You're contradicting yourself. You used the word ''hence'' which is an instance of PSR. — TheMadFool
However I can give you evidence for PSR e.g. 6 million jews were killed in ww2 because of Nazi Germany's race philosophy. The WTC was attacked because of radical Islam. Water turns to ice because the temperature falls to or below 0 degree celsius — TheMadFool
That there are reasons for some things is not that there are reasons for everything — Michael
Give me a counterexample to the PSR. — TheMadFool
Give me a counterexample to the PSR. — TheMadFool
Are you saying the similarity is that there are principles at all, or that the principles themselves are similar? — Srap Tasmaner
there are principles at all
— Srap Tasmaner
That's it. — TheMadFool
Is the relation between my house and its principles the same as the relation between the universe and its principles? — Srap Tasmaner
To the extent that we can posit a creator of the principles. — TheMadFool
Demea objects that the argument's conclusion is only probable, but Philo responds that the real problem is that the analogy is so weak. He launches a battery of arguments to show just how weak it is. The dissimilarities between human artifacts and the universe are more striking than their similarities. We only experience a tiny part of the universe for a short time; much of what we do experience is unknown to us. How can we legitimately infer anything about remote parts of the universe, much less the universe as a whole?
Philo, however, moves quickly away from chipping at the argument's strength to questioning the intelligibility of its conclusion. We have no experience of the origin of a universe. Since causal inference requires a basis in experienced constant conjunction between two kinds of things, how can we legitimately draw any conclusion whatsoever about the origin of the universe? Does it even require a cause? One or many? Does the cause of the universe itself require a cause? The problem, then, is not just that the analogy is weak; the real problem is that it attempts to take us beyond what we can know. — Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy
I gave you some suggested examples in that very post. There might be no explanation for why there is something rather than nothing. There might be no explanation for why the fundamental features of the world are the way they are. — Michael
the real problem is that it attempts to take us beyond what we can know. — Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy
There might be no explanation for why there is something rather than nothing. There might be no explanation for why the fundamental features of the world are the way they are. — Michael
Give me something that actually supports the supposed principle. — Terrapin Station
The problem, then, is not just that the analogy is weak; the real problem is that it attempts to take us beyond what we can know. — Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy
The issue is whether they are all types of one and the same thing and whether you can tell they are just by looking, from the moment you're born. — Srap Tasmaner
This is the 21st century. — TheMadFool
So many discoveries have been made in science and mathematical laws dominate them. Do you think if Philo or Demea knew what we know they'd be so confident in pronouncing judgements like that? — TheMadFool
Also, their arguments seem to be classic examples of argument from ignorance. — TheMadFool
I think we can let that slide because they were arguing with theists who believe in the god of scripture. — TheMadFool
Yet you're clinging to an argument that was refuted way back in the 18th century — Sapientia
Vast swathes of the universe remain unknown to us. How can we legitimately infer anything of this sort about remote parts of the universe, much less the universe as a whole? — Sapientia
And bringing up the god of scripture seems to be a red herring you employ to evade addressing the parts of the argument that are relevant to your argument here. — Sapientia
You apparently didn't understand this:A) 65 million years ago: The dinosaurs were killed because of an asteroid — TheMadFool
You could give 50 billion reasons for different things, where we can assume that they're really reasons for things and not simply ways that we think about things and their connections to each other. But that's in no way evidence of a principle that everything must have a reason. — Terrapin Station
I can't understand you. Can you simplify? — TheMadFool
The refutation is equally old and actually less plausible given the evidence we've accumulated through science. — TheMadFool
I'm glad you brought that up. It applies in equal measure to atheism. In fact I'd go further and say it applies more to atheism than theism because the proof of theism may be found on Earth or on some remote star system but the proof of atheism has to include the entire universe. — TheMadFool
No red herring here. The strongest refutations are against the god of scripture. My God is only a creator, nothing more and nothing less. Where I found relevance I responded accordingly. — TheMadFool
For example, you talk of what you claim to be evidence accumulated by science, but I've explained the problem with that: hasty generalisation. — Sapientia
You're falling back into making your earlier error where you mistake atheism for one version of it. — Sapientia
Hasty generalization?! All the mathematical laws written in scientific books and journals amount to nothing then? — TheMadFool
Thanks. I can see that I've overlooked the nuances of what atheism means. Yet, my concern is why (going back to my OP) atheists would infer a person from an ordered room and find it hard to do the same with the universe. This hasn't been adequately explained by you. — TheMadFool
If that's the case then science should be thrown out the window. After all it relies on induction (multiple observations confirming a principle stated in a scientific hypothesis), the same methodology I've used to support PSR. — TheMadFool
If there's something specific you don't get, ask me. — Srap Tasmaner
As an atheist – do you feel lucky to have life – consciousness – love – are you thankful? If you are thankful – to what – the universe – luckiness? What? — Thinker
Do you thank the socks on your feet? Do you thank the air that you breathe or the water that you drink?
Do you thank the gravity of the earth and the earth's distance from the sun?
If not why not? — VagabondSpectre
You do realize that my answer takes us right back through the entire universal history of causation to the big bang right? — VagabondSpectre
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.