I haven't got the time to explore every angle of this question but I believe there is logic that destroys the "brute facts" that people raise. Namely, the basic question of why anything exists?
The only reasons I can see for the answer to this question are:
(1) - the brute fact always existed or the argument from infinite regress. Essentially this denies any reason for the brute fact.
(2) - the brute fact popped into existence out of nothing. This essentially begs the question why?
(3) - there is a self existent entity, whose essence includes self existence that started the dominos toppling. (this is your explanation which I agree with since it is the only logical answer. Maybe there is a better way to express it - if one wants to call it a brute fact, I am comfortable with that.)
I am open to any other explanation but have not seen any. One of the more laughable series of comments by intellectuals who espouse atheism are the ones given on Closer To Truth. The author of this site has pursued the answer to the basic question since he was a young boy.
Now Russell says the universe is a brute fact, does he mean (1) or (2) because he could not possibly mean (3)
Both (1) and (2) lead to nonsense and maybe Russell never saw the argument why it does. Maybe on some long boring plane trip I will read the debate with Father Copleson to see what he actually says. I just got back from such a trip but didn't have the text of the debate with me.
Someone who subscribes to brute facts denies that there is an answer to a particular 'why' question. They could respond to points 1 or 2 above by simply saying, 'There is no why; that's just the way it is!'"
Assertions that say there are no reasons for something and it is just the way it is must then answer the implications of the assertion once it exists. There are two implications, infinite regress (it always existed) or pops out of nowhere (suddenly appears at some past time.) I know of no other implication and if one is honest the person must deal with it. Russell does not deal with these implications. He punts.
Russell was a very clever person but dishonest. The really interesting question is why was he dishonest? Would he still maintain his position today with all the evidence and logic against him.
Aside: I use this technique as evidence for free will. A person presented with similar evidence and logic on another topic will assent to the obvious but when presented with information on certain topics such as creation will deny the obvious and let emotions over rule their reasoning ability. They always seem to be intellectuals.
For the average person, the availability cascade explains their conclusions but not for anyone of intelligence exploring the issue.
From what I understand Russell just makes an assertion
"I should say that the universe is just there, and that's all".
He doesn't say it has a beginning which means it did not have a precedent but is just there. This implies it existed forever as it currently is or existed in some previous form or it just popped into existence. There is no other rationale for why it is just there.
So we have three possibilities,
(1) the universe always was just as it is - or
(2) the universe emerged from some other pre existence state, which we do not know what it is - or
(3) the universe just popped into existence as it is
For (1) we know that this is not possible since we can trace the universe back to its beginning which includes its appearance out of a singularity. So just existing as it is forever, is a non-sequitur
For (2) this would imply a previous state or a series of previous states that existed for ever or one of these previous states just popped into existence which is (3). Existence forever is also a non-sequitur because it has implications that are absurd. So we are left with (3)
For (3) the popping into existence implies some out side entity that caused it to start existing. Just appearing for no apparent reason is absurd especially since it has quite specific and complex properties. So (3) comes down to a transcendental entity as its cause. Which means that Russell believes there is some sort of creator that exists outside of this universe.
Russell was debating with a Catholic priest which means he would have to agree with him that there definitely is a creator but could theoretically disagree with him that the creator is the Judeo/Christian God. Of course Russell did not acknowledge this but these are the implications of saying the universe just exists.
Aside: Russell did not use the term "brute fact" but his claim was essentially that. But the analysis above shows that whatever is called a brute fact has to fit into one of the 3 possibilities above. And as shown above, none is possible except for a transcendental entity causing what is called the "brute fact" to appear out of nothing.
Now, the transcendental entity must have certain characteristics but these are not part of the discussion of brute facts.
I haven't got the time to explore every angle of this question but I believe there is logic that destroys the "brute facts" that people raise. Namely, the basic question of why anything exists?
The only reasons I can see for the answer to this question are:
(1) - the brute fact always existed or the argument from infinite regress. Essentially this denies any reason for the brute fact.
(2) - the brute fact popped into existence out of nothing. This essentially begs the question why?
(3) - there is a self existent entity, whose essence includes self existence that started the dominos toppling. (this is your explanation which I agree with since it is the only logical answer. Maybe there is a better way to express it - if one wants to call it a brute fact, I am comfortable with that.)
I am open to any other explanation but have not seen any. One of the more laughable series of comments by intellectuals who espouse atheism are the ones given on Closer To Truth. The author of this site has pursued the answer to the basic question since he was a young boy.
Now Russell says the universe is a brute fact, does he mean (1) or (2) because he could not possibly mean (3)
Both (1) and (2) lead to nonsense and maybe Russell never saw the argument why it does. Maybe on some long boring plane trip I will read the debate with Father Copleson to see what he actually says. I just got back from such a trip but didn't have the text of the debate with me.
Thanks for this, Jerry.
Someone who subscribes to brute facts denies that there is an answer to a particular 'why' question. They could respond to points 1 or 2 above by simply saying, 'There is no why; that's just the way it is!'"
But this is an indictment!
Assertions that say there are no reasons for something and it is just the way it is must then answer the implications of the assertion once it exists. There are two implications, infinite regress (it always existed) or pops out of nowhere (suddenly appears at some past time.) I know of no other implication and if one is honest the person must deal with it. Russell does not deal with these implications. He punts.
Russell was a very clever person but dishonest. The really interesting question is why was he dishonest? Would he still maintain his position today with all the evidence and logic against him.
Aside: I use this technique as evidence for free will. A person presented with similar evidence and logic on another topic will assent to the obvious but when presented with information on certain topics such as creation will deny the obvious and let emotions over rule their reasoning ability. They always seem to be intellectuals.
For the average person, the availability cascade explains their conclusions but not for anyone of intelligence exploring the issue.
I came across a synopsis of the Russell/Copleston debate.
https://philosophydungeon.weebly.com/copleston--russell-summary.html
From what I understand Russell just makes an assertion
"I should say that the universe is just there, and that's all".
He doesn't say it has a beginning which means it did not have a precedent but is just there. This implies it existed forever as it currently is or existed in some previous form or it just popped into existence. There is no other rationale for why it is just there.
So we have three possibilities,
(1) the universe always was just as it is - or
(2) the universe emerged from some other pre existence state, which we do not know what it is - or
(3) the universe just popped into existence as it is
For (1) we know that this is not possible since we can trace the universe back to its beginning which includes its appearance out of a singularity. So just existing as it is forever, is a non-sequitur
For (2) this would imply a previous state or a series of previous states that existed for ever or one of these previous states just popped into existence which is (3). Existence forever is also a non-sequitur because it has implications that are absurd. So we are left with (3)
For (3) the popping into existence implies some out side entity that caused it to start existing. Just appearing for no apparent reason is absurd especially since it has quite specific and complex properties. So (3) comes down to a transcendental entity as its cause. Which means that Russell believes there is some sort of creator that exists outside of this universe.
Russell was debating with a Catholic priest which means he would have to agree with him that there definitely is a creator but could theoretically disagree with him that the creator is the Judeo/Christian God. Of course Russell did not acknowledge this but these are the implications of saying the universe just exists.
Aside: Russell did not use the term "brute fact" but his claim was essentially that. But the analysis above shows that whatever is called a brute fact has to fit into one of the 3 possibilities above. And as shown above, none is possible except for a transcendental entity causing what is called the "brute fact" to appear out of nothing.
Now, the transcendental entity must have certain characteristics but these are not part of the discussion of brute facts.