Calling out KellyJay

Originally posted by LemonJello
Here is the Dallas Willard essay link again:

http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=42

DW opens with some discussion about some argument that he attributes to Nielsen. DW appears here to be defending against some version of theological noncognitivism. Since I am also generally not a noncognitivist regarding theological discourse, I gue is a problem here.

Before we move to Stages 2 or 3, what is your take on Stage 1?

Sorry for my long delay, life has me jumping through hoops of late.

"Accepting 1.2 appears to commit us to denying that there could be elements of the physical world that are either (a) simply brute, in that they are not explained by anything or (b) metaphysically random. And I see no reason for doing this, and DW does not seem to actually offer reasons in this capacity."

What has caused you to believe that there could be either something that
falls into your 'a' or 'b', so are these just things that "COULD" be a cause, but
we have no examples for?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
What has caused you to believe that there could be either something that
falls into your 'a' or 'b', so are these just things that "COULD" be a cause, but
we have no examples for?
Kelly

If something is a brute fact, there is no way to know it. One cannot, unless they have knowledge of everything, ever know for sure that there isn't a cause. But the issue here is not whether brute facts could exist or whether it is reasonable to think they may exist, but whether or not they have been ruled out.
I must add that there are many examples of things that most of us do believe are brute facts. In fact, every time I throw a die, I believe the result is random (uncaused) and thus a brute fact. I realize that you may believe that God takes a hand in every throw of the die and determines its outcome, but I rather doubt it. Such a level of determinism probably contradict your beliefs regarding free will - and also who gets blamed for accidents.
Most importantly however, I do not think a universe can exist without brute facts. If you believe that God is the 'first cause' then God himself is a brute fact.

Originally posted by twhitehead
If something is a brute fact, there is no way to know it. One cannot, unless they have knowledge of everything, ever know for sure that there isn't a cause. But the issue here is not whether brute facts could exist or whether it is reasonable to think they may exist, but whether or not they have been ruled out.
I must add that there are many examples of ...[text shortened]... t brute facts. If you believe that God is the 'first cause' then God himself is a brute fact.

tks
KJ

Originally posted by KellyJay
Sorry for my long delay, life has me jumping through hoops of late.

"Accepting 1.2 appears to commit us to denying that there could be elements of the physical world that are either (a) simply brute, in that they are not explained by anything or (b) metaphysically random. And I see no reason for doing this, and DW does not seem to actually offer reasons ...[text shortened]... , so are these just things that "COULD" be a cause, but
we have no examples for?
Kelly

Sorry for my long delay, life has me jumping through hoops of late.

No worries. 🙂

What has caused you to believe that there could be either something that
falls into your 'a' or 'b'

Concerning category a, I would say that my considerations and introspections on the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) have led me to believe that it is highly likely that are at least some brute facts or brute aspects to reality. Honestly, when I consider a strong version of the PSR (such as one that states there must be an explanation of the existence of any entity and of any positive fact whatever), I am left wondering how such a demand could even in principle be satisfied. For example, in the cosmological argument, there is often discussion regarding "dependent" entities (roughly, this is an entity whose existence is explained by the causal activity of other entities); "necessary" entities (roughly, this is an entity that must exist or exists in every possible world or some such); "self-existent" entities (roughly, this is an entity whose existence is putatively explained by its own nature or some such) . No matter how these play out, I do not see any getting around at least some brute fact. Consider the possible options. You could hold that there are only dependent entities where every dependent entity is explained by others in some infinite or circular string. Fine, but you still have a brute fact: the fact that there are and always have been dependent entities. You could try to get around this by positing that there is at least one necessary or self-existent entity that explains why there are also dependent entities. Fine, but if it is a necessary entity, then what explains this necessary entity's existence? Nothing as far as I can tell: a necessary entity by definition must exist and is a case where it just could not be otherwise, which fails in my book as any sort of substantive or non-ersatz explanation. And in the case of a so-called self-existent entity, I disagree that there could be such a thing whose existence is explained by its nature. I take that to be nonsense, on the grounds that existence is not a predicate: since existence is not a predicate, it cannot be part of the nature of a thing that this thing exists; however you want to conceptualize the nature of a thing, it is still a further question whether that thing exists, whether or not that concept is instantiated. Basically, if I play out all the conceivable options in my mind, there remains at least some brute fact in all of them.

