[responsivevoice_button]

I engaged in a conversation about the logicality of creation from nothing and the PSR. Grant Hageman stated the following:

Seriously? Ex Nihilo is illogical? 😂

So if you understand “ex nahilo” to be at odds with “out of nothing, nothing comes” then you severely misunderstand “ex nihilo”.

It is true that nothing comes from nothing…but God isn’t nothing.

And regarding Pruss; he doesn’t uphold any rendition of the PSR according to the terms; rather he redefines “sufficient”. PSR states that all events, entities, or propositions, have a **sufficient explanation** for why it is the case. The term sufficient in logic is an “if/than” statement. Therefore a sufficient reason means that if the reason for “X being the case” obtains, than X obtains.

Pruss redefines “sufficient” by using it to describe the fulfillment of some arbitrary standard of reason (in this case, his arbitrary standard of reason). He states: ““sufficient reason needs to be understood not as ‘necessitating reason’ but as ‘sufficient explanation,’ where we understand that a causal account is always sufficiently explanatory, even when indeterministic.” In otherwords, so long as you have named the cause of the event, you have “sufficiently” explained it.

But this is an absurd definition of sufficient explanation. For example, if we ask why a dice landed on a 6 and not a 5, and you said “the person’s hand indeterministically caused a 6…though it was equally possible it could have landed on 5.” That, according to Pruss, is a “sufficient reason” for the 6 being rolled. But I think we’d all be confused on how such a response actually answers the question in any relevant way.

So, no; redefining “sufficient reason” doesn’t afford one the right to claim they hold to PSR.

you say that the following has logical issues:

1) God exists and nothing else exists.
2) God creates something else
3) therefore God creates something from nothing.

Please point out a logical issue in the above.

(not knowing how something happens is not contrary to logic. For instance, I don’t know how my cellphone works, but I don’t conclude it is illogical. The problem with LFW is it rejects any possible explanation that sufficiently describes how or why it works. It doesn’t simply conclude “we don’t know how or why LFW works” it concludes “if anyone does know how or why LFW works, it wouldn’t be LFW” < basically a quote by C. A. Campbell. That’s illogical…literally any philosophical position that can only exist in mystery should be rejected, especially in the presence of an omniscient God.)