A Brute Fact ?

Originally posted by sonship
If a brute fact may not be evident or known then to WHOM is it "brute" ?

And this better be good.

Seriously, you still haven't read the Wikipedia page have you? Or are you just pretending to be stupid?
The term 'brute fact' means something that 'just is'. It has no explanation.
I have no interest in trying to discover the origin of the term or what 'brute' might mean to you, or answering stupid questions about WHOM a brute fact may be 'brute' to.
And I still don't see an apology for your unwarranted malicious slander earlier in the thread.

As usual an ad hom laden wait for others to just realize you're right.

If you won't explain to whom a brute fact is brute if it is not known or evident then, I won't go hunt for your answer in someone else's mouth.

If you're so smart it should have been easy for you to do.

Originally posted by twhitehead

That is a totally uncalled for description of me. I have never ever once delayed responding to a post 'for effect' or some other stupid reason such as 'atheist fog'. I do not sit in this forum all day just waiting for a new post. I have a life you know. I expect an apology from you for the obvious malicious slander.

Oh, You expect an apology from me. First , why don't you ask any Christians on this Forum if they ever thought they got "malicious slander" from twhitehead towards them.

If I pointed it out, you would most likely just explain it away with excuses that it was not so. "But that was different .. you see ? "

There is a reaping what you sow. What I apologize for is returning evil for evil. That I apologize for.


Perhaps you could start by explaining what difficulties you are having with the Wikipedia explanation?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I didn't say I had difficulties with the wiki article. I pointed out that some people seem to think any "brute fact" is okay except the "brute fact" unexplained existence of God.

Now you are so smart you can tell us why then it is wrong to accept a "brute fact" of God's existence. Tell us all about how THAT is different.

Your on -

Tell us why appeal to "brute fact" for the theists is to be rejected but other "brute facts" just can be accepted.


A brute fact is a fact that just is. It has no deeper explanation. It seems necessary that at least some brute facts must be the case. It is my understanding that you believe God to be a brute fact. Do you not? Do you believe that God was caused?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, I do not think there is a Cause for God. For God to be self caused would be to say He existed before He existed.

"Brute" is not the word I would want to use for God's existence. I would prefer the word "Holy".

I don't think God want just to be accepted as brute fact or otherwise WITHOUT fellowship with Him.


Do you believe he exists for a reason?
--------------------------------------------------------

What does it matter ?
God is the Ultimate. We can know His love.
We can fellowship with God forever.

I believe there is a realm in which we are too deeply busy being loved to need to reason about what is the reason for God.

Uncaused. Eternal. Uncreated. The Ground of being. That's some of the attributes of God. I said "some".


Once we know that reason, does that reason have a cause or reason?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a lot of wiggling in order to avoid God.

Did you interrogate you earthly father with such questions? I suspect that you (hopefully) learned to trust him. Okay, in a normal healthy family trust of the child towards the father takes the place of not being able to give full explanation of that father.

I do not mean to imply your relationship with your father was not good.


Is there an infinite chain of reasons?
----------------------------------------------------

The buck stops somewhere. Right ?

God is the stopping point. That's what the Atheist cannot endure.
Any other "brute fact" is okay except the existence of God.

That is the atheists position that I can see.


If not, then it has to stop at a brute fact - or as some theists say, an uncaused cause.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Right.
Then we can get on to the wonderful business of a RELATIONSHIP with God, which God has made possible.

But its the relationship that the atheists disdains. He would rather distance himself from it with such phrases as "your God figure".


1.) you don't believe God exists - the "brute fact" is not.

2.) you don't believe a relationship with the fact could ever possibly be pleasant. God's love towards you means nothing.

Most of the atheists here are skillful only to event the negatives of any POSSIBLE relationship with the fact of God's existence. It simply could not be a good friendship with God.

This is like Christopher Hitchens saying that God could only be like the dictator of North Korea. A good union between man and God is impossible.

Originally posted by sonship
If you won't explain to whom a brute fact is brute if it is not known or evident then, I won't go hunt for your answer in someone else's mouth.

I haven't got a clue to whom a brute fact is brute. Its irrelevant to the meaning of the phrase and a stupid question.

If you're so smart it should have been easy for you to do.
No, being smart doesn't mean I can automatically give good answers to stupid questions.

Originally posted by sonship

That is a totally uncalled for description of me. I have never ever once delayed responding to a post 'for effect' or some other stupid reason such as 'atheist fog'. I do not sit in this forum all day just waiting for a new post. I have a life you know. I expect an apology from you for the obvious malicious slander.

Oh, You expect an apol ...[text shortened]... could only be like the dictator of North Korea. A good union between man and God is impossible.

God is the stopping point. That's what the Atheist cannot endure.
Any other "brute fact" is okay except the existence of God.

That is the atheists position that I can see.

It is not a case of an atheist being unable to endure the idea of God as a stopping point. An atheist simply doesn't believe God exists, so how could a non existing being be a stopping point for anything?

You need to get your head around the idea that although the existence of God is a brute fact for you, an atheist will never accept Him as such, not as an excuse to go off and lead a sinful life, but solely because they do not believe such a being exists.

