There is nothing (really) wrong with emergent brute facts

The purpose of this paper is to offer a defense of the emergentist view concerning emergent brute facts. To this end, I review and evaluate the three main objections raised against the possibility of emergent brute facts; the simplicity argument, the question of whether the idea of emergent brute facts is a coherent idea and the question of empirical evidence. My contention is that none of these arguments is successful in refuting the possibility or the plausibility of the existence of emergent brute facts. I also argue that, in the end, the question revolves around empirical evidence, and that empirical considerations favour the existence of emergent brute facts.