This is a false dilemma: either everything has a reason or nothing has a reason. Deniers of the PSR do not claim that nothing has a reason; only that not everything has a reason. Most people accept the laws of logic, and accept logical inferences as valid reasons. But they might still also believe that some brute facts exist without reason. — A Christian Philosophy

1) Some people believe that for any thing that exists or is true, there is always a sufficient reason for it to exist or to be true. These people support the PSR.

2) Some people believe that some things that exist or is true have a sufficient reason for it to exist or to be true, and that some things that exist or is true there is no sufficient reason for it to exist or to be true. These people are ambiguous towards the PSR.

3) Some people believe that for any thing that exists or is true, there is never a sufficient reason for it to exist or to be true. These people deny the PSR.

If 3) is true, and there is no sufficient reason why a lamp turns on, and there is no sufficient reason why a lamp turns off, then there is no sufficient reason for the lamp not turning on and off contemporaneously, other than the Law of Non-Contradiction.

But gravity means more than that. — Fooloso4

True, but if a rock never fell to the ground when released, no one would ever have known about gravity.

General relativity remains the framework for the understanding of gravity. The Einstein field equations form the basis of general relativity. The Einstein field equation are based on the cosmological constant. The cosmological constant represents the energy density of space. Nobody really knows what the cosmological constant is exactly, but it is required in cosmological equations in order to reconcile theory with our observations of the universe. (Wikipedia-gravity)

Sooner or later explanations reach a dead end, and we just have to accept our observation that gravity causes a rock to fall to the ground when released, where gravity is something that causes a rock to fall to the ground when released.

Sooner or later explanations reach a dead end — RussellA

What does this mean in terms of PSR? The observation that a rock falls is not a reason for or explanation for it falling. If explanation reaches a dead end then either we have failed to find the reason or there is no reason.

What does this mean in terms of PSR? The observation that a rock falls is not a reason for or explanation for it falling. If explanation reaches a dead end then either we have failed to find the reason or there is no reason. — Fooloso4

Using Emilie du Chatelet's argument (SEP - PSR):

P1 - The PSR in the OP states that for any thing that exists or is true, there is a sufficient reason for it to exist or to be true.

P2 - Consider bread. If there was no reason why bread was beneficial to life, there would also be no reason why bread wasn't lethal to life. One day bread could be beneficial and the next day bread could be lethal.

C1 - If the PSR was not valid, humans would be unable to survive in the world.

C2 - As humans do survive in the world, then the PSR must be valid.

You did not address the problem. Observing that a rock falls is not a reason for why the rock falls.

You did not address the problem. Observing that a rock falls is not a reason for why the rock falls. — Fooloso4

Assume the PSR is not valid

Then, if we observe a rock falling there would be no reason why we hadn't observed the rock not falling.

But if we had observed the rock not falling, there is no reason why we hadn't observed the rock falling.

But if we had observed the rock falling, there is no reason why we hadn't observed the rock not falling.

If the PSR was not valid, this would lead into an infinite regress.

Therefore, the PSR is valid.

Then, if we observe a rock falling there would be no reason why we hadn't observed the rock not falling. — RussellA

The reason we observed the rock falling is that it fell and we were there to see if fall. There may be various reasons why it fell and various reasons why we were there to see it fall. It does not follow from the fact that we can posit reasons for why we observed the rock fall, that there is a reason for everything.

I agree. It seems to me that, based on the reasoning above, there has to be a bedrock of facts which have no further explanation. — flannel jesus

Yes, it implies that there are some things that do not have explanations. The most common modification in light of the above is to hold that it is only those things that have 'come into being' that have explanations rather than everything. Those things that have not come into being just exist and that's as much as one can say about them.

But this does not get one anywhere near theism, as there's just no reason to think that a thing that exists and has not come into being will be a person, and be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.

And given what in fact exists, it seems reasonable to suppose that if it was created by a person (or more reasonably, persons), the person was not God.

This is question begging. It assumes what is in question, namely whether everything in existence can be explained. These three types of reason are based on the existence of things. They do not explain why there is anything at all. — Fooloso4

The traditional answer is: we can posit the existence of a First Cause which has existence necessarily or as an essential property. The existence of this First Cause is grounded by logical necessity (reason type 1 in the OP) because to deny the existence of a thing with necessary existence is a contradiction. Then this First Cause also serves to explain the existence of everything else as their cause, direct or indirect. This summary should serve to explain why there is anything at all.