On what grounds would I, as an atheist, possibly accept the existence of God as a brute fact? (Or indeed even a gentle fact).

Originally posted by sonship
Oh, You expect an apology from me.

Yes, I do. You made an uncalled for totally false mischaracterisation of me.

First , why don't you ask any Christians on this Forum if they ever thought they got "malicious slander" from twhitehead towards them.
And why should I do that? How is that relevant to whether or not you deliberately and maliciously mischaracterised me and should now apologise?

I didn't say I had difficulties with the wiki article.
Your OP clearly does say that you do not know what the phrase 'Brute fact' means. In addition you asked me to explain it in another thread. Clearly you are having difficulties understanding the Wikipedia article.

I pointed out that some people seem to think any "brute fact" is okay except the "brute fact" unexplained existence of God.
As always, you are arguing with imaginary people not present in the discussion. Go ask them if they actually exist.

Now you are so smart you can tell us why then it is wrong to accept a "brute fact" of God's existence. Tell us all about how THAT is different.
It is wrong to accept something as a brute fact for no reason, so I would not take Gods existence as a brute fact, because I don't believe he exists. If he does exist then his existence could be a brute fact. So for me, it is only 'different' in that it isn't the case.

No, I do not think there is a Cause for God. For God to be self caused would be to say He existed before He existed.
So, you believe his existence is a brute fact.

"Brute" is not the word I would want to use for God's existence. I would prefer the word "Holy".
Except that given that that word means so many other things, its not the best way to communicate.

I don't think God want just to be accepted as brute fact or otherwise WITHOUT fellowship with Him.
What God wants is irrelevant to whether or not his existence is a brute fact.

This is a lot of wiggling in order to avoid God.
Huh? You are confused. I said nothing whatsoever about avoiding God. I was merely trying to explain what a brute fact is given that you asked.

Did you interrogate you earthly father with such questions?
How exactly is this relevant to whether or not Gods existence is a brute fact? How on earth did you get to the point of asking such a ridiculously irrelevant question?

God is the stopping point. That's what the Atheist cannot endure.
Any other "brute fact" is okay except the existence of God.
That is the atheists position that I can see.
No, the atheists position is simply that there is no reason to believe God exists. And no, it is totally untrue that 'any other "brute fact" is OK'. I could list countless claimed brute facts that I do not believe to be actual facts let alone brute facts. For example 2+2=5 is not a brute fact.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, I do. You made an uncalled for totally false mischaracterisation of me.

[b]First , why don't you ask any Christians on this Forum if they ever thought they got "malicious slander" from twhitehead towards them.
And why should I do that? How is that relevant to whether or not you deliberately and maliciously mischaracterised me and should now ...[text shortened]... do not believe to be actual facts let alone brute facts. For example 2+2=5 is not a brute fact.[/b]

Here's the article I took the initiative to paste.

In contemporary philosophy, a brute fact is a fact that has no explanation.[1] More narrowly, brute facts may instead be defined as those facts which cannot be explained (as opposed to simply having no explanation).[2] To reject the existence of brute facts is to think that everything can be explained. ("Everything can be explained" is sometimes called the principle of sufficient reason). There are two ways to explain something: say what "brought it about", or describe it at a more "fundamental" level.[citation needed] For example, a cat displayed on a computer screen can be explained, more "fundamentally", as there being certain voltages in bits of metal in my screen, which in turn can be explained, more "fundamentally", as that there are certain subatomic particles moving in a certain way. If we keep explaining the world in this way and reach a point at which no more "deeper" explanations can be given, then we would have found some facts which are brute or inexplicable, in the sense that we cannot give them an ontological explanation[citation needed]. As it might be put, there may exist some things that just are. The same thing can be done with causal explanations. If nothing made the big bang expand at the velocity it did, then this is a brute fact in the sense that it lacks a causal explanation.

Exactly which sentence/s answers my question to YOU?

"If the brute fact is not evident or not known, to whom is it brute?"
"Look at the article and don't play stupid" you say. Where in that paragraph is the obvious answer to my question ?

You said brute facts may not be evident or even known.

While the rest of the Wiki article says some interesting things it still doesn't answer the question. And you won't.

Point out where the answer IS in the article. And you're probably not going to try.

Originally posted by twhitehead

I pointed out that some people seem to think any "brute fact" is okay except the "brute fact" unexplained existence of God.

As always, you are arguing with imaginary people not present in the discussion. Go ask them if they actually exist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So it is okay with you if the theist says we just have to accept the existence of God as a brute fact ?

Originally posted by sonship
Exactly which sentence/s answers my question to YOU?

"If the brute fact is not evident or not known, to whom is it brute?"

Exactly which sentence makes you think your question even makes sense?
Which sentence suggests that there needs to be someone to whom a brute fact is 'brute'?

"Look at the article and don't play stupid" you say. Where in that paragraph is the obvious answer to my question ?
Nowhere. Also, nowhere in the article is there anything that should trigger your question.

