Existence isn't a property; that would imply there are objects in the world that lack it - which is absurd. All objects in the world exist. — Relativist

What about the mathematical and analytical tools that are used to determine what in the world exists, especially on the scales of the atomic or cosmological. Are they themselves also things that exist? (I seem to recall that atomic physics relies heavily on the imaginary number the square root of minus one in normalisation procedures, which would suggest not. ) For that matter, there's Terrence Deacon's absentials which are also defined as not materially existent but often amongst the definining properties of entential activities. From the glossary entry:

• a state of things not yet realized
• a specific separate object of a representation,
• a general type of property that may or may not exist,
• an abstract quality,
• an experience, and so forth-just not that which is actually present.
• something missing, separate, and possibly nonexistent
• irrelevant when it comes to inanimate things, but a defining property of life and mind
• what is absent matters.
• a purpose not yet actualized,
• a quality of feeling, a functional value just discovered
• not just superimposed probable physical relationships
• each an intrinsically absent aspect of something present

Absentials do not exist, but play a defining role in the existence of what he calls ententional agents.

Rather than the problem of an infinite regress, the problem is one of the limits of human reason. — Fooloso4

While I can see your point, natural theology will suggest that the regularities and rationally-intelligible principles that constitute what we describe as natural laws suggest a prior cause. And indeed that the whole idea of apriori truths implicitly suggests it. The fact that science itself can't explain scientific laws is no fault of science, but it does legitimately imply a deeper level of explanation than the scientific. One could argue among the aims of philosophy is to discern the boundary of what can be explained in terms of natural laws, and to intuit what may lie beyond it, even if it can't be stated in scientific terms.

It's not in dispute that a necessarily existing thing exists and can't not. But if the PSR is true, then there will be an explanation of that. You haven't provided one, I think. — Clearbury

As the OP is on Christmas break (which strictly speaking I also am, but never mind), I'll volunteer a response. The point about necessary being is that it needs no explanation. It is the terminus of explanation for all question about 'why is that the case?' A trivial example is the case of a simple arithmetical equation, what is the sum of two plus two? The answer of course is 'four' and there is no point in asking why it is. Asking "why is 2 + 2 = 4?" misconstrues the nature of necessity. The explanation for such truths lies in their self-evidence within the system within which they're true, and no further "why" can be meaningfully posed.

Similarly, in metaphysics, the idea of a necessary being functions as the ultimate 'terminus of explanation' under the principle of sufficient reason. The PSR asserts that everything must have an explanation, either in terms of an external cause or in terms of its own nature. For contingent beings, the PSR demands a cause or reason external to themselves. But for a necessary being, its necessity is its explanation.

There are several branches of logic but the science of logic as a whole is one coherent system. E.g. fuzzy logic is a branch that may be more suitable than other branches in some cases, but the different branches of logic do not contradict each other. — A Christian Philosophy

A logic system is built on axioms.

From The Foundations of Logical Reasoning: Axioms of Logic

Logic is the backbone of mathematical reasoning, providing the structure and rules that govern the validity of arguments and proofs. At the heart of logic are axioms—fundamental truths accepted without proof. These axioms serve as the foundational building blocks from which all logical reasoning is derived.

Axioms are assumptions taken to be true

From Wikipedia - Axiom

An axiom, postulate, or assumption is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments.

As any logic system is built on axioms, which are assumptions taken to be true, no one logic system exists necessarily.

You are circling the drain. Repeating the same claims as if they are truths.

While I can see your point, natural theology will suggest that the regularities and rationally-intelligible principles that constitute what we describe as natural laws suggest a prior cause. — Wayfarer

Perhaps the pursuit of natural theology is to forsake wisdom as it is understood in the wisdom literature of the Hebrew Bible. Perhaps the attempt to understand God in terms of rational principles is a misguided attempt to understand a God who is understood, to the extent he is understood, as willful.

One could argue among the aims of philosophy is to discern the boundary of what can be explained in terms of natural laws, and to intuit what may lie beyond it, even if it can't be stated in scientific terms. — Wayfarer

One could also argue that an appeal to intuition is in this case to mistake the imagination for intellection in the sense it is used in Plato's divided line.

What about the mathematical and analytical tools that are used to determine what in the world exists, especially on the scales of the atomic or cosmological. Are they themselves also things that exist? — Wayfarer

Abstractions do not exist independently in the world. They reflect relations between things that do exist; so they exist immanently.

But the PSR says that everything has an explanation. If one stipulates that there are things that do not need an explanation, then one is rejecting the PSR.

Here's my example: 'A thing that exists and needs no explanation'. I am going to call that a ticketyboo.

Have I just proved that at least one ticketyboo exists? No.

Can I explain the existence of a ticketyboo by pointing out that, by definition, it exists and has no explanation? No.

The PSR says everything has an explanation. If there are exceptions, then it is false.

That's the main problem.

A second problem is that necessary things confer necessity on anything they explain. The things they explain would also exist of necessity. Yet they'd be explicable (so it is false that if something exists of necessity it lacks an explanation). Plus, not everything that exists seems to exist of necessity.

It seems to me, then, that it is illogical - a contradiction - to think that the PSR implies the existence of necessary objects. It doesn't - can't do. And it is false that necessary things lack explanations (for anything a necessary object explains will also exist of necessity, yet will have an explanation). And it is false that labelling something a necessary thing constitutes an explanation of its existence. That's how things seem to me at present. Not that I'm endorsing the PSR or denying that there may be necessary existences. I'm just pointing out inconsistencies in the original poster's position.

But the PSR says that everything has an explanation. — Clearbury

I don't know if it does. It says that everything that exists has a reason for its existence. But everything that exists is the domain of phenomena, 'what appears'. The 'first cause', whether conceived of as a personalistic God or not, is not something that exists, but the condition of the possibility of the existence of everything that exists. It's on a different ontological level to what exists - that's what 'transcendence' means. (See God Does Not Exist.)

I am going to call that a ticketyboo. — Clearbury

Hardly does justice to the topic.

Perhaps the attempt to understand God in terms of rational principles is a misguided attempt to understand a God who is understood, to the extent he is understood, as willful. — Fooloso4

By 'theological voluntarism', associated with Protestant conceptions of Divinity, and very different from the philosophical rationalism of scholastic theology.

We are talking about very different things.

I don't know if it does. It says that everything that exists has a reason for its existence. — Wayfarer

I don't see a difference. By 'everything' I am referring to everything that exists. So everything that exists has an explanation (according to the PSR). I'm not endorsing the PSR, but just noting what it says and arguing that the defender of it in this thread is substituting it for a different principle, one that says that 'everything except necessarily existing things' have explanations (though this too would not get him the right result either, as this principle would render all existing things necessarily existing, which would then amount to saying that nothing has an explanation).

The 'first cause', whether conceived of as a personalistic God or not, is not something that exists, but the condition of the possibility of the existence of everything that exists. — Wayfarer

That does not make sense to me. Something cannot come from nothing. One cannot explain the existent by citing that which does not and has not existed.

Those who try and use the PSR to show that God exists do not deny this, for if something can come from nothing then there is no need to posit God.

Something cannot come from nothing. — Clearbury

That is precisely what 'creation ex nihilo' means.

if something can come from nothing then there is no need to posit God. — Clearbury

On the contrary, according to Christian doctrine, only God can create something from nothing.


I don't think you're interpreting what the OP means correctly, but I won't speak for him/her so I'll leave the thread to the OP.