What's at issue is whether it's true as a principle. — Terrapin Station
I'm saying that there are possible exceptions — Sapientia
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 — Srap Tasmaner
Once you say those things are all the same, you've lost the ground for attributing anything to conscious agency. — Srap Tasmaner
I didn't say they're ''all the same''. — TheMadFool
How would you go about proving/disproving this principle? I'd say the PSR is grounded firmly on evidence which spans across all of history. If you think it's false then the burden of proof falls on your shoulders. — TheMadFool
My question really is whether you think someone's motivation determines the truth of what they say. Mathematicians enjoy mathematics, and of course that's why they do it. Finding an especially good result may make you especially happy, but the converse obviously does not hold.
There has been some controversy within philosophy in recent years about whether alternative points of view are suppressed by charging them with committing the genetic (and related) fallacies. I was wondering if you were taking a side here. — Srap Tasmaner
I agree. There could be exceptions - it's possible - but where are they? — TheMadFool
Until such a time that the PSR is disproved I'll continue to accept it as a valid principle. — TheMadFool
sometimes I cannot make out what I am looking at. How about you? — Thinker
I think both theists and atheists have gone beyond the strength of the available evidence. — TheMadFool
I'm only trying to counter an atheist's position... — TheMadFool
It's easy to work out. Just write out your favourite version of the PSR and look for where the word 'exists' or 'there is' occurs. Sometimes it's disguised as a 'has', but I'm confident you can see through that.Can you tell me where exactly non-existence and PSR connect? — TheMadFool
he may just like to hear himself talk — Thinker
You had better, or your analogy doesn't get off the ground. — Srap Tasmaner
Assuming that there are really reasons for anything (and it's not simply a way that we think about things), no amount of experience is going to justify it as a principle. Hence, there being no good reason to buy it as a principle — Terrapin Station
That's inconsistent. — Sapientia
That's an argument from ignorance — Sapientia
You're pushing these flawed arguments, and at the same time, acting as though you occupy some kind of balanced middle-ground which escapes criticism — Sapientia
It's easy to work out. Just write out your favourite version of the PSR and look for where the word 'exists' or 'there is' occurs. Sometimes it's disguised as a 'has', but I'm confident you can see through that — andrewk
Suppose I built a house and God created this universe.
Tell me exactly what those two acts have in common — Srap Tasmaner
The organization/order is what's common. — TheMadFool
There's nothing inconsistent about scientific principles being provisional. If I'm right, then all scientific principles are open to challenge. No scientist makes claims to absolute truths. I think they call it falsifiability. However, until such events that disconfirms a principle it is assumed to be true. The same for PSR. — TheMadFool
You can't. 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
Perhaps you could be more specific — Srap Tasmaner
Science does not assume some event is true just becasue it has not been falsified. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Furthermore, this line of argument makes no sense we with respect to PSR. PSR is posited as a logical necessity. It's the force we supposedly need to make logical distinctions coherent. It doesn't have an empirical form to confirm of falsify through observation. — TheWillowOfDarkness
And then tell me how the things on your two lists are similar — Srap Tasmaner
The similarity is the existence of principles that is common to both a house and the universe. — TheMadFool
Is the relation between my house and its principles the same as the relation between the universe and its principles? — Srap Tasmaner
There's nothing inconsistent about scientific principles being provisional. — TheMadFool
However, until such events that disconfirms a principle it is assumed to be true. The same for PSR. — TheMadFool
But there's evidence for PSR and none to the contrary. You have failed to provide a counterexample to the PSR. — TheMadFool
Sometimes the correct answer is ''I don't know''. — TheMadFool
And then tell me how the things on your two lists are similar. — Srap Tasmaner
Perhaps sloppy writing is to blame. I don't mean to say PSR is simply assumed to be true. There's evidence that spans all of history - from the jurassic extinction 65 million years ago to the current terrorist attacks in Europe that are making headlines. All of these have a reason. Do you deny that? Given this degree of depth and breadth of evidence isn't it rational to believe in the PSR? — TheMadFool
You, on the other hand, are rejecting the PSR and doing it by giving reasons. Apart from the self-refuting nature of such an exercise... — TheMadFool
You, on the other hand, are rejecting the PSR and doing it by giving reasons. Apart from the self-refuting nature of such an exercise you also haven't been able to provide a single counterexample to PSR. — TheMadFool
That there are reasons for some things is not that there are reasons for everything. — Michael
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.