I accept that humans can't understand everything. However, as per the OP (if there is no error), the PSR must be fulfilled and there are only 3 types ...
Based on some (admittedly little) research, my understanding is that aside from classical logic, all other logical systems (e.g. intuitionistic logic,...
It is unnecessary to define terms that are already clear. We only need to define terms that are unclear or used in a specific sense; otherwise, we'd g...
Since the laws of nature are not tautologies, they do not exist necessarily, and therefore do not exist in all possible worlds. That's fine. The concl...
I would have thought that, even though there are many sub-branches of logic, all the branches are compatible with each other so that logic as a whole ...
A thing exists out of "design" (reason type 2 in the OP) if it is the result of a free choice. The alternative is that the existence of a thing is exp...
I think you mean that the last sentence in the above comment does not follow from the first sentence alone. I agree, but it was in reference to the wh...
To clarify, the OP only aims to defend the existence of intelligent design, not the existence of a necessary being. Having said that, I accept your de...
I believe the first three laws of logic combined, "a thing is what is it, not what it is not, and there is no in-between", constitute the first princi...
I agree with your defense of the PSR. But I think we can build a stronger defense by showing that the way we infer that the PSR is a first principle o...
Even if that is true, it is also true that not all laws of nature exist in all possible worlds. So the laws of nature for a given possible world are d...
A full defense of the PSR is provided in this post under the section called "Argument in defense of the PSR". But here is a summary: There is a strong...
It is acknowledged that the PSR is not derived from logic. As previously said, logic and the PSR stand side by side; one is not underneath the other. ...
I accept that the laws of nature can explain the existence of life forms. But we need a reason for the existence of the laws of nature in the first pl...
This cycle of "bottom-up cause to top-down natural laws" does not seem to have inherent existence (reason type 3 as described in the OP) since it can ...
A full defense of the PSR is provided in this post under the section called "Argument in defense of the PSR". But here is a summary: There is a strong...
That if we accept the PSR as a valid first principle of metaphysics, then we infer the existence of a designer and of a first cause with inherent exis...
The OP argument only concludes that something designed the universe. It does not extend so far as to claim that the designer or the first cause is God...
I agree with you that the argument only aims to demonstrate the existence of a designer, which is far from the notion of God. Now, I happen to believe...
You are asking how to solve the problem of infinite regress. Infinite regress is avoided if we posit that the first cause has inherent existence. In w...
Let's take a step back. Purely physical things have only 3 components: matter, energy, and the arrangement of matter. When we speak on man-made things...
According to Occam's Razor, or the principle of parsimony, or abductive reasoning, or even the duck test. I can understand that you do not accept the ...
Being that the PSR is categorized as a first principle of metaphysics, it's expected that it should cover everything in reality, actual and possible. ...
I admit I have a bit of trouble understanding your comment. Perhaps the following example will help, and hopefully, you can build on it if it does not...
Here's a simple example. Data: A thing looks like a duck and sounds like a duck. We posit two explanations. Explanation 1: It's a duck. Explanation 2:...
A response to your objection on quantum is provided in this post (scroll down to the last paragraph). The response first shows that quantum physics ca...
Randomness is not a valid type of reason under the PSR. A behaviour is random if it occurs without reason, and this runs in direct contradiction with ...
It is not defended in the OP and only presupposed. But you can find a defense of the PSR in this post. (I also added the link in the OP for clarity). ...
The divine hippopotamus explanation does not fulfill the PSR because it is superfluous. The PSR, on the epistemology side, is also called Occam's Razo...
- Sufficient means that the explanation accounts for or covers all the things that are inquired about. - Reason/explanation/ground do not need to be d...
All of its original properties are essential to it. But it may acquire more non-essential properties later. As you said, it may have extrinsic propert...
No - in my view, nothing lacks an essence or essential identity (although for non-man-made physical things, the essence is reduced to the fundamental ...
No - as per the original response here, it has the essence of a torture device only if the creator designed it for that purpose. Using an object in a ...
I agree that an inherent property must be intrinsic. But I still claim that the function of a designed thing is intrinsic. A paper-cutter, i.e. a thin...
Of course, if natural kind excludes man-made things by its definition, then no property of man-made things would be a natural kind. Man-made things ar...
It sounds like we are in agreement in this paragraph. Notwithstanding man-made things, everything that is merely physical is nothing but strings, and ...
Sure. So to correct my view: If physicalism is true, then everything that is not man-made is nothing but strings - this is because every complex natur...
There would be more things if some things are not physical. E.g. souls or the power of free will. There is also anything that is man-made if man has f...
Even if physicalism is true, it still means that strings have their own identity or essence, and thus their own essential properties. Since strings wo...
If we are not going to agree on the validity of the laws of logic, then unfortunately I don't think we can have a common ground to make progress in th...
As the axioms do not contradict each other, it is still true that logic is one coherent system. And that logical system is evidently correct: Based on...
There is a difference between an existing thing and a thing with inherent existence. An existing thing could have not existed in the past or future. A...
Comments