So, your argument rests upon the “supposition” that we must only use logic to substantiate our philosophical positions. In other words we must not let emotion into our critical thinking. No emotion – exactly how do we do that? More importantly – why would we want to try? Please show me how your arguments are devoid of emotion? — Thinker

Straw man.

Your logic is just a supposition in the final analysis. How do you determine this supposition is correct? — Thinker

I'll just simply say that if you have a disregard for logic, then I do not have a serious interest in what you have to say.

My supposition is that it is impossible to separate emotion and logic. — Thinker

That's ambiguous, but if you mean that that cannot be done to any extent whatsoever, then that's demonstrably false.

I think I have the stronger supposition. — Thinker

Good for you. I think that I'm Queen of the United Kingdom.

One always needs motivation to do anything – motivation always has an emotional component. — Thinker

Missing the point.

Would you likewise go as far as acknowledging that they could be the intentional product of a creative intelligence? — aletheist

I have already done so. I also said that that in itself means next to nothing, and that I find that possibility implausible.

How should we determine what counts as evidence and how much is sufficient? — aletheist

In this discussion there has been that which has been proposed as evidence of a creator, and rejected, as either failing to count as evidence or as being too weak.

As for brute facts, I'm not sure. Maybe it's something about a certain kind of fact that renders certain questions about it inappropriate. Maybe if x number of attempts to explain it have failed over x amount of time, that counts as evidence. But anything without explanation could be a brute fact.

It is impossible to leave all of our presuppositions behind. — aletheist

But that's not something that I've claimed.

A counter-example to the PSR would be a proof of non-existence. Proving the non-existence of something is rarely possible, except in maths. — andrewk

Liquid methane is nonexistent on the surface of the Earth because the temperature, pressure conditions are not right. Liquid water is nonexistent on Mercury because the temperature conditions are not right. I could go on.

Anyway, we prove nonexistence in the negative i.e. we first try to prove existence and when this can't be done we default to nonexistence. This actually works against your views on the PSR. Because to say some thing or event has no reason, you'd have to first look for a reason. Only upon finding none can you say that there's no reason for such and such.

There are plenty of things for which we have no explanations. Dark Matter is one that springs to mind. It is entirely possible that there is no explanation. But how could we ever know for sure that there isn't one — andrewk

That's exactly my point. Like it or not, even if you want to just deny PSR, you'll have to assume it's true. Kind of like when you do a proof by contradiction. You can't escape the PSR.

Btw you haven't given me an example that negates PSR.

Anyway, we prove nonexistence in the negative — TheMadFool

Empirical claims are not provable.

Liquid methane is nonexistent on the surface of the Earth because the temperature, pressure conditions are not right. — TheMadFool

I very much doubt this. I am pretty confident there will be laboratories in which liquid methane is produced or stored for some experimental purpose or other. In any case, I said it is rarely possible, not that it is never possible. A handful of counterexamples (of which the liquid methane case is not one) does not contradict that.

Like it or not, even if you want to just deny PSR, you'll have to assume it's true. — TheMadFool

What makes you think that?

That's exactly my point. Like it or not, even if you want to just deny PSR, you'll have to assume it's true. — TheMadFool

What I'd not do is just assume that the PSR is true. I'm not assuming that it's not true, but I'd certainly not just accept that it is true, either. It seems to only be motivated by a tendency to think that way.

What makes you think that? — andrewk

We can't prove that something doesn't exist directly. We have to first assume that it does. The next step would be to look for it. When the search is negative we may conclude nonexistence. In short nonexistence can be proved only negatively.

Likewise, to prove something has no reason/cause we have to first assume that it does (an instance of PSR) and only when such a search comes up with nothing can we say that said thing has no reason.

Also, you said

Proving the non-existence of something is rarely possible, except in maths. — andrewk

To what do you attribute the failure to prove non-existence?

Sorry if my post didn't meet your standards of clarity. — TheMadFool

I accept your apology.

Please pick up a book on logic and read up fallacy of composition and how it's confused with fallacy of hasty generalization (both of which I haven't made, fyi)

And nor have I accused you of a hasty generalization: a hasty generalization fallacy in this context would be something like examining a small sample of a population of universes, observing that they're ordered, and thereby concluding that all universes must be ordered. Nothing like that has transpired here: we currently have observational access to one, and only one, universe, namely ours.

