What? I'm not following that. — Banno

Well when we say that this weighs as much as that we are assuming that math really works in describing reality. Yet, is it really different when it comes to logic? The world has to make logical sense, such that this can weigh more and less than that at one time. The PoSR to me just means that we can makes sense of the world

science has done very well with assuming that there is a cause and effect for every phenomena in nature — Shawn

I think I've shown that this is not an assumption of science.

Well, let's explore.

PSR = everything in this world has a cause and effect

Now this clearly falls into the logical category of haunted-universe doctrines. It can't be proved, because we are incapable of examining every instance of an effect. Nor can it be disproved, since if we come across an example of an effect for which we cannot find a cause, we might conclude not that there is no such cause but only that we have not yet found it.

SO it's not an empirical notion.

Is it a methodological notion? Does it tell us what we might do, is we are to act in a scientific fashion? In that case, isn't it too strong? We might indeed look for a cause for any event, but we cannot assume ahead of our investigations that there must be one... Nor need we assume that there must be a cause in order to look for a cause. It is open to us to look without such an expectation.

Hence it seems to me that PSR is not needed for either science nor for logic. — Banno

But, that is not to say that every phenomenon is purposeful. — Michael Zwingli

What would a purposeless thing look like?

I think I've shown that this is not an assumption of science. — Banno

Your right. I think I'm running in circles.

Here is what I should have said:

Is it a methodological notion? Does it tell us what we might do, is we are to act in a scientific fashion? In that case, isn't it too strong? — Banno

Yes, it's a methodological notion.

Yes, it is too strong. So, what?

Well when we say that this weighs as much as that we are assuming that math really works in describing reality. — Gregory

Do we? Isn't it rather that we find that it works rather than assume it?

The world has to make logical sense, — Gregory

If it didn't, wouldn't we simply adopt a different logic?Of course the world makes logical sense - logic is just what we do to make sense of the world.

Are you surprised when a Philips head screwdriver just happens to fit a Philips head screw?

Many people do not. You hear people speaking of "my truth" or "it's true to me" all the time. — Manuel

A perfect example of this is the absurd and embarrassing Catholic phenomenon (I was raised Catholic, and was always embarrassed by this) of the various "apparitions of Mary" (you know...Our Lady of this, Our Lady of that). People fallaciously accepting the (drug induced? faith induced? is there a difference?) subjective experience of one or two individuals as proof that "Mary the mother of God" is visiting her blessings upon the world. At least to it's credit, the Vatican has been wise enough never to overtly endorse these absurdities.

The argument for PSR is, as I understand it, that it is necessary to assume PSR in order to do science. My purpose is to question that argument. — Banno

I don"t know much about that application of the principle enough to differentiate present methods of science. I have read the Leibniz introduction of the idea as a model for understanding proposed theories.
Is that a distinction without a difference for you?

What would a purposeless thing look like? — Gregory

Like our universe, which has no purpose, but rather just happened.

Like our universe, which has no purpose, but rather just happened. — Michael Zwingli

That's a disconnection from God and truth

That's a disconnection from God and truth — Gregory

? Please elaborate.

So, what? — Shawn

Cool.
So back to:

I believe that with dispensing the Principle of Sufficient Reason, that science and logic so heavily rely on, one is committing oneself to the supernatural or creationism. — Shawn

So where does that leave you? We do not need PSR to do logic and science. Hence we are not committed to the supernatural or creationism?

And back tot he OP: without PSR, can't we now dispense with god?

They've been toning it down as of late, it's more difficult to defend absurd claims in light of the evidence.

? Please elaborate. — Michael Zwingli

Well to speak from my own experience, thinking my inner life is only brain matter gives me a headache and I no longer associate with truth. The point of the PoSR is that truth, when realized, is in accord with reality. The world makes sense to me but if you are to say that world doesn't make sense and you are only matter, than you yourself would no longer make sense

Seems to me that PSR is needed for Rationalists to do science - Spinoza and Leibniz, and presumably Descartes; but that Rationalism is no longer the basis of science.

Seems to me that PSR is needed for Rationalists to do science - Spinoza and Leibniz, and presumably Descartes; but that Rationalism is no longer the basis of science. — Banno

Then how do we have laws in science then? If I drop two balls at the same time and they fall at the same rate and do this again and again, the principle of sufficient reason says I now know a law. Does not Hume's problems become our own when you reject PSR in science?

So where does that leave you? We do not need PSR to do logic and science. — Banno

No, we do not.

Hence we are not committed to the supernatural or creationism? — Banno

But, that's a conclusion that addresses the very human need to justify God's existence (according to physicists like Hawking).

