"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
You may be right as these types of discussions tend to often drift into the talking-past-one-another kind but I am honestly at a loss on how to make the conversation move forward. To me at least, when the unexplainable is invoked as a possibility then that's the end of conversation.
There’s a difference between understanding and accepting.PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Mon Jun 18, 2018 5:38 amThat you say that means you don't understand the classical concept of God.
Yes, if there is a classical God that has these attributes, for instance being self-explaining, he is the answer. But the question if there is? I find that as unintelligible as a brute fact universe.PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Mon Jun 18, 2018 5:39 am Brute facts explain NOTHING.
The attributes of the classical God explain why He is the answer.
I have never heard about any self-explained entity in philosophy. When I google on “self-explained” and philosophy excluding “self, explained” I get no answers. When I ask you the only reference you give is what the term “self-explained” is meant to prove. It seems reasonable that the burden of proof of intelligibility is on the one that presents a new concept.Byblos wrote: ↑Thu Jun 21, 2018 6:16 amThen I don't think you understand the PSR argument.
First, there is absolutely nothing incoherent or unintelligible about a self-explained necessary being, unless and until you show otherwise. Proclaiming it so does not make it so. There is, however, incoherence about brute facts since they have no explanation. That's pretty much the definition of incoherence, something that cannot be explained.
Yes, as I wrote: “brute fact (e.g. a Multiverse)”Byblos wrote: ↑Thu Jun 21, 2018 6:16 am And second, as I have shown many times, a mutliverse is no substitute for a necessary reality because a mutliverse is still materially contingent and therefore must require an explanation extrinsic to itself. So you have no choice but to kick the can further back to something beyond the multiverse. And so on and so forth ad infinitum into utter incoherence.
But I deny the self-explained part of PSR finding that part just as incoherent as brute fact.
I agree with you that not having an explanation why we exist rather not exist, that’s unsatisfactory, and the “brute fact” scenarios are without explanation. That includes for instance eternal universes, multiverses and a universe that is created out of nothing. But you can’t stop there. You have to show that there is another scenario that is more satisfactory. If you can’t do that we come to a stale-mate. You thinks my scenario (brute fact) is unsatisfactory and I think that yours (God) is unsatisfactory. The difference between us is that I admit that both scenarios are unsatisfactory, you don’t.Byblos wrote: ↑Tue Jun 19, 2018 7:55 amYou may be right as these types of discussions tend to often drift into the talking-past-one-another kind but I am honestly at a loss on how to make the conversation move forward. To me at least, when the unexplainable is invoked as a possibility then that's the end of conversation.
If you go back to my books on a shelf example, so long as there is an explanation (even if unknown) as to what grounds the shelf, i.e. the wall it is screwed into, and an explanation for the wall and the ground it sits on, and the planet that houses it, and planetary motions and gravity, and the laws of physics and quantum mechanics, and ....................... what? unexplainable? Because if that's the answer then have I explained why the book sits on the shelf? No I have not. You may be satisfied by that non-explanation but I'm not. And that's where we're at. I'm open for ideas though.
To be entirely specific, not simply a "Multiverse" but rather an Infinite Multiverse.Nils wrote: ↑Sun Jun 24, 2018 1:11 amYes, as I wrote: “brute fact (e.g. a Multiverse)”Byblos wrote: ↑Thu Jun 21, 2018 6:16 am And second, as I have shown many times, a mutliverse is no substitute for a necessary reality because a mutliverse is still materially contingent and therefore must require an explanation extrinsic to itself. So you have no choice but to kick the can further back to something beyond the multiverse. And so on and so forth ad infinitum into utter incoherence.
Do you believe that something that relies on something else to not only come into being but to stay existing would require that something else to exist?Nils wrote: ↑Sun Jun 24, 2018 12:55 amYes, if there is a classical God that has these attributes, for instance being self-explaining, he is the answer. But the question if there is? I find that as unintelligible as a brute fact universe.PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Mon Jun 18, 2018 5:39 am Brute facts explain NOTHING.
The attributes of the classical God explain why He is the answer.