I accused you of a compositional fallacy, because you are drawing unwarranted conclusions about the whole of a system based on observation of certain of its parts.

I haven't assumed anything. I have first made an observation and it reveals undeniable order. I then entertained two possible origins of order viz.

1. God
2. Chance

I find possibility 2 to be unrealistic because it's, mathematically, next to impossible. Option 1 then becomes viable.

Your mathematical hand-waving aside, the point you have failed to realize, which Harry Hindu pointed out to you way back on page 2 or so, is that there is nothing special, magical, or supernatural about order: it simply must be purchased by an input of energy, a purchase which tends to lead to increased disorder in the universe as a whole. That's it.

When the search is negative we may conclude nonexistence. — TheMadFool

No we may not.

There have been many intense searches that failed to find the sought object, only for somebody to find it in another search years later.

When the search is negative we may conclude nonexistence. — MadFool

No we may not. There have been many intense searches that failed to find the sought object, only for somebody to find it in another search years later. — andrewk

I think it depends on the situation. If, for instance, particle physicists perform a series of experiments designed to detect a particle which their theory predicts will possess a mass within a certain range, and the experiment comes up empty-handed, that is at least preliminary evidence of the non-existence that particle. At the very least, the theory will need to be re-worked, and its ontological commitments re-examined.

When astronomers consistently failed to detect the putative planet which was causing aberrations in the orbit of Mercury ("Vulcan", I believe they called it?), then they were justified in at least tentatively rejecting the existence of that body when repeated observations in its hypothetical orbit were negative.

There have been many intense searches that failed to find the sought object, only for somebody to find it in another search years later. — andrewk

I said may. Again, I see a difficulty in proving non-existence which doesn't relate to the PSR. Can you tell me where exactly non-existence and PSR connect?

We can't prove that something doesn't exist directly. We have to first assume that it does. The next step would be to look for it. When the search is negative we may conclude nonexistence. In short nonexistence can be proved only negatively.

Likewise, to prove something has no reason/cause we have to first assume that it does (an instance of PSR) and only when such a search comes up with nothing can we say that said thing has no reason. — TheMadFool

You seem to be missing that the PSR is a principle. It's not merely saying that there are sufficient explanations for various things. It's saying that there MUST be.

So whether particular things--maybe every single thing in the universe minus one--have sufficient reasons is irrelevant. What's at issue is whether it's true as a principle.

The Mad Fool was talking about proof, though, not just reaching a conclusion that could be modified later.

Ok. My belief in the PSR is cemented by all the fields of knowledge from prehistory till now. The dinosaurs died because an asteroid hit the earth about 65 million years ago. Leibniz's PSR is suspect because he had theological agenda. And so on.

You reject the PSR. Give me proof why. — TheMadFool

You'd need to do that with everything and every possibility. I'm saying that there are possible exceptions, and have referred to examples.

Take for example a man from Biblical times. With his background knowledge flying is implausible. Now consider a man from this century. With his background knowledge flying is not only plausible but also a reality. Comparing the two, who's knowledge is more extensive? Likewise before an atheist says God is implausible he must have knowledge of the entire universe - because that's the extent of the possibility that God exists - and that, we all know, isn't the case. — TheMadFool

I think I made it clear that I'm only talking about the here-and-now with the evidence available to me, i.e. fallibilism.

Either you disprove that P or you accept that P? — Terrapin Station

I know, right? How many times is that now? Shouldn't have to keep explaining this.

Mathematic is the purist form of logic that man has invented. Logic as a science seems to be a subset of mathematics. Can pure mathematics, as opposed to applied mathematics, live beyond the motivation of its inventors? Does it have a reach that goes beyond human connection? Perhaps in artificial intelligence it will reach its purity. At least that is the theory. We shall see – and – I think we have to help it happen.

However, for us mortals we are bound to our motivation – even in our quest for pure mathematics. We are caged, like rats, with our motivations and emotions. We cannot escape the gravity of our emotions. Emotion is where our motivation becomes genesis. How did it get here? We cannot say. Why do I have eyes? I do not know. I cannot wish my eyes away or my emotions. Everything I do has motivation.

