It does seem plausible to me that only things within spacetime need *causal* explanations, and that something like the existence of physical reality as a whole couldn’t have the sort of non-causal explanation appropriate for mathematical and moral facts. So the existence of physical reality strikes me as a plausible candidate for a fact without an explanation.
I’ve never really shared the Leibnizian intuition about infinite causal chains. If the universe’s existence at every moment is caused by its existence at prior moments, how *could* it have a further explanation that isn’t just a case of gratuitous causal overdetermination? When could God have intervened to create it, given that at every moment its existence is already causally guaranteed by its existence at prior moments? I don’t see what work there is for an additional purported explanation of the whole causal chain to do.
I think the argument from contingency is by far the clearest and most generic argument for God. It's basically what all the cosmogical arguments and such are trying to be.
There is in fact no reason to accept PSR. Sometimes things just are. That may be the reason why we have such opposing opinions on anthropic principle, tbh
Finally coming around to my favourite argument for theism, nice :)
Btw, a question: Does your significantly raised credence in theism significantly *lower* your credence that hedonistic utilitarianism is true? Because imho any argument for hedonistic utilitarianism is also a pretty good argument against theism, given the state of the world... so it seems plausible that any very strong argument for theism should make one doubt that utilitarianism is in fact correct
It does seem plausible to me that only things within spacetime need *causal* explanations, and that something like the existence of physical reality as a whole couldn’t have the sort of non-causal explanation appropriate for mathematical and moral facts. So the existence of physical reality strikes me as a plausible candidate for a fact without an explanation.
I’ve never really shared the Leibnizian intuition about infinite causal chains. If the universe’s existence at every moment is caused by its existence at prior moments, how *could* it have a further explanation that isn’t just a case of gratuitous causal overdetermination? When could God have intervened to create it, given that at every moment its existence is already causally guaranteed by its existence at prior moments? I don’t see what work there is for an additional purported explanation of the whole causal chain to do.
Are you familiar with Kenny Pearce contingency argument he uses in his debate with Oppy? It is my favorite one.
Wait, if probability is only in the mind, how does this gel with quantum mechanics? You believe in hidden variable theories?
I think the argument from contingency is by far the clearest and most generic argument for God. It's basically what all the cosmogical arguments and such are trying to be.
There is in fact no reason to accept PSR. Sometimes things just are. That may be the reason why we have such opposing opinions on anthropic principle, tbh
Finally coming around to my favourite argument for theism, nice :)
Btw, a question: Does your significantly raised credence in theism significantly *lower* your credence that hedonistic utilitarianism is true? Because imho any argument for hedonistic utilitarianism is also a pretty good argument against theism, given the state of the world... so it seems plausible that any very strong argument for theism should make one doubt that utilitarianism is in fact correct