Well, if we rejected the idea that there is a reason then we would not look for for one, but it does not follow that there must be one. — Fooloso4

That is the point. Where is the data that is sufficient to conclude that everything must have a reason? — Fooloso4

Rejecting the idea that there is a reason would go against our reasoning process, specifically induction which demands sufficient reasons.

It does not explain why there are laws of nature. — Fooloso4

I did not give the specific explanation but I gave the guidance on how to find the explanation. Here are the quick steps to work out the specific explanation:

As per the OP, there are 3 types of reasons: (1) logical necessity, (2) causal necessity, (3) freely chosen or designed. Let's proceed by elimination:
(1) The fundamental laws of nature do not exist by logical necessity because they are not tautologies, and thus denying them does not give a self-contradiction.
(2) The fundamental laws of nature do not exist out of causal necessity from prior laws because they are fundamental, which means not based on prior laws.
(3) By elimination, they are designed.

does not demonstrate that those laws are prescriptive rather than descriptive. — Fooloso4

The laws as we currently know them may be only descriptive, but as per the PSR, there still must be a prescriptive explanation for why matter and energy behave as described by those laws.

Princeton philosopher, Shamik Dasgupta, uses the term "autonomous facts" to refer to the bedrock, you guys are discussing. All other facts, are "substantive facts".

He also recasts the PSR in terms of grounding:

PSR: For every substantive fact Y there are some facts, the Xs, such that (i) the Xs ground Y and (ii) each one of the Xs is autonomous.

Ha, all he seems to have done is make something that is quite easy to understand an order of magnitude harder by use of those terms.

'Fact' is not the right term, as we're talking about existences. Facts are 'about' things, but they are not really things in their own right - so I don't know why he's using that term rather than the much clearer 'existence' or 'object'.
 
Autonomous isn't a good word to use for 'has no explanation'. It implies that the thing - the object - somehow explains itself or something (which it doesn't - it just exists and has no explanation whatsoever).

And 'substantive' isn't a good word for 'has an explanation for its existence', as that's simply not what it means.

And to use 'grounding' for explanation or cause hardly makes things clearer.

He might as well have decided to call 'things that exist and have no explanation for their existence' 'Cheesy turnips' and things that exist and have an explanation for their existence 'Saucy bananas' and used 'bilge water' to mean 'exists' and 'grunty' to mean 'explanation'. Then "For every saucy banana bilge water there are some bilge waters, the Xs, such that (i) the Xs grunty Y and ii) each of the Xs is a cheesy turnip".

Just goes to show, some people are not interested in making things clear. It's quite a common strategy in academic articles - I think the idea is simply to wear down the reviewers so that they just give up and give it a pass.

I'm not a fan of using "facts" to refer to existences, but I am a fan of using "grounding" instead of "explanation" because explanations are propositions, not existences. In that vein, "autonomous" seems appropriate, although "substantive" is weird.

I am not sure I quite see that an explanation is a proposition.
I'm not a fan of 'grounding' as it is not clear to me that it's a good alternative to explanation.

For example, let's say I decide to order a pizza because I'm hungry. I am the cause of my decision. But I could also say that my decision was grounded in my hunger, as that was why i made the decision.

The explanation of why that decision event occurred can't just make mention of my hunger. It has also to make mention of me causing it - causing the decision - in light of the hunger.

I am not sure I quite see that an explanation is a proposition.
I'm not a fan of 'grounding' as it is not clear to me that it's a good alternative to explanation.

For example, let's say I decide to order a pizza because I'm hungry. I am the cause of my decision. But I could also say that my decision was grounded in my hunger, as that was why i made the decision. — Clearbury

OK, set aside "proposition". My point is you're describing something in a series of sentences. The sentences are ABOUT something going on in the world, they are not the thing itself.

Grounding refers to the thing itself.

Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR): For any thing that exists or is true, there is a sufficient reason for it to exist or to be true. — A Christian Philosophy

Isn't reason a product of human mind? Reasons don't exist out there in the external world. There are only matter, energy and changes in the world. Reason is an operation of human mind seeking for the causal explanations on the existence and changes.

For the proper operations of the inductive reasoning, human observations do need the data to draw the reasoning for the conclusions.

Therefore there are many events and existence which have the reasons, and many are unknown due to lack of the data.

The reason we observed the rock falling is that it fell and we were there to see if fall. There may be various reasons why it fell and various reasons why we were there to see it fall. It does not follow from the fact that we can posit reasons for why we observed the rock fall, that there is a reason for everything. — Fooloso4

True, there are different events.

