Skip to main content
5 votes

What precisely are brute contingent facts?

According to Wikipedia, Poincare distinguished brute facts from their scientific description. The first is ontological and the second, epistemic. Now, scientific descriptions can be founded on other ...
Mozibur Ullah's user avatar
3 votes

How sound is the Avicennian argument from Contingency?

P1 is unjustified and doesn't make any intuitive sense. A bigger problem is that the whole concept of necessary and contingent truths isn't well grounded. The notion of a "contingent" truth ...
causative's user avatar
  • 13k
2 votes

Is there a logical reason to default to a certain type of first cause?

Nothing versus something If nothing caused the Big Bang, then the Big Bang was not caused by anything, it just happened. Or how could nothingness cause somethingness? How could an empty function on ...
Kristian Berry's user avatar
2 votes

Does St. Thomas Aquinas' cosmological argument from contingency assume that an infinite regress of contingent things is impossible?

From the original argument, Summa Theologica Part I, Question 2, Article 3: "We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, ...
Conifold's user avatar
  • 43.2k
2 votes

A small reformulation of the Cosmological Argument

Welcome to Philosophy SE. You mentioned that the cosmological argument "crashes and burns" because the existence of God as uncaused or unexplained contradicts one of the premises of the argument. ...
Adam Sharpe's user avatar
  • 3,824
2 votes

A small reformulation of the Cosmological Argument

First of all, as a matter of logic, arriving at a contradiction means that one or more of your assumptions must be false. So, to see what the argument by contradiction proves you have to consider ...
E...'s user avatar
  • 6,526
2 votes

What precisely are brute contingent facts?

The popular definition reads „a brute fact is a fact that cannot be explained in terms of a deeper, more ‚fundamental‘ fact.“ According to this definition „brute fact“ is an epistemic characterization,...
Jo Wehler's user avatar
  • 32k
1 vote

Why is it invalid to conclude from ‘Some A is B’ and ‘One A does not differ the least bit from another’ that ‘Every A is B’?

Why is it invalid to conclude from ‘Some A is B’ and ‘One A does not differ the least bit from another’ that ‘Every A is B’? "Some A is B" may be rendered "∃x(Ax ∧ Bx)" "One ...
ac15's user avatar
  • 1,461
1 vote

How could we get over a seeming contradiction in first cause causality without jumping to anything impossible?

It also seems to expose a contradiction in logic and reasoning itself, as there has to be a first cause, First, there cannot be a contradiction is logic itself, for it would mean that logic is ...
Speakpigeon's user avatar
  • 7,744
1 vote
Accepted

What precisely are brute contingent facts?

Short Answer Most generally, a brute fact is roughly something that is self-evidently true and without explanation, and claims about the necessity and contingency of claims is a byproduct of different ...
J D's user avatar
  • 26.6k
1 vote

An argument against brute physical facts

All brute physical facts must be contingent, or else appealing to their necessity would be explanation for why it's true. Therefore, by assumption, all brute physical facts admit a further explanation ...
causative's user avatar
  • 13k
1 vote
Accepted

The resemblance of 'being that exists' with the 'element' in the definition of a set

The argument of the first mover was developed in Aristotle and subsequently identified in Islamic and Christian philosophy with an act of God and hence a reasoned argument for the existence of God ...
Mozibur Ullah's user avatar
1 vote

Is there a logical reason to default to a certain type of first cause?

'Has a beginning' is problematic if time started there. What does 'before time' mean? We know reconciling relativistic spacetime with the quantum picture is the biggest challenge in physics - ...
CriglCragl's user avatar
  • 21.8k
1 vote

How do we know things don't come into existence Ex Nihilo on their own?

Indeed, nothing inherently prohibits things from coming into existence ex nihilo. In physics we build mathematical models of the world. Any model that matches observations could be right, and we ...
causative's user avatar
  • 13k
1 vote
Accepted

Why is this argument supposedly improved?

The first version starts of with Everything has a cause, and ends in "God". According to the bible, God (doesn't matter if this is the same god) does not have a beginning or an end. So ...
Michael Mortensen's user avatar
1 vote

Generating the simplest sort of Cosmological Argument

The possibility that something causes itself should be excluded as a cause would need to exist first before it could cause anything. This would apply also to the notion of creation. The idea that A ...
Speakpigeon's user avatar
  • 7,744
1 vote

Generating the simplest sort of Cosmological Argument

The version of the Cosmological Argument you present is a caricature that no significant philosopher ever defended. This isn't your fault. The version you describe is basically the version that is ...
David Gudeman's user avatar
1 vote

Having S5 system Why we need to use WPSR in Gale Pruss New cosmological arguement?

Welcome! There's nothing wrong with what you are saying, but they are two different arguments with a different set of premises. Gale and Pruss present a cosmological argument for the existence of God, ...
Adam Sharpe's user avatar
  • 3,824

Only top scored, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible