Reasons for Joy; In Gentleness, and Respect.

Profile of SpalatinRengriss

Show Posts

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - SpalatinRengriss

Leibnizian Cosmological Argument / Re: What is an "explanation?"
« on: April 08, 2018, 07:06:18 pm »
Alright, I got no takers on this elsewhere, and it is primarily relevant to the LCA, since it speaks to the PSR, so I'm reposting it here.

I use the word "explanation" to refer to a type of story or narrative one person offers another with the goal of getting the other to understand or appreciate some concept or fact or system or chain of events in some way.  It's a language-game move intended to shape an audience's mental state.

But it means nothing to me in an ontological or metaphysical context.  In the PSR, for instance, one states that every *thing* has an explanation of its existence.

Clearly, the PSR is not referring to language-game moves, here, since it would be trivially false if it were.

But what else is there?  What sort of "explanation" can a thing have?

Can anyone actually offer this term "explanation" a rigorous deficnition?

Because, right now, it seems pretty vacuous to me, and the PSR along with it.

Let's try with:

X is an explanation for the existence of Y, if X has some kind of ontological connection with Y that is relevant to the fact of the existence of Y (example: father and son), or if the existence of X, implies that the existence of Y, is more likely (example: it is more likely that AI can come into existence, if there are intelligent beings).

Where it is?

Can you please link some paper which proves it?

I mean seriously,without it KCA is just typical god of the gaps argument.

"Once again science can't explain something. Therefore we're going to say that goddidit! Nevermind we tried it for centuries and always failed"

Really, you can't just say that because we don't have the answer, goddidit is somehow correct by default. That's now how it works. I can just say that all our reality is a matrix and aliens who did it live in perfectly explained, eternal universe. For multiple reasons it's much better expalation than "goddidit".

So I'm asking: Where is any scientific evidence that disembodied, immaterial, timeless, powerful, inteligent mind created our universe?

I think a better question would be: why do you think there must be scientific evidence of the existence of a disembodied, immaterial, timeless, powerful and intelligent mind to accept the conclusion? What is your justification? (do you have some academic bibliography that stipulate that or is your subjetive preference?) Science works with physical reality, and the inferred cause is non-physical, so your question is similar to asking:

Why i don't find evidence in favor of atheism with my metal detector? Well, because metal detectors are not made for that. You are using the wrong tool.

What you should look for are good deductive, abductive and inductive reasons in favor of that. And there are several.

Now, do not forget that the kalam is a deduction that proves the existence of immaterial minds. You do not need to prove that there are immaterial minds before the kalam (only that these are metaphysical possibilities, so that they are legitimate candidates), the kalam proves it (that is their conclusion).

Pages : [1]