Let the PSR be that for each event there must be a reason

Situation One - The rock falls, and I see it. There is event A such that I see the rock falling and there is event B such that the rock falls.
Situation Two - The rock falls, but there is no one to see it. There is event C that the rock falls.

Event C
However, as there is no one to observe event C, event C is unknown. As event C is unknown, there can be no discussion as to whether it has a reason or not. Whether unknown event C has a reason or not we can never know, meaning that the PSR for unknown events is unknowable.

Therefore, the PSR is only applicable to observable events.

Event A
The PSR states that there must be a reason why I observe the rock falling.
Assume the PSR is not valid, such that there is no reason why I observe the rock falling.
Then, if I observe a rock falling there would be no reason why I hadn't observed the rock not falling.
But if I had observed the rock not falling, there is no reason why I hadn't observed the rock falling.
But if I had observed the rock falling, there is no reason why I hadn't observed the rock not falling.
If the PSR was not valid, this would lead into an infinite regress.
Therefore, the PSR is valid, ie, there must be a reason why I observe the rock falling.

Event B
The PSR states that there must be a reason why the rock I observe falls.
Assume the PSR is not valid, such that there is no reason why the rock I observe falls.
Then, if the rock I observe falls, then there would be no reason why the rock I observe didn't fall
But if the rock I observe didn't fall, there is no reason why the rock I observe hadn't fallen.
But if I the rock I observe hadn't fallen, there is no reason why the rock I observe didn't fall.
If the PSR was not valid, this would lead into an infinite regress.
Therefore, the PSR is valid, ie, there must be a reason why the rock I observe falls.

In conclusion, the PSR is valid, but only applies to observable facts, events and truths.

Note that "reason" may include a prior explanation, such as "I order a pizza because I was hungry", or contemporaneous ground such as "I order a pizza being hungry".

The traditional answer is: we can posit the existence of a First Cause which has existence necessarily or as an essential property. The existence of this First Cause is grounded by logical necessity ... — A Christian Philosophy

This is an a priori abuse of logic. Positing something that has existence necessarily as an essential property is essentially a conjuring trick. Something does not exist because you posit its existence as necessary.

Either there is an illogical jump from natural causes to a supernatural cause or this supposed first cause is itself in need of a cause.

Rejecting the idea that there is a reason would go against our reasoning process ... — A Christian Philosophy

It doesn't. It is unreasonable to assume that because we can find reasons for some things that we can find reasons for everything. It leads to the unreasonable assumption of a first cause.

(3) By elimination, they are designed. — A Christian Philosophy

More conjuring. This thing whose existence you posit designs the laws of nature that cannot be explained naturally.

... there still must be a prescriptive explanation for why matter and energy behave as described by those laws. — A Christian Philosophy

'God did it' is not an explanation.

In conclusion, the PSR is valid, but only applies to observable facts, events and truths. — RussellA

Suppose a star explodes 10 light years from us. It will not be observable to us for 10 years. If the PSR only applies to observable,facts does that mean that with regard to that event the PSR is not valid and will not be valid for 10 years?

Suppose a star explodes 10 light years from us. It will not be observable to us for 10 years. If the PSR only applies to observable,facts does that mean that with regard to that event the PSR is not valid and will not be valid for 10 years? — Fooloso4

The PSR states that for every event there is a reason

The PSR is valid within certain restrictions.

Prior to the light from the exploding star reaching us, we don't know that there is an exploding star. It is an unknown.

I can certainly imagine a star exploding, but the PSR doesn't apply to the imagination because I can imagine all kinds of impossible things. I can imagine a star exploding for no reason as I can imagine unicorns grazing in Central Park.

Therefore the PSR cannot apply to imagined events.

But what about events that we don't know about. Can I apply the PSR to something unknown. Does every unknown thing have a reason? I can never know because the unknown thing is unknown, and I don't know what to apply the PSR to.

Therefore the PSR cannot be applied to the unknown.

The PSR can be reformulated as "for every observed event there is a reason"

Therefore the PSR cannot be applied to the unknown. — RussellA

If the PSR is valid it should hold for all events whether known or unknown. If it happened then there must be, according to the principle, a reason for it happening. If PSR is restricted to what we know or observe then the reason for the star exploding is contingent upon our knowledge of it happening.

The traditional answer is: we can posit the existence of a First Cause which has existence necessarily or as an essential property. The existence of this First Cause is grounded by logical necessity (reason type 1 in the OP) because to deny the existence of a thing with necessary existence is a contradiction. Then this First Cause also serves to explain the existence of everything else as their cause, direct or indirect. This summary should serve to explain why there is anything at all. — A Christian Philosophy

Why think "necessary" is an ontological (de re) property of any being? The concept of "necessary" applies to logic: e.g. in a valid deductive argument, the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. I'm aware that Alvan Plantinga has proposed that God has de re necessity, but it seems to me a contrivance.

