR. — TheMadFool

Principles are the realm of logic, not science, and I'm an anti-realist on natural law.

If there's something specific you don't get, ask me. — Srap Tasmaner

As an atheist – do you feel lucky to have life – consciousness – love – are you thankful? If you are thankful – to what – the universe – luckiness? What?

Good one.

Good one. — Srap Tasmaner

What is good about it?

As an atheist – do you feel lucky to have life – consciousness – love – are you thankful? If you are thankful – to what – the universe – luckiness? What?

As an atheist – do you feel lucky to have life – consciousness – love – are you thankful? If you are thankful – to what – the universe – luckiness? What? — Thinker

I'm an atheist and we're obviously all the same, so I'll answer!

We're thankful to our mother for giving us life and consciousness (i.e, not aborting us), and are thankful to our family for giving us love... If you're thankful to an invisible friend more so than to your family, then I'd say you have questionable priorities...

But here you will surely say "Yea but who gave your mother life? Really you ought to be thankful to them!". And the answer is yes, sure, and we can go back through the countless generations of our ancestors, through the variations of hominids, through to smaller and smaller mammals, then through amphibians, then fish, then through less complex multi-cellular life, through single cellular photosynthesis/hydrothermal supported single cells, all the way to the first proto-cell which began the interesting and repeating spiral we call life.

Here you will surely say "Aha! The chance of the formation of the first proto-cell! Surely you must thank this!?"

Well, if you are asking if we atheists would prefer it if life existed, then yes, generally we prefer that. But we have no object or entity to thank for this. You could suggest that chance is a thankable entity, but an arbitrary set of physical circumstances which give rise to a proto-cell would have come from previous states of matter. We can then begin rewinding causation in the universe to a time where from our perspective it seems like everything in the universe was infinitely hot and infinitely dense. Beyond this "singularity" we have no way of knowing or describing what came before (let alone even conceive of a "before").

So are you asking whether or not we atheists thank the infinitely hot and infinitely dense singularity? No because it's not a conscious thing. Would we prefer it if the big bang happened? Generally yes, we would prefer that, and if there is something that can actually be meaningfully thanked for this, we're ignorant of it.

I have a few questions of my own though (quid pro quo and all):

Do you thank the socks on your feet? Do you thank the air that you breathe or the water that you drink?

Do you thank the gravity of the earth and the earth's distance from the sun?

If not why not?

Do you thank the socks on your feet? Do you thank the air that you breathe or the water that you drink?

Do you thank the gravity of the earth and the earth's distance from the sun?

If not why not? — VagabondSpectre

Yes I am thankful for these things.

I think your answers were great - and - I would say truthful. Do you think that you are fortunate to have all these things? Lucky?

You do realize that my answer takes us right back through the entire universal history of causation to the big bang right?

You're asking if I like existing... Yes I like existing... No I don't feel lucky to exist, because if I didn't exist I wouldn't be around to feel unlucky, so why should I be surprised to find out that I exist?

Can you define "thankful" though? (if someone has a feeling of thankfullness, do you think that means there must be a sentient and responsible third party toward which your thanks is aimed?)

And regarding your thankfulness for the distance between the earth and sun, is there anything to which you personally thank for that reality?

You do realize that my answer takes us right back through the entire universal history of causation to the big bang right? — VagabondSpectre

Not quite - I am not asking a question of causation - I think cause or no cause is irrelevant. In fact I don't want us to consider causation - just circumstance. Are we lucky to exist?

What kind of luck do you have in mind?

There's probability: is it statistically anomalous that we exist? (the answer is not from our perspective)

And then there's favorability: "is our existence favorable/good to/for us?" (the answer is yes, us atheists generally categorize existence as a good thing)

If you want a more direct answer than this you've got to define "luck".

I don't think the question makes sense. It strikes me, at it's heart, based upon a nihilistic supposition: that someone how our existence doesn't make sense because we are particular type of state amongst the many which could have been.

I would say it's ignorance of ourselves and world to think in such terms-- we might be one possibility amongst many, but given the nature of ourselves and what does exist, these are the only the which would come to exist. In this sense, our absence was never a risk we would have to deal with, despite us being one of many possible states.

"Luck" really only makes sense if you are talking about causality, in the significance of how someone exists in one position rather than another, by circumstance and themselves, such they one way rather than another (e.g. a rich person is who "lucky" to be born into wealth, person belonging to a plentiful environment, etc.).