I'm a catholic and i agree, i do have one question, however, souls are not made out of anything, they have no parts, although they do experience the passage of time (granted, not our physical space time, the scholastics distinguished between physical and spiritual time, they called it evo if i remember), question is, how exactly does the need for an unconditioned reality apply for souls, which, unlike cats, cannot be said to require cells, aminoacids, atoms etc, it would appear at first sight as if the existence of souls, which clearly are not Necessary beings aka unconditional realities (mostly cause there can only be, as you have proven , one unconditional reality, which, as you also have proven, must be trascedent of space time and mode, which souls again are not) so again, how does is an unconditional reality necessary for the existence of souls, for i cannot point what contigent things are conditions for them to exist, so they appear, as if it were, brute facts

I have seen your arguments against the existence of brute facts; i ask you not to just link them, but rather explain exactly __how__ souls are not brute facts/entities, which are seemingly impossible

For some reflection:

Part 1

I would object to the conclusions in part one, by noting that I am not convinced that we could not have a finite set of conditional objects. A is conditional on B if and only if A cannot exist without B. Or in other words, B is necessary for A to exist. We write this as A->B.

I thought the essay explained this pretty well, but I'll give it a shot:

You have two options if there only exists conditioned realities in all reality:
(1) There exists at least one "entity", whose conditions for existence have not been met.

This is of course an absurd belief. One is saying that something exists that can't exist (because its conditions for existence have not been met). So is rationally false.

(2) We have some sort of a circular existence. (A) conditions (B), (B) conditions (C), and (C) conditions (A).

This means that for A's conditions for existence to be met, C has to exist. But for C's conditions for existence to be met, A has to first exist. Well, nothing can pre-exist its own existence. So this hypothesis is concluded as being rationally absurd.

--------
On Infinite regress

It was explicitly stated that X requires an infinite regress to be fulfilled.

Let's put out an example. Let's say that an infinite regress does exist right now to explain your existence. You, Ignatius Riley, exist because an infinite amount of entities have existed before you that meet the conditions for your existence. This means that an infinite amount of realities have come into existence, to explain your existence. Well, this is absurd! An infinite amount of realities cannot ever be "complete". Infinite means that it is never-ending!

So there is an infinite amount of entities that could never be completed to explain your existence right now. This means that you don't exist right now! But wait, good news--you do exist. This means that there is only a finite amount of entities that explain your existence. And these entities either existed before you, or exist right now.

Therefore, we can rationally conclude, an infinite amount of realities, does not exist. There can only ever be a potentially infinite number of entities into the future--never an actual infinite.

-----

So, in part 1, Karl would be correct in concluding that we have very good rational, and logical reasons so hold that at least one unconditioned entity exists in all reality.

To recap, Step 2 assumed that two incompatible realities can only relate to each other through a simpler reality. To counter this objection, I proffered the Aristotelian/Thomist notion that things like space and time are not realities extrinsic to entities (substances) but relations between substances.

If this is conceptually possible, then the argument no longer follows a priori. And if, to rule out such a case, one has to rely on modern physics, one is relying on a rather shaky foundation. For while protons and electrons may require a simpler reality to interact, it does not follow that all realities require a simpler reality, unless we reduce all realities to what can be studied by modern physics.

In other words, my objection, if plausible, vitiates the a priori nature of Step 2. And, if Step 2 is to be converted to an a posteriori argument via the examples from physics, the argument seems to rely on some version of physicalism.

I'd be interested in hearing a response to this objection, and I suspect that there is a way to reframe Step 2 to still be successful.

"I Got your message"

Just to let you know ' I Got your message'. I really appreciate your support. Sometimes it seems I match the speculation of the physicists with 'imagined scenarios', too. I guess we would ideally all lo 'create' our own universes. grin grin. Hope to talk to you soon. Loreen.

Me too i suppose but that leads me at least psychologically to posit "creator" or "artist"...doesn't that happen to you too?

Maybe it does but then some part of you stops and say whoa hold on let's test this and then you find that there's not nearly enough evidence for "creator" and so you wind up back at what Hitchens called a "numinous sense" of the universe?

Anyway, i guess i am just wired for belief i don't know and the Christian belief seems like it's the least wrong to me and most attractive.

The concept of the anthropic principle had me wondering whether there could be a reverse process: that 'life' evolves only in those areas, but perhaps that life could also 'affect' the universe.

Interesting thought, I didn't think of that. But as I said, I make no claim to understanding this stuff in anything other than the most superficial way. I am sure that my knowledge and understanding of this stuff is not any more vast than your own. You seem very well read in general and as to your knowledge of philosophy and metaphysics, I have no doubt that it surpasses my own. To further muddy the cosmic waters I submit the following for your perusal....not for your approval necessarily, :-). But As Guth Guth himself admits neither he or other quantum physicists understands this stuff. But it is interesting lto see them all floundering around in the middle of spider web of "theory".....while the rest of us mere mortals are quivering on the periphery in thrall anxiously awaiting the pronouncements from the modern day high priests on high.:-)
http://sententias.org/tag/alan-guth/

The Humility of Alan Guth is apparent in this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vn985KyDpb8

Krakerjak here.....I don't know any of this got onto "krzystof" as a reply...as I was replying to you Loreen. All I can think of is a disqus glitch? Anyway.....take care

Brandon,

Thank you for the detailed reply. I'm afraid that my response to you will not be nearly so adequate.

I do believe that the PSR is true, not all versions (certainly not the teleological PSR), but the grounding and maybe the causal PSR. I don't think a good argument has been offered for the PSR, by Della Rocca, Pruss, or by Karlo. Shamik doesn't even try to argue for the PSR. He tries to build the case that you don't need to argue for the PSR; the default position should be to accept it (or at least to be neutral about it), and it's on the opposition to argue against it. I think this is probably right, but it's not very convincing to my friends. I was hoping to find a good argument for the PSR.

If there's not a scientific reason for every contingent reality, this does not undermine science. Why is it if there is no reason for every contingent reality, that does undermine science? It would seem that all brute facts, if there are any, wouldn't have a scientific explanation since they don't have an explanation at all. I don't see how denying the PSR undermines science, or even provides much of a difficulty for doing science. It would remove much of my hope for science, that eventually physics will find the underlying law or fundamental principle that both explains itself and explains everything else: the Spinozist idea of the Unconditioned Reality.

I guess I don't see how such an empty, meaningless search could genuinely be considered "worthwhile," and I think most scientists would agree.

Just because there's no answer, doesn't mean it's an empty search. String theory may be a dead end, but the journey has been fruitful. We've learned a lot of amazing things along the way, even though String Theory itself might offer no explanations for fundamental reality, because it might well be wrong (or even meaningless).