While the rest of the Wiki article says some interesting things it still doesn't answer the question. And you won't.
Because its a stupid question.

Point out where the answer IS in the article.
I never once suggested the answer to the question IS in the article.

I fully expect you to ask why 'brute facts' are always yellow and demand to be shown where in the Wikipedia page it explains why they are yellow.

Originally posted by sonship
So it is okay with you if the theist says we just have to accept the existence of God as a brute fact ?

It very much depends on context. Would I accept that Gods existence is a brute fact? Of course not. Would I accept that a theist may believe Gods existence is a brute fact - yes, I would, and in fact I have clearly stated that that is what I assumed that most theists do.

It is wrong to accept something as a brute fact for no reason, so I would not take Gods existence as a brute fact, because I don't believe he exists.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A brute fact has no reason.
You would not accept a brute fact for no reason.

So the existence of God is not accepted as a possible brute fact because you have no reason for thinking there is no reason to accept it as such ?

This sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it too.

Let me get this right.
Because there is no reason for you to think God simply in the final analysis cannot be explained you would not accept God as a brute fact?

Am I wrong to translate you to mean - "There is NO REASON why God should not be able to be fully explained" ?

Is that what you are saying ?

Originally posted by sonship
A brute fact has no reason.
You would not accept a brute fact for no reason.

You are clearly having difficulties with English here.

So the existence of God is not accepted as a possible brute fact because you have no reason for thinking there is no reason to accept it as such ?
I do not accept the existence of God as a brute fact because I do not have any reason to think it is a brute fact. Do not confuse this with the 'no reason' in the definition of 'brute fact'.

This sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it too.
No, you simply are having difficulty understanding English.

Let me get this right.
Because there is no reason for you to think God simply in the final analysis cannot be explained you would not accept God as a brute fact?
No. That is not what I said at all. Not even close.

Am I wrong to translate you to mean - "There is NO REASON why God should not be able to be fully explained" ?
Yes, you are wrong. Try to avoid translating, and simply read what I actually post.

Is that what you are saying ?
No. What I said, was I do not have any good reason to think Gods existence is an actual fact, let alone brute fact.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It very much depends on context. Would I accept that Gods existence is a brute fact? Of course not. Would I accept that a theist may believe Gods existence is a brute fact - yes, I would, and in fact I have clearly stated that that is what I assumed that most theists do.

It very much depends on context.
----------------------------------------------------

Ah. It DEPENDS on ... context. We cannot get an answer now because it DEPENDS on context.

Okay, let's see if this goalpost can be met.


Would I accept that Gods existence is a brute fact?
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, is it possible that God's existence is one of these "brute facts" we just have to accept ?


Of course not.
---------------------------

Of course this could NOT be just accepted as a brute fact.
Seems like it is not too dependent. Just brute "No".

And why ?


Would I accept that a theist may believe Gods existence is a brute fact - yes, I would, and in fact I have clearly stated that that is what I assumed that most theists do.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is nothing more than - " I only accept as brute fact a fact that I like."

No fact that you really do not like would you accept as a brute fact.
You prefer that God's existence cannot be a fact.
That's what your reply means to me.

Rationality here is just a facade.

Objectivity is a facade.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You are clearly having difficulties with English here.

[b]So the existence of God is not accepted as a possible brute fact because you have no reason for thinking there is no reason to accept it as such ?
I do not accept the existence of God as a brute fact because I do not have any reason to think it is a brute fact. Do not confuse this with the ...[text shortened]... s I do not have any good reason to think Gods existence is an actual fact, let alone brute fact.[/b]

No. What I said, was I do not have any good reason to think Gods existence is an actual fact, let alone brute fact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your "reasons" are a facade.
Your objectivity and rationality are just a facade.

You simply hate the existence of God in any possibility.
You're not into reasons. You're just into denying the existence of God at any cost.

Originally posted by sonship
Ah. It DEPENDS on ... context. We cannot get an answer now because it DEPENDS on context.

I gave an answer, explaining that it depends on context. Why are you not happy with that?

Of course this could NOT be just accepted as a brute fact.
Seems like it is not too dependent. Just brute "No".

And why ?
Its kind of obvious. It would be stupid to just accept anything as a brute fact for no reason.

This is nothing more than - " I only accept as brute fact a fact that I like."
No, its 'I only accept as brute fact if I have good reason to'.

Seriously, you seem to be suggesting that everyone should just accept any old nonsense as a 'brute fact' for no reason whatsoever.

No fact that you really do not like would you accept as a brute fact.
What makes you think that?

You prefer that God's existence cannot be a fact.
Not true at all.

That's what your reply means to me.
But it isn't what I said, nor is it what my reply actually means.
If you want to make stuff up, then make it up, just to attribute it to me when it isn't what I said. That just makes you a liar.

Rationality here is just a facade.
Objectivity is a facade.
My rationality and objectivity isn't a facade. That you can't stand it and thus insist on trying to invent things and pretend I said them just goes to show your own lack of rationality.

This whole thread is nothing more than a little fit you are throwing because someone said 'brute fact' in another thread and you weren't happy with it.