Concerning category b, I would say that my study of quantum, for example, has led me to believe that it is highly plausible that are countless physical events that are random or uncaused. Twhitehead brought up the roll of a die as an example of a random event. I think DW could very easily object to this type of example on the following grounds. It may well be the case that the outcome of some die roll is determined. The specification of the universe just prior to the roll may be sufficient to bring about a particular outcome; it may well be that the die's coming up some particular number had causally sufficient antecedents, in which case it was not random. (Of course, we may still call it 'random', but that would just reflect an epistemic matter; given our epistemic limitations we may still only be able to assign some epistemic probability of the die roll's having a given outcome which reflects the ideal rational confidence or credence level one should have given our information and cognitive limitations). So these examples may fail to show that one ought to reject DW's premise. However, I think there are other considerations that show there likely are many random events, in a more robust sense. Honestly, I am a little confused on what exactly DW means when he talks of some entity's owing its existence to something else. But, based on my reading, I take it that metaphysical randomness would be problematic for his argument.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Sorry for my long delay, life has me jumping through hoops of late.

No worries. 🙂

What has caused you to believe that there could be either something that
falls into your 'a' or 'b'

Concerning category a, I would say that my considerations and introspections on the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) have led me to believe that , I take it that metaphysical randomness would be problematic for his argument.[/b]

I'll go with "b" for now and think about "a" a little more. I didn't like the
dice idea of random. It seemed to me that it is only random, because we
do not at this time know how to handle the variation for each throw, if we
were advanced enough to know how to handle the weight of the die, the
area that we were throwing it on, why couldn't we make it behave as if the
die were loaded? Turning an event from random to 1 only means we know
know how it works completely. I still do not see any uncaused events any
where at all, the one that was pointed out to me seemed more like process
in place than something that simply just happens without any reason, an
event that is uncaused.

If there were no uncaused events we are left with just your 'a' than?
Kelly

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Sorry for my long delay, life has me jumping through hoops of late.

No worries. 🙂

What has caused you to believe that there could be either something that
falls into your 'a' or 'b'

Concerning category a, I would say that my considerations and introspections on the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) have led me to believe that , I take it that metaphysical randomness would be problematic for his argument.[/b]

As twhitehead should know, a computer programmer often makes dice games
that requires some randomness built in and I am sure God is the first to think
of doing such things when considering how sophisticated the DNA program is
supposed to be. We copy "nature" in all our creations.

P.S. I would guess, God did not design our brains with sufficient capability to
understand how God could be self-existent. So he provided us with that bit of
information by special revelation.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I didn't like the dice idea of random. It seemed to me that it is only random, because we
do not at this time know how to handle the variation for each throw, if we were advanced enough to know how to handle the weight of the die, the area that we were throwing it on, why couldn't we make it behave as if the
die were loaded?

I recall being challenged on the die before and I admit that the roll of a die may be predictable from the initial state of the universe prior to the throw. However, quantum mechanics strongly suggests that most events in the universe are not predictable and are statistically random. This doesn't prove that they are uncaused, but it does mean that we are not currently aware of a cause for them. So one could say that the current state of physics implies that the vast majority of events in the universe are not known to have a cause. Therefore anyone claiming that 'it is known' or 'it is obvious' that everything has a cause, is just making it up and not basing the claim on scientific knowledge.

I still do not see any uncaused events any where at all, ....
Neither do you you see all events being caused. What you see is lots and lots of events, only a small fraction of which you can claim to know are caused. So maybe you are seeing lots of uncaused events, you just can't know, because it is virtually impossible to ever be sure that an event is uncaused.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I recall being challenged on the die before and I admit that the roll of a die may be predictable from the initial state of the universe prior to the throw. However, quantum mechanics strongly suggests that most events in the universe are not predictable and are statistically random. This doesn't prove that they are uncaused, but it does mean that we are can't know, because it is virtually impossible to ever be sure that an event is uncaused.

