(November 2, 2013 at 7:33 pm)Rational AKD Wrote: this is false. you don't need the PSR to come to a reasonable conclusion about consequences concerning the assumption "the PSR is false." rejection of the PSR only means that an explanation doesn't need a sufficient reason to be, not that sufficient reason can't explain things (or it would be self refuting). and the sufficient reason that can be used against it is the possibility of things popping into existence, and the fact that it can't be said to be improbable without begging the question that is (IE it is improbable because it is).
Er, what? You seem to be merely affirming what I was arguing against, without stating why? My point was is that to say that there is a reason that things don't pop into existence is a fine example of question-begging. The underlying assumption is that what prevents this popping into existence is the PSR. That's circular.
Quote:because there's not a single thing in this world that has been shown impossible to explain with sufficient reason. if the PSR were false, we would expect to see things that can't be explained with sufficient reason. something is always caused by something, never nothing.
And this is among the places Hume's critique is devastating. You're assuming the universal validity of "things don't come from nothing" based on your experience. But it is in fact the case that there is no logical contradiction in saying "something came from nothing".
As for things without sufficient reason, existence could be one. In other words, the PSR at best could apply to every individual constituent of reality, but not necessarily the whole.
Quote:it gives it evidence that it is true. the fact that there is nothing that pops into existence without cause or explanation is evidence that it simply doesn't happen. it may not be proof, but evidence still establishes a more reasonable position.
And there's a problem. You're again assuming the PSR is the reason things don't happen without sufficient reason, which is question-begging.
Quote:just to point out a separate point here, this only points out the possibility to conceptually exist, which only needs to be coherent. for example, I can conceive a rock on its own without the need for anything. it exists as a conception because it is logically coherent. but when I add something that is not necessary to it, such as physical existence, it now is in a state that is possible to be in and possible to not be in. this is the problem, the contradiction is not in the concept itself, but in the concept existing for no reason; in other words it exists because of nothing.
Firstly, to conceive of something is to already conceive of it as existing. You can't add existence to something, it isn't a property. If I'm thinking of the properties of an apple, then think of the apple as existing, have I actually added anything? No.
And again, to say that something needs a reason to exist is that question-begging again. You can't use the PSR as the reason the PSR is true.