And back tot he OP: without PSR, can't we now dispense with god? — Banno

Ok, so your saying that the PoSR enables one to consider God as an actual existent in this world? Im somewhat different here and consider the PoSR and Spinoza's Nature as God as true (without the necessitarianism or hard determinism).

Then how do we have laws in science then? If I drop two balls at the same time and they fall at the same rate and do this again and again, the principle of sufficient reason says I now know a law. Does not Hume's problems become our own when you reject PSR in science? — Gregory

We'd have to fill that out. We have: "If I drop two balls at the same time and they fall at the same rate and do this again and again"; what is added by including PSR? We have that the acceleration due to gravity is 9.8ms^-1. How does PSR help us here?

We'd have to fill that out. We have: "If I drop two balls at the same time and they fall at the same rate and do this again and again"; what is added by including PSR? We have that the acceleration due to gravity is 9.8ms^-1. How does PSR help us here? — Banno

Because the reason for what is happening is in our reach. Our minds are sufficient to sufficiently understand a sufficiently understandable world

your saying that the PoSR enables one to consider God as an actual existent in this world? — Shawn

PSR is relied on by those who insist god is needed to explain all sorts of things. Drop PSR, drop those arguments.

I don't see that PSR is needed for a pantheistic deity to be the case. That is, one might do away with PSR and still venerate the universe.

Because the reason for what is happening is in our reach. Our minds are sufficient to sufficiently understand a sufficiently understandable world — Gregory

We need PSR to conclude this?

I think it evident in every interaction I have. No, evident is the wrong word. It's manifest. The world is comprehensible.

PSR is relied on by those who insist god is needed to explain all sorts of things. Drop PSR, drop those arguments. — Banno

It would seem rational to do so. But, consider that the reasonableness of the PSR shouldn't be swiped aside. It's a very useful tool in how we should think, even if QM or physicalism stipulates that in every instance the PSR isn't necessarily true.

Doesn't anyone else think that the PSR dissuades one from superstition or supernatural phenomena like creationalisms conclusions?

It's a very useful tool in how we should think, — Shawn

I disagree. I think I've shown that it is misleading. That's because it demands more than is needed.

This would be the beginning of the path to disprove God, that 'Nothing' cannot be, making the base something not to be an option but mandatory, it having no alternative or opposite; thus, no supernatural magic is required. — PoeticUniverse

The next step in the analysis would be to have to use the same principle of 'The Necessary Existent' for God having to be, as the mandatory Existent, again because there can be no opposite; thus the principle is sound!

You can figure what's coming next… I'm stretching it out in the hope that responders will notice it amid so many other responses.

We need PSR to conclude this? — Banno

We know existence can't come from non-existence without a power or some kind of action happening and nothingness cannot act. Nothingness is an empty category in our minds and is not anything at all. So the world either always existed or we can adopt Hawking's hypothesis (or something similar). But once we no longer believe in "something from nothing" the material world no longer makes any sense as a sole reality.

The PSR is implied in the above

I disagree. I think I've shown that it is misleading. — Banno

So, the added scrutiny of believing that everything in the world has a cause and effect is not good for how one ought to reason?

Let look at this historically. Never has anyone used the PSR in a manner that would legitimize God's existence, but rather to scrutinize it rationally.

In essence, what's wrong with rationalism?

than you yourself would no longer make sense — Gregory

Hahaha, I think I've made less and less sense as time has gone by...

The point of the PoSR is that truth, when realized, is in accord with reality. — Gregory

Though I agree that reality is the essence of truth, I don't see that as having much to do with the PoSR. The PoSR simply states that every aspect of the natural universe must have a cause underlying it's existence. I agree. The universe is composed of energy and matter, which are mutually interchangeable. Before our universe existed (disregarding that there may be other "universes" distant from ours), all was pure energy. For this energy to have existed, there must have been some happenstance or situation which caused it to exist. This, however, is in no way determinative of the existence of deity. In order for the fact of the original energy from whence our universe to show a deity, that energy must be shown to have been purposeful, rather than arbitrary, which it has not displayed.

The world makes sense to me but if you are to say that world doesn't make sense and you are only matter, than you yourself would no longer make sense. — Gregory

I'm not sure what we're talking about in this sentence. "Making sense" is an entirely subjective perception.

That's because it demands more than is needed. — Banno

Isn't this question begging if you can't provide a better methodology?

that energy must be shown to have been purposeful, rather than arbitrary, which it has not displayed. — Michael Zwingli

Do you expect a monkey to come out of your computer right now? You don't because the world is understood by you to be rational

The next step in the analysis would be to have to use the same principle of 'The Necessary Existent' for God having to be, as the mandatory Existent, again because there can be no opposite; thus the principle is sound! — PoeticUniverse

But, ex nihilo and something from nothing doesn't have to be true, doesn't it, and we rely on the PSR through science to prove this!