Technically, my friend and I are both theists. It's simply a disputatio we have, so I'm the one building up the argument against myself.

I'm aware of the distinction : epistemic brute fact aren't really a problem, since they touch the intelligibility of the universe as seen by us. It's the ontological brute facts which are.

I know it's a common running objection I happen to have, but it seems I haven't grasped it clearly, otherwise, it wouldn't be coming back to my mind.

To give you an answer, I'd say : "Well, I have no reason to provide a support for this claim : first, I see no reason to suppose that the intelligibility of the universe is the default position. And second, if I were to give you a reason, that would make some intelligibility in here, thus breaking the fact by itself. The most I can say is that such a position is enough to weaken the case against theism, and this is enough for the point of the disputatio."

How to grapple with that?

Thanks for your input, Ouros !

Ouros wrote:

1) Talking about a subject presuppose that it is at least barely intelligible, because if it wasn't the case, you could not even talk about it.
2) You could also use some retorsion argument; if the universe wasn't epistemically intelligible, your friend couldn't live in it because he would be paralized by the idea.

1°) Well, let's grab a skeptic argument : perhaps I'm not talking about it, but it's just sounds that my mouth make and brain makes an interpretation about it. And I won't take the easy route, so let me take the epistemic gloves off : I'm not talking about it, and it's just an illusion; the sounds and the symbols are random.
2°) I don't get the argument... :/

Ouros wrote:

That being said, I'm not so sure about this. Maybe it just proves that the universe is only a little bit intelligible, but wouldn't it be enough for your use? Or, other possibility, if the universe is only a litttle bit intelligible, then it's completly intelligible.

I like that bit. A lot. I'm going to mull over this, but if you can give me your thoughts about my replies on 1 and 2...

Ouros wrote:

Isn't your response to 1) a self-defeating, even self-refuting, proposition? It's equivalent to "This phrase haven't any sense.", which is a variant of the liar paradox.

For 2): well, a unintelligible universe would be the same as a universe where you are always disoriented, like if you were always drunk, or under hard drugs, because you wouldn't understand anything. Obviously, this is not the case.
But then, you will probably get to your skeptic scenario that you've written above; so, I can only advice you to use my first answer

For the first one, I think that the scenario I offer is exactly self refuting : if it's true that the world is unintelligible, then this sentence is unintelligible, thus has no meaning, etc. Can you elaborate on the liar's paradox?

Something buzzes me with the overall objection, and I feel I haven't replied fully. Like, the fact that a "non-unintelligible" sentence is not necessarily unintelligible... :/

Last edited by FrenchySkepticalCatholic (1/22/2018 4:07 pm)