A Christian Philosophy

Yes, if physicalism is true, then everything is nothing but strings. But I don't think it would be absurd. Take a pile of sand for example. Most peopl...

I'll unpack the explanation: if a thing has necessary or inherent existence, then the proposition "this thing, whose existence is inherent, exists" is...

There are several branches of logic but the science of logic as a whole is one coherent system. E.g. fuzzy logic is a branch that may be more suitable...

Two things. 1) The PSR does not state that everything must have a cause (that's the principle of causality), but that everything must have a sufficien...

Actually, I take them to be synonymous. But I'll explain what I mean by identity: If we can say "A is nothing but B", then A does not have its own ide...

I forgot to say, I am away for the next couple of days. I will read and respond to your comment early next week.

Something that is fundamental or basic can still meet the PSR as long as it has necessary existence. This would be an internal reason which is valid u...

Thank you for the definition; however I am still unclear because I am not sure what "natural world" means. Does "natural" only mean things in the worl...

As per the OP section "Argument in defence of the PSR", logic (and the PSR) are first principles of metaphysics. This means they exist in all possibe ...

Essence is the same as identity, metaphysically speaking. As per the law of identity, everything has an identity. But sometimes a thing supervenes on ...

Hmmm. I'll have to think some more about that one. But it can wait as I believe it is not critical to the main discussion. There can be an internal ex...

Very well. Then no need to repeat the conversation, and we can leave this topic here. I am unclear on what you mean by "natural" vs "super-natural". H...

No, nothing is a brute fact under the unrestricted PSR. Logic has a reason for existing, as provided in the OP under section "Argument in defence of t...

Very well. Then we can drop this topic. I have provided the reason why we know that logic exists on the epistemology side. Then the reason why logic e...

What is questionable about the PSR? I did not use the word "super-natural". We should simply try to follow the rules of the PSR to its logical conclus...

Sure. The reason I used the example of a triangle is because it is easy to understand its identity or essence, and thereby also understand its essenti...

Logical necessity is a type of sufficient reason. It is reason type 1 in the OP section "PSR in Metaphysics".

That's the PSR on the metaphysics side. The PSR on the epistemology side demands that explanations be no more than necessary. This is because the PSR ...

Sure, but in the same way, necessity also applies to things with essential properties. E.g. "3 sides" is an essential property of a triangle. Thus, if...

I agree, but in this case it is not arbitrary. The existence of a being whose existence is an essential property is deduced directly from the PSR. Sin...

As described in the OP, reason in the context of epistemology can be interpreted as explanation or justification for a claim be true; and reason in th...

Since the PSR states that every thing must have a sufficient reason, no exception, then both 2) and 3) would be deniers of the PSR.

Sure. In other words, the content of mapmaking describes the terrain; and likewise, principles of metaphysics describe the things in fundamental reali...

Yes that's a clearer way of putting it. It avoids the confusion of whether we speak of a reason why we know something is true versus a reason why a th...

The Principle of Parsimony: the simplest explanation that accounts for all the data is the most reasonable one. Sufficient in the PSR means that an ex...

The traditional answer is: we can posit the existence of a First Cause which has existence necessarily or as an essential property. The existence of t...

This is a false dilemma: either everything has a reason or nothing has a reason. Deniers of the PSR do not claim that nothing has a reason; only that ...

On the epistemology side (knowledge), the reason defending our knowledge of the PSR is provided in the OP section "Argument in defence of the PSR". On...

If all objects in a set are explained, then the set is also explained. Thus, if all objects in existence are explained, by 1 of the 3 types of reasons...

Sure, a random outcome can have a cause, but it also means there is no reason to have outcome 1 vs outcome 2. Thus, the particular outcome lacks a suf...

I still hold that the relevant propositions must have "at the same time" added to them. So: P3 - By the Law of Non-Contradiction, if event 1 occurs th...

It is true that the two models give different types of reasons for the existence of things in the physical world. The old model gives teleological rea...

The outcome “4” exists from “2+2” by logical necessity Not quite. What I meant was, if we inquire why 2+2 results in 4, then the explanation is that 4...

Thanks for sharing!

If you mean the reason for the existence of a particular thing, then the type of reason is given in the OP under the section "PSR in Metaphysics". In ...

Ah, gotcha.

I dispute P2. By the Law of Non-Contradiction, a fact/event cannot be other than it is at the same time. Suppose true randomness exists such that even...

Thanks!

They are still the same. In the principle of parsimony, it is reasonable to pick the simplest of 2 explanations that account for all the data because ...

Yeah probably. Out of curiosity, would you have a better description of mathematics?

Good point. I think what you are trying to say is we cannot know with certainty that nature is uniform, that the future will resemble the past. I agre...

Thanks for sharing! Interesting stuff.

I know you said this does not refute the PSR; however, I want to clarify that statistical randomness like throwing a dice is not real or metaphysical ...

Yes I agree. When responding to quantum physics objections, I think I'll use your response first before trying a more elaborate argument like in the O...

Cheers! :victory:

Yep, I agree with that. Verification by falsification does not make explanations certain but makes them the most reasonable. To add my 2 cents - these...

Honestly, I don't agree with you, but I'm not sure it is worth discussing this any further. It's not really relevant to the original topic in the OP. ...

Sure. So the order is: (1) make observations; (2) conceive an explanation that best fits the data; (3) Validate the explanation by making predictions ...

Thanks! And I'll read up on that Plantinga fella. I don't believe so - I have never heard the term until now haha. Just looking for principles and try...

If I understand you correctly, you make a distinct between proof and support; i.e., observations do not prove theories but support the best theory tha...