RE: What makes people irrational thinkers?
January 5, 2022 at 12:30 am
(This post was last modified: January 5, 2022 at 12:31 am by GrandizerII.)
(January 5, 2022 at 12:01 am)Paleophyte Wrote:
(January 4, 2022 at 11:57 pm)GrandizerII Wrote: If this physical reality could have been some other different physical reality instead, then it's going to be hard to argue that nevertheless such physical reality would be necessary. It would be a brute fact in such a case (for many atheists), but not metaphysically necessary. But a brute fact at least will also not require any external explanation, so the atheist has that in their favor anyway.
I'm not suggesting that this particular physical reality is necessary. I'm arguing that some arbitrary physical reality is necessary. That we exist to debate this one demonstrates only that we are well-evolved to these conditions.
I get what you're saying, but I don't get the reasoning behind why it's enough to say that existence is necessary, when the theist is saying that this particular reality is contingent and therefore requires an explanation (because it could've been something else instead)? I'm not sure how saying "well, non-existence is impossible, so we can only have what we do have" sufficiently counters that. Shouldn't a proper response also involve having to argue for this particular reality not being contingent?
