trulyenlightened wrote:Of course I could be wrong ...
Prophetic words indeed.
Nils wrote:But yours arguments are new to me so don't be too upset by my comments.
To address this first, not at all. This is exactly the type of discussion I envisioned when I recommended the PSR.
Nils wrote: Byblos wrote:
Nils wrote:- What do you mean by "self-explanatory"? Please give some examples.
- What do you mean by saying that a self-explanatory explanation is "absolute necessary"?
As it turns out, from logic and reason alone, we can say a great deal about a thing being self-explanatory. But before we can give example(s), we must first agree on the definitions and agree on whether or not there any other possibilities.
So first, do you agree that, according to the PSR, everything must have a reason? If yes, then do you agree that there are only 2 possibilities, i.e.
1. Either the explanation is extrinsic (outside of the thing it explains), or
2. The explanation is intrinsic (self-explanatory)
I would rather say
1 There are things that have explanations (that are extrinsic, outside of the thing it explains),
2. There may be things that don't have explanations (very special things)
It is possible that your 2. and my 2. are in some way the same, I am unsure. Examples of my 2 might be things like God, Universe, Multiverse and Nothing.
No, our 2s aren't the same. But that's exactly the point of the PSR. As a self-aware, intelligent species that values logic and reason above all, we must believe that there actually is an intelligible reason for everything
, regardless whether or not the reasons are discoverable at this time. Because if we open the door that some things have no explanation or are unintelligible then we are building a house of cards in a hurricane. The most foundational aspect of logic and reason, i.e. intelligibility, would collapse and with it goes every branch of science.
So when the PSR states that everything has a reason, this definitely includes the universe, the multi-verse, and yes, even God. Now I'm assuming you listed God and the multi-verse as both without an explanation because you see them as competing alternatives to reality (and you happen to choose the former and I choose the latter to govern our worldviews). But that's not true at all, for it can be shown from the PSR that brute force facts are unintelligble (for that is what they are, brute force facts without any explanation), thereby violating the PSR. Whereas God is a perfectly intelligible explanation for He is His own explanation, thereby satisfying the PSR. It's not a nuanced difference so I'm hoping you see that.
And if you so far agree, then do you further agree that
There are only two types of explanations:
1. Either the explanation requires an explanation extrinsic to itself, in which case it is contingent on that extrinsic explanation, or
2. The explanation is fundamentally self-explanatory and, therefore absolutely necessary (not contingent on any other explanation)
The absolute necessity in 2. makes me uneasy.
I'm not sure why it should make you uneasy. No one said anything about what it entails (well, I just did but) taken at face value, when something is self-explanatory it means it does not depend on others for anything and it follows that it must be necessary by definition. For it it weren't necessary then it would be contingent and if it were contingent then it would not be self-explanatory. So you see, absolute necessity if part and parcel of the self-explanatory attribute.
Nils wrote:- If there is nothing in group 2 then is there a Nothing that is absolute necessary,
If there is nothing in group 2 then there would be nothing in group 2. But that does not preclude group 2 from being a logical alternative. Whether or not there is something in group 2 is the subject we are discussing.
- if there is something in group 2 that is only potential then is it still absolutely necessary,
But potential things are contingent and contingent things depend on extrinsic explanations. So again, by definition, it is a violation of the law of non-contradiction to state a self-explanatory entity has potential or is contingent in any way.
- is the conclusion that nothing in group 2 can be only potentially or
Well, you're jumping the gun here but that is precisely what the only logical conclusion is, that in group 2 there can only be one self-explanatory pure actuality, intelligible, immaterial, timeless, immutable, which is subsistent existence itself.