Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that The PSR can be satisfied by an infinite regress of contingent explanations, none of which requires a necessary terminus (Hume, Dialogues IX).
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Explaining why B exists by citing A, and why A exists by citing B (etc. infinitely) provides no answer to why anything exists at all.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If each contingent fact requires prior explanation, an infinite series of contingent facts collectively requires something non-contingent to ground it.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
PSR's explanatory principle breaks down if we accept that brute contingent facts need no ultimate justification, rendering the principle vacuous.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
An infinite chain can be self-explanatory as a whole without needing external justification, like a circle needing no point outside itself.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
PSR only requires that each item has an explanation; it doesn't stipulate that explanations must terminate in a necessary being.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Infinite regresses are logically coherent in mathematics and physics, so they're coherent explanatory structures for contingent facts.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.