:up:

Meh.

It remains that the OP does not present anything like the "demonstration" indicated in the title.

That we look for, or expect to find, a reason simply does not imply that there MUST be a reason. — Banno

Yes it does imply "that there MUST be a reason", because the necessity of logic is based in the human need to make sense of things. Logic is a product of human minds, and logical necessity is a type of human need. Therefore, if we look for, expect to find, or in any way need a reason for X, this implies that there MUST be a reason for X. "MUST" means means nothing more than we need a reason for, and we would not look for the reason unless it was deemed as needed.

To believe that "MUST" could be based in anything other than human need is what is nonsense.

On your logic, if someone goes looking for the Loch Ness Monster, then there must be a Loch Ness Monster.

Very good.

On your logic, if someone goes looking for the Loch Ness Monster, then there must be a Loch Ness Monster. — Banno

Of course. How could one look for the Loch Ness Monster unless that is something which could be looked for?

Right. I'll leave you to it, again. Enjoy.

You fall into the atheist trap of self-contradiction, if you try to deny that God who is defined as the necessary being, is not a being.

You must play the game by the rules of the definitions, or else you equivocate.

Your understanding of modal logic is on a par with your grasp of physics.

On your logic, if someone goes looking for the Loch Ness Monster, then there must be a Loch Ness Monster.

Very good. — Banno

:smirk:

You fall into the atheist trap of self-contradiction, if you try to deny that God who is defined as the necessary being, is not a being. — Metaphysician Undercover

Why is that different from saying:

"Let 'Fido' mean 'the dog whose existence is necessary,' therefore Fido exists." Have I just created Fido? Or did Fido exist before the definition?

Surely God's necessity should depend on his other characteristics, no? Shouldn't God's necessity be in virtue of, say its timelessness, or infinity or something?

Your understanding of modal logic is on a par with your grasp of physics. — Banno

Your understanding of necessity is nonexistent. If you want to create a definition of "necessary" which is based in something other than logic, or reason, then let's see your principles. Otherwise your use of "MUST" when you say "That we look for, or expect to find, a reason simply does not imply that there MUST be a reason", is self-contradictory nonsense.

It's quite obvious to anyone with a reasoning mind, that if we are looking for something, then there is a reason for us to be looking for it. If what we are looking for is the reason why we are looking, this does not imply that there may be no reason. It only implies that the reason is unknown. You jump to the unsupported conclusion, that there may not be a reason. However, all evidence indicates that if someone is looking for something, there is a reason for that activity, so your insinuation, that there may not be a reason is nonsense.

Why is that different from saying:

"Let 'Fido' mean 'the dog whose existence is necessary,' therefore Fido exists." Have I just created Fido? Or did Fido exist before the definition? — bert1

I didn't say it is different. When you say "Let 'Fido' mean 'the dog whose existence is necessary,' therefore Fido exists.", you provide no time constraints. Therefore your question of "before" is not relevant, and not answerable from the information provided.

There is a difference between accepting a premise for the purpose of a logical proceeding, and questioning the acceptability (truth or falsity) of the premise. The premise is what is necessary for the procedure, and when accepted, what is stated is a necessity, as what is necessary for the logical procedure. If the premise is not accepted it is considered to be a possibility.

Banno appears to be proposing an interpretation of "modal logic" by which accepting the premise provides us with something that is possible, rather than something which is necessary for the logical procedure. But of course that is just a trick of sophistry. The premise states what is necessary, and even if we put the name "logical possibility" to that necessity, it doesn't change the fact that what is now called a "possibility", is the thing which is necessary for the proposed logical procedure. Therefore the "possibility" is taken as a necessity, necessary for the logical procedure, despite being assigned the name "possibility".

I have a thread on the topic that the physical cannot be the cause of its own change here. If we agree on this then it follows that there must be an entity, so-called the Mind, that is in charge of change in physical. Once, this is accepted then it follows that it is the Mind who is in charge of enforcing the laws of physics.

What twaddle. "Laws" of nature are just ways of talking about the way things are, ways that have been shown to work. They are not "enforced" - as if one were fined for braking the law of gravity... or sent to jail for creating a perpetuum mobile. — Banno

I have a thread on the topic that the physical cannot be the cause of its own change here. If we agree on this then it follows that there must be an entity, so-called the Mind, that is in charge of change in physical. Once, this is accepted then it follows that it is the Mind who is in charge of enforcing the laws of physics.

No, I don't agree as I pointed out on the first page of that thread ...

Assume that the physical in the state of S1 has the caus[al] power to cause the physical in the state of S2. Physical however is not aware of the passage of time. Therefore, the physical in the state of S1 cannot know the correct instant to cause the physical in the state of S2.
—MoK

These misplaced concreteness & anthropomorphic fallacies render your (latest) OP "argument" gibberish, Mok. — 180 Proof

There's an old joke: what's the difference between a neurotic person and a psychotic? Ans.: the neurotic builds imaginary castles, and the psychotic tries to live in them.

With your assume this, and if that is the case, and it must be such-and-so, you're like the neurotic, building arguments you imagine are valid and true. And this is what science and logic jointly do: they investigate possibilities. But science/logic are self-equipped to judge the value of their own arguments, dismissing the invalid and untrue. When the invalid and untrue are nevertheless insisted upon or continually argued as true and valid, that's madness approaching psychosis. Of course these things may be entertained and pursued as matters of belief, but more than that a sickness. Or just plain stupid ignorance. So what is it in your case? Inappropriate argument? A sickness/madness? Stupidity? Ignorance?

I doubt the latter two. I suspect you want to argue matters of belief as matters of fact. Can't you tell the difference?

