Yes and it's your understanding of what a brute fact is.
All you've actually said is that something exists that depends on nothing else. That's not explaining the logic of a necessary entity which would have to be its own reason, couldn't have failed to exits and couldn't have been different.
Without those explanations, we just have something that 'just is'.
Where as I am saying the necessary entity exist because contingency has to be accounted for and given that there is nothing that causes it to be or not to be. I think the difference between that in Russell should be obvious.
This is just more of your reasoning-free "I can't think of anything else, so it must be necessary, innit".
Thirdly, Are you actually against brute fact or necessary entities.
As I'm sure I've told you many times before, I have no idea at all why stuff exists. It's you who are trying, and failing, to make the case for a 'necessary entity'.
I also seem to recall you saying space time was uncaused.
Indeed. There is no obvious reason why it needs a cause.
Your question why does it have to exist seems to presume everything must have an external reason and yet you said space time needn't have a cause as I recall
I really don't see why you're so confused. I said nothing about
external causes, but a 'necessary entity' is supposed to be its own reason for existing and I'm trying to get you to explain how that works logically and how we can tell the difference between that and having no reason for its existence. Something you clearly can't do.