I think your logic is sound. I agree with what you say. I cannot prove the antithesis or the thesis. I agree with both. A contradiction to be sure. In the end I must try to be true to myself. I am in a box, a small box, which I cannot escape – and – I ask myself – what do I have? I have emotion – always – sometimes I have reason – I have other faculties like intuition, sensation and alike. I almost never perceive anything without emotion. The exception is a still mind – pure awareness. Emotion is a chain which binds me in my box. I say to myself – everyone else is bound too. You are bound to your emotions and you cannot be Mr. Spock – ever – except with a still mind. However, we don’t do anything with a still mind. If we do – we are no longer still.

Okey dokey. Now, back to the topic...

Okey dokey. Now, back to the topic... — Sapientia

That is the topic - your antithesis is bound to your emotions and motivation. To dismiss this fact is a straw man.

That is the topic - your antithesis is bound to your emotions and motivation. To dismiss this fact is a straw man. — Thinker

That's not specific to this topic, nor is it of any particular relevance, in my view.

Do you actually know what a straw man is? I don't think you do.

That is the topic - your antithesis is bound to your emotions and motivation. To dismiss this fact is a straw man.
— Thinker

That's not specific to this topic. — Sapientia

What is not specific to what topic? You are playing word games to avoid your own bindings.

You are claiming a pure logic – like artificial intelligence may possess – but there is no purity in human logic. It is always bound to emotion and our motivations.

If it looks like I'm making up stuff ''to hold it together'' I probably am but...are there any logical errors? That's the question that I care about. — TheMadFool

I think, as I tried to show in my little dialogue, and in the post before that, the argument from design undercuts itself. Remember, conscious agency only gets in at all by noticing there is a difference between things attributable to it and things not. Once you say those things are all the same, you've lost the ground for attributing anything to conscious agency.

Besides, contra my dialogue, there are tidy rooms in nature. The first time you find an intricately woven bird's nest can be a puzzling experience. Did this grow this way? Incredible! But do birds serve a long apprenticeship learning how to make these things, study the nests of other birds, make smaller, simpler practice nests before they attempt the real thing? No. There's agency at work here, and birds do have some consciousness obviously, but even though a bird's nest obviously has a design with a definite purpose, it's hard to say whether its production was conscious. What about anthills? Which ant is the architect?

There are extraordinary structures, crystals for instance, created by natural processes of nonliving matter. There are extraordinary structures, which seem different, roses for instance, attributable to living matter, but maybe not to consciousness. The chambered nautilus. Life shows different patterns of sensitivity and reaction to its environment, and we can see that. Then there are extraordinary structures attributable only to conscious agency.

You'll think the preceding paragraph is making your point for you, because, even though we agree that the universe is a quite astonishing place, you're looking at it through the wrong end of the telescope.

What is not specific to what topic? — Thinker

Your point about emotions and motivation. My views, and everyone else's, are most likely affected to at least some extent by emotions and motivations. That isn't specific to my views on this topic. We aren't all Spock. None of us are, in fact.

Do you actually know what a straw man is? I don't think you do. — Sapientia

Straw man = an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

You are claiming a pure logic – like artificial intelligence may possess – but there is no purity in human logic. — Thinker

Oh, am I now? :-}

Have fun arguing with yourself. I'm out.

Your point about emotions and motivation. My views, and everyone else's, are most likely affected to at least some extent by emotions and motivations. That isn't specific to my views on this topic. We aren't all Spock. None of us are, in fact. — Sapientia

Not to some extent - to an inextricable great extent.

They surely can't be saying god is simply implausible because if they are then they'd need to have access to a vast amount of knowledge - extending from the subatomic to the intergalactic - and that I'm confident they don't. — TheMadFool

Btw, I'm almost certain Hume had a related argument that the order you perceive in the universe could be the order only of the little bit you have knowledge of, and that for all you know the far greater portion of it is a seething chaotic hellscape, or words to that effect.

However, for us mortals we are bound to our motivation – even in our quest for pure mathematics. We are caged, like rats, with our motivations and emotions. We cannot escape the gravity of our emotions. — Thinker

Do you actually believe this, or were you just having a go at @Sapientia?

However, for us mortals we are bound to our motivation – even in our quest for pure mathematics. We are caged, like rats, with our motivations and emotions. We cannot escape the gravity of our emotions.
— Thinker

Do you actually believe this, or were you just having a go at Sapientia? — Srap Tasmaner

What are you talking about? We are bound to emotions - do you think otherwise? Please show me any reason to think differently?

Emotions have a gravitational pull. That's where our motivation comes from.