I suggest that any first cause (including a natural one) would exist necessarily: it exists autonomously, and without a cause that could account for its contingent existence.

That's not what I understand the word 'grounding' to mean.

Propositions are about things. Causes seem to be what explain things. This is why a 'causal reason' and an 'explanatory reason' are (arguably) synonymous. And that is why the principle of sufficient reason could just as well be called the principle of sufficient explanation.

When it comes to grounding, the 'grounding' of something refers to its basis, or what in some sense produced it. So, that the act was wrong is 'grounded' in the fact it hurt someone (or something like that). But as I noted, the 'grounding' of something does not seem to be sufficient to explain it, even though it is going to be part of its explanation.

The fact I am thirsty is the ground of my decision to go and get myself a drink, but it cannot be the full explanation of why that decision occurred, for I too am in the mix (I caused myself to make a decision in light of my thirst, but the thirst alone does not explain my decision even though it grounds it).

Grounds and explanations intersect: if X grounds Y, then we can explain X with Y. In terms of causation: a cause grounds it's effect.

Causes seem to be what explain things. — Clearbury

Causes are one kind of explanations, but there are also constitutive explanations: the constituents of water (hydrogen and oxygen) explain water. Grounding covers both.

My issue is that explanations are communications. The universe evolves irrespective of whether anyone is around to explain it. Explanations are superfluous (except inasmuch as they influence people). When we provide a causal explanation, we are refering to things out in the world. The explanations themselves are within or between minds. "X causes Y" accounts for the existence of Y. Calling this an "explanation" is an inter-mind thing that adds nothing to the ontological relation between the cause and efffect.

we just have to accept our observation that gravity causes a rock to fall to the ground when released, where gravity is something that causes a rock to fall to the ground when released. — RussellA

When the light is released into the space, why doesn't it fall to the ground?

When the light is released into the space, why doesn't it fall to the ground? — Corvus

In a sense it does, as light bends around sources with high mass due to gravity.

From www.astronomy.com

While it is true that photons have no mass, it is also true that we see light bend around sources with high mass due to gravity.

In a sense it does, as light bends around sources with high mass due to gravity.

From www.astronomy.com

While it is true that photons have no mass, it is also true that we see light bend around sources with high mass due to gravity. — RussellA

Doesn't it then disapprove what you are claiming? Gravity is a force when the high mass pulls any mass lower than the high mass. But the light bends around sources with high mass due to gravity. Even massless photons gets bend due to gravity means gravity applies to even massless matter.

But the light bends around sources with high mass due to gravity. — Corvus

On the one hand "light bends around sources with high mass due to gravity" and on the other hand "gravity causes light to bend around sources with high mass".

In the same way that "the reason he is ambitious is because he is driven" and "the reason the job was complex was because it was complicated."

"Gravity" is more a synonym than a reason why light bends around sources with high mass.

On the one hand "light bends around sources with high mass due to gravity" and on the other hand "gravity causes light to bend around sources with high mass". — RussellA

This sounds like a contradiction. Surely PSR doesn't allow contradictions for the conclusions.

In the same way that "the reason he is ambitious is because he is driven" and "the reason the job was complex was because it was complicated." — RussellA

These are just repeating the same thing for what had been said in the first part of the sentence using because. It is not saying anything new or different.

"Gravity" is more a synonym than a reason why light bends around sources with high mass. — RussellA

Gravity is a scientific concept which must apply to every cases in the universe if it is true.

This sounds like a contradiction. Surely PSR doesn't allow contradictions for the conclusions. — Corvus

PSR - for every fact there is an explanation
Fact = light bends around sources with high mass
Explanation = gravity
There is no contradiction in the explanation.
===============================================================================

These are just repeating the same thing the first part of the sentence using because — Corvus

Yes. "Gravity" is an explanation, but what does it explain?
===============================================================================

Gravity is a scientific concept which must apply to every cases in the universe if it is true. — Corvus

Why does a scientific concept have to be true everywhere?

On Earth the acceleration due to gravity is $9.81\frac{m}{s^2}$ whilst on the Moon it is $1.62\frac{m}{s^2}$

PSR - for every fact there is an explanation — RussellA

Ok, let's hear about this first. What is the explanation for "for every fact there is an explanation"?