Aren't all brute facts arbitrary by definition?
When I use the term brute fact I mean something that exists without any explanation or reason (contra a fact), and yet might have been otherwise (contra necessity), and therefore are utterly meaningless and absurd.
It seems to me that something (the first cause) has to be a brute fact (assuming necessity is incoherent).
So at bottom, reality is absurd whether that first cause was God or a set of physical states or whatever.
Whether one thing is more or less intuitive than another I think this one of many places where our intuition fails us (like picturing big numbers).
Is it more intuitive that a timeless being with infinite power, moral goodness, multiple perfections, and which knows a literally infinite number of propositions has always existed for no reason than that a timeless quantum vacuum of limitless energy (or whatever) has always existed for no reason? I couldn't say. Both are insane as far as my intuition is concerned.
When I use the term brute fact I mean something that exists without any explanation or reason (contra a fact), and yet might have been otherwise (contra necessity), and therefore are utterly meaningless and absurd.
It seems to me that something (the first cause) has to be a brute fact (assuming necessity is incoherent).
So at bottom, reality is absurd whether that first cause was God or a set of physical states or whatever.
Whether one thing is more or less intuitive than another I think this one of many places where our intuition fails us (like picturing big numbers).
Is it more intuitive that a timeless being with infinite power, moral goodness, multiple perfections, and which knows a literally infinite number of propositions has always existed for no reason than that a timeless quantum vacuum of limitless energy (or whatever) has always existed for no reason? I couldn't say. Both are insane as far as my intuition is concerned.