Even when there is an automobile accident, there is a cause. So-called "accidents"
in outer space are really no different.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'll go with "b" for now and think about "a" a little more. I didn't like the
dice idea of random. It seemed to me that it is only random, because we
do not at this time know how to handle the variation for each throw, if we
were advanced enough to know how to handle the weight of the die, the
area that we were throwing it on, why couldn't we make it be ...[text shortened]... caused.

If there were no uncaused events we are left with just your 'a' than?
Kelly

Right, I agree with your objection to the die example. However, as I stated, I still think it is highly plausible (considering, for example, quantum events) that there are random or uncaused physical events, in a more robust sense. At the very least, I would say we have insufficient basis or justification for stating that there are no random or uncaused physical events.

Originally posted by RJHinds
As twhitehead should know, a computer programmer often makes dice games
that requires some randomness built in and I am sure God is the first to think
of doing such things when considering how sophisticated the DNA program is
supposed to be. We copy "nature" in all our creations.

P.S. I would guess, God did not design our brains with sufficient capa ...[text shortened]... ould be self-existent. So he provided us with that bit of
information by special revelation.

P.S. I would guess, God did not design our brains with sufficient capability to understand how God could be self-existent. So he provided us with that bit of information by special revelation.

How convenient for you that God whispers such things into your ear, so to speak. Too bad that you never seem to have any arguments worth taking seriously that would actually offer reasons to others, though.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Right, I agree with your objection to the die example. However, as I stated, I still think it is highly plausible (considering, for example, quantum events) that there are random or uncaused physical events, in a more robust sense. At the very least, I would say we have insufficient basis or justification for stating that there are no random or uncaused physical events.

So for this one all the objection really boils down to is, we cannot prove
there are uncaused events, but since we do not know everything there
could be? I'd have to add, that if that is the case then all the evidence
that we do see rejects that one!
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
I recall being challenged on the die before and I admit that the roll of a die may be predictable from the initial state of the universe prior to the throw. However, quantum mechanics strongly suggests that most events in the universe are not predictable and are statistically random. This doesn't prove that they are uncaused, but it does mean that we are ...[text shortened]... can't know, because it is virtually impossible to ever be sure that an event is uncaused.

Do you have ONE just one uncaused event?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Do you have ONE just one uncaused event?
Kelly

Virtual particles, radioactive decay, the big bang.

Originally posted by KellyJay
So for this one all the objection really boils down to is, we cannot prove
there are uncaused events, but since we do not know everything there
could be? I'd have to add, that if that is the case then all the evidence
that we do see rejects that one!
Kelly

Given that the argument of first cause requires that it be impossible for events to be uncaused
the onus is on the person making that argument to prove the positive claim that it's impossible
for an event to occur with no cause.

For the argument to hold you can't just claim we have never seen an uncaused event (which
isn't even true) you have to prove conclusively that such an event is impossible.
Which you can't do because we do observe uncaused events (at least as far as we can tell.)

Originally posted by KellyJay
So for this one all the objection really boils down to is, we cannot prove
there are uncaused events, but since we do not know everything there
could be? I'd have to add, that if that is the case then all the evidence
that we do see rejects that one!
Kelly

No.

All the evidence that we have, taken together, if anything points to rejection of the idea that there are no random or uncaused physical events. To the extent that DW's premise implies that there are no random or uncaused physical events (again, I am a little fuzzy on how exactly to interpret his argument here), we ought to reject DW's premise. The onus would be on him, in this case, to justify such an implication, and his argument fails in this regard.

Additionally, as I already stated, I also do not agree with his premise 1.3 (and I certainly think he fails miserably at justifying or supporting 1.3). So, basically, I am not prepared to accept any of his premises, excepting 1.1 which is the most trivial and non-contentious.