I have a thread on the topic that the physical cannot be the cause of its own change here. — MoK

The style of that OP is not one I could take seriously.

PSR is not a principle of logic. [...] Further, and infamously, induction is not logically grounded. [...] Abduction - forget it. — Banno

It is acknowledged that the PSR is not derived from logic. As previously said, logic and the PSR stand side by side; one is not underneath the other.

Likewise induction/abduction is a separate type of reasoning than deduction (i.e. logic). But induction/abduction is also necessary to find truth. Using logic or deduction alone would only result in empty formulas in formal logic and mathematics. For concrete truths about the actual world, we also need to use induction/abduction.

Notice that you have not actually set out the how in your claim that PSR is supported inductively. Were is the inductive (or abductive, whatever that might be) argument? — Banno

My argument in this comment is not an inductive argument. Rather, it says that since induction/abduction is necessary to find truth, and since it is equivalent to the PSR (inference to the most reasonable explanation), then we can trust our voice of reason when it says that everything must have an explanation. Logic can be defended the same way.

The trouble is that it remains unclear when a reason is sufficient, and what a reason is. — Banno

A reason is sufficient if it covers all the data in the topic inquired. It also should not be more than sufficient, i.e. it should not explain more than what the data can support, otherwise it is superfluous.

A reason is what can explain the existence or occurence of a thing. E.g. the reason for the existence of a chicken egg is a chicken.

And the "sufficient reason" for (every instantiation of) the "PSR" is what exactly? — 180 Proof

A full defense of the PSR is provided in this post under the section called "Argument in defense of the PSR". But here is a summary:

There is a strong parallel between logic and the PSR. They are both first principles of metaphysics and epistemology. On the epistemology side, logic is associated with deduction, and the PSR is associated with induction/abduction.

We accept the laws of logic, not merely because we observe outcomes in reality to be logical (otherwise we could not say that everything must necessarily be logical; only that things happen to be logical), but because our voice of reason, specifically our deductive reasoning, tells us to. If we entertain the idea that some outcomes could be illogical, our voice of reason says "That's illegal".

Similarly, we should accept the PSR, not merely because we observe that things in reality have reasons to exist or occur, but because our voice of reason, specifically our inductive/abductive reasoning, tells us to. If we entertain the idea that some things exist or occur without reason, our voice of reason says "That's illegal".

I agree that the laws of nature are enforced by an entity called the Mind, but I wonder how this can be called intelligent design. In fact, I can argue that given any laws of nature and considering that the universe is infinite, one can expect a form of life soon or late so I wonder what the design is about. — MoK

In this context, what is directly designed are the laws of nature. The things that result from the laws of nature would not be directly designed.

You seem to think that all you need do is present a proposal for it to be agreed. Presenting statements is not presenting an argument.

Must be a Christian thing.... "It is written..."

Wishful thinking on your part. Certainly not of much real interest.

I am afraid this is not a counterargument, so I cannot comment on it further.

Disregarding your insults, I didn't find anything valuable in your post so I won't comment on it further.

The style of that OP is not one I could take seriously. — Banno

I already changed the OP in the syllogism form. You are welcome to read the new form of the argument and comment on it if you wish.

In this context, what is directly designed are the laws of nature. — A Christian Philosophy

But life is possible whatever the laws of nature are! So my objection about the design is valid.

My argument in this comment is not an inductive argument. Rather, it says that since induction/abduction is necessary to find truth, and since it is equivalent to the PSR (inference to the most reasonable explanation), then we can trust our voice of reason when it says that everything must have an explanation. Logic can be defended the same way. — A Christian Philosophy

I don't think it's a matter of "trust" here, it's a matter of having nothing else to go on. If we want n explanation of things, we must assume that the things are explainable. To assume otherwise, even the possibility that something is unexplainable, would be an attitude of discouragement.

One could adopt the attitude "it is possible that there are things which cannot be explained", but such an attitude is not conducive toward producing knowledge. This attitude would provide a reason not to seek knowledge of things which are difficult to explain. It would give the premise required to conclude that there is no explanation for X, and that conclusion provides the required reason not to seek the explanation for X. Therefore the possibility of "no explanation for X" must be excluded if one is to have the desire to explain X.

In everything which we seek an explanation for, (and there is no reason to exclude anything here), we must maintain the premise that there is an explanation for that thing. If we allow the possibility that there is no explanation for something, then we also allow the possibility that we would stop seeking the explanation of that thing, and this is counterproductive to the quest for knowledge, and the application of the principle of "infinite", which allows no end until completion.

Simply put, denial of the PSR is unphilosophical. The philosophical mind seeks knowledge of all things, and the proposition that some things may not be knowable implies that philosophy is misdirected.

Wishful thinking on your part. — Banno

That's what the quest for knowledge is, "wishful thinking". Denying the PSR is demoralized thinking.

The philosophical mind seeks knowledge of all things, and the proposition that some things may not be knowable implies that philosophy is misdirected. — Metaphysician Undercover

This statement caught my eye, looking over this thread. Isn't it too strong? If philosophy should discover that some things aren't knowable, at least by us, wouldn't that be worth knowing, part of "all things" philosophy is interested in? Maybe the word you want is "limited" rather than "misdirected."

You're right, it's "not a counterargument" but exposure of the fallacies in your "argument". A thesis riddled with fallacies such as your OP should be withdrawn at the very least, which is why I do not agree with it. No "counterargument" is needed since your invalid argument is not even false.

An invalid argument is an argument that its premises are false. Could you point to a premise in my argument which is false?

Disregarding your insults, I didn't find anything valuable in your post so I won't comment on it further. — MoK

Let's keep it simple, then. Do you distinguish between facts and beliefs?