Nils
You may not have heard the term self-explained before but the idea behind it is precisely what Leibniz had in mind when he formulated the PSR. Leibniz' general mode of proof was to begin by assuming something is false then showing it to be true via the PSR. For example in his Monadology, Leibniz argues for the existence of God in the same way, i.e. assume God does not exist, then the only things we are left with are contingent things/beings. But if all we have are a series of contingent things, the explanation of which cannot be in the same series, otherwise the series would explain itself and therefore not be contingent at all, which was our starting assumption (there is no non-continent things). Therefore, if God (and by that he means a self-explanatory necessary being) does not exist, then we would have something unexplained, i.e. the series of contingent things. But according to the PSR, everything must have an explanation, therefore God (as a non-contingent, necessary being) exists.Nils wrote: ↑Sun Jun 24, 2018 1:11 am I have never heard about any self-explained entity in philosophy. When I google on “self-explained” and philosophy excluding “self, explained” I get no answers. When I ask you the only reference you give is what the term “self-explained” is meant to prove. It seems reasonable that the burden of proof of intelligibility is on the one that presents a new concept.
Fine. Let's press reset and go back to the basics then forward one step at a time. It seems to me that at least we agree on one thing, i.e. that reality is intelligible and there must be a reason for everything. Beyond that, I say brute facts are unexplainable and you agree. But I also say a self-explanatory necessity is explainable and you disagree. Is this a fair summary of where we stand?Nils wrote: ↑Sun Jun 24, 2018 2:23 pm I agree with you that not having an explanation why we exist rather not exist, that’s unsatisfactory, and the “brute fact” scenarios are without explanation. That includes for instance eternal universes, multiverses and a universe that is created out of nothing. But you can’t stop there. You have to show that there is another scenario that is more satisfactory. If you can’t do that we come to a stale-mate. You thinks my scenario (brute fact) is unsatisfactory and I think that yours (God) is unsatisfactory. The difference between us is that I admit that both scenarios are unsatisfactory, you don’t.
Now, it is up to you to show that you scenario really is satisfactory, That’s where the discussion can continue. I have several times earlier in this thread argued that your scenario with a self-explaining entity isn’t satisfactory or intelligible. To me self-explained is a euphemism for not-explained. Neither you nor Feser have come up with a description of what self-explained is or any example from our experiences.
My favourite cosmological model is a Multiverse where Universes pop up as bubbles in boiling water. An infinite number of Universes with different characteristics / laws and constants and perhaps without any relative time reference. Every Universe is fine tuned in one way or another. Because there are an infinite number of Universes there are also an infinite number of Universes that are fine tuned like ours. But don’t ask me about any evidence, this is speculation only.Kurieuo wrote: ↑Sun Jun 24, 2018 8:46 pmTo be entirely specific, not simply a "Multiverse" but rather an Infinite Multiverse.Nils wrote: ↑Sun Jun 24, 2018 1:11 amYes, as I wrote: “brute fact (e.g. a Multiverse)”Byblos wrote: ↑Thu Jun 21, 2018 6:16 am And second, as I have shown many times, a mutliverse is no substitute for a necessary reality because a mutliverse is still materially contingent and therefore must require an explanation extrinsic to itself. So you have no choice but to kick the can further back to something beyond the multiverse. And so on and so forth ad infinitum into utter incoherence.
That is, if there is a "universe" prior to ours, and a universe prior to that, and one prior to that one and so on into an infinite past. That is what you have in mind, right? Some provide logical arguments against the possibility of an infinite regress, yet it is an infinite multiverse theory (not merely a multiverse) that I'd expect many who do not believe in a beginning could only believe in (unless seriously entertaining the absurd that something really did come from nothing).
I know very little about astrophysics but I think that the total energy in our Universe is zero. But, independent of that, in my model each Universe is created with its own laws etc so why not some energy as well. I don’t think our physical laws we’re familiar with are valid in the MultiverseKurieuo wrote: ↑Sun Jun 24, 2018 8:46 pm To such I then ask, are not universes, and as such multiverse, dependant upon X energy? If so, then a question I'd ask you is where does all the energy come from to keep spawning universes without ever running out? Or, how come energy doesn't ever run out, which would appear to contradict workings of physical laws we're familiar with.
No, I don’t. If our Universe is created with laws and energy I don’t think that some extra force is need to keep it going. I noticed reading Feser’s book that he thought that something is needed to keep things in motion, an Aristotelian view I think. But I don’t agree.PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Mon Jun 25, 2018 4:28 amDo you believe that something that relies on something else to not only come into being but to stay existing would require that something else to exist?Nils wrote: ↑Sun Jun 24, 2018 12:55 amYes, if there is a classical God that has these attributes, for instance being self-explaining, he is the answer. But the question if there is? I find that as unintelligible as a brute fact universe.PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Mon Jun 18, 2018 5:39 am Brute facts explain NOTHING.
The attributes of the classical God explain why He is the answer.
Nils