The PSR is to contingently true brute facts what the 5th axiom of Euclidean geometry is to Non-Euclidean geometry. Non-Euclidean geometry is internally consistent despite the fact that Non-Euclidean geometry contradicts the 5th axiom of Euclidean geometry. Similarly, the statement “contingently true brute facts exist” is internally consistent despite the fact that such statement contradicts the PSR. This doesn’t imply that the PSR is false. However, it does imply that if the PSR is true, then the statement “contingently true brute facts exist” would be an internally consistent falsehood.
The statement “At least 1 contingently true brute fact exists” would be internally consistent EVEN IF that same statement is false. Not all falsehoods are self-contradictory.
Also, evolutionary debunking arguments could explain why reasonable disagreement about morality is so intractable:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10677-022-10275-y
The PSR is to contingently true brute facts what the 5th axiom of Euclidean geometry is to Non-Euclidean geometry. Non-Euclidean geometry is internally consistent despite the fact that Non-Euclidean geometry contradicts the 5th axiom of Euclidean geometry. Similarly, the statement “contingently true brute facts exist” is internally consistent despite the fact that such statement contradicts the PSR. This doesn’t imply that the PSR is false. However, it does imply that if the PSR is true, then the statement “contingently true brute facts exist” would be an internally consistent falsehood.
There are no brute facts, that’s why it’s a falsehood.
The statement “At least 1 contingently true brute fact exists” would be internally consistent EVEN IF that same statement is false. Not all falsehoods are self-contradictory.