Quote from: Jonathan G. on May 20, 2014, 01:41:21 pmNo, PSR is self-refuting. This can be appreciated once you realize that there isn't a sufficient reason for PSR to be true. Thus, if PSR is true, then PSR is false.You can also think in terms of Goedel's incompleteness theorem if you like.
Quote from: Nightvid Cole on July 16, 2014, 09:33:13 amQuote from: Jonathan G. on May 20, 2014, 01:41:21 pmNo, PSR is self-refuting. This can be appreciated once you realize that there isn't a sufficient reason for PSR to be true. Thus, if PSR is true, then PSR is false.You can also think in terms of Goedel's incompleteness theorem if you like.1. God created all things, visible and invisible2. PSR is invisible (an abstract entity or proposition)3. Therefore, PSR has been created4. If a thing, visible or invisible, has been created, then it has a sufficient reason or cause5. Therefore, there is a sufficient reason for PSR
I think the main reason why it's self-evident is simply because it's all we observe; equally, we see no violations of it or at the very least, if the PSR were to be false, we should see more kinds of events occur without explanation. I suppose it's a kind of inductive reason.Also, it should be known that if we reject the PSR, all kinds of absurdities arise. For instance, Koons (1997) showed that there are epistemological issues in rejecting the PSR, as we have to entertain the possibility that our cognition and mental faculties occur, exist and process, for no reason at all. It makes it difficult to make any knowledge claim, either certain or even probablistic.
It seems that probability can't be affirmed if you reject the PSR, as probability claims are made in relation to contingent laws of nature, contingent etc. and if we reject the PSR then you can't even say that it's probably false, as that would appeal to relative contingent facts as to make the judgement.
It could be argued that the scientific method rests on the metaphysical assumption that there is an explanation of everything in the natural world... If we reject that principle then we also have to shed doubt on the scientific method. Pruss (2006) proposed that we have to question evolution as well, as it rests on the reasoning that some feature of some observable fossil evidence is best explained by some process (natural selection). It if you reject the PSR them you can't even make that claim.
It is equally as plausible that it is explained by no reason at all.So it's self-evident in the sense that if we reject it, we can't rationally hold to many things that are otherwise rational to hold.
1. By Goedel's incompleteness theorem, there are necessary truths which cannot be proven and thus cannot have a reason2. If God exists, God created everything, including PSR3. From 2, if God exists, there is a sufficient reason for PSR, which means it must be true4. From 1 and 3, God does not exist.