Leibniz's Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God

[Gnomefro]

In fact, what is not clear is that immaterial things can exist at all(And that would not be concepts like numbers etc that are contingent on material brains). I think that's one thing you'd need to demonstrate before the argument has any force at all. You're facing both Occam's razor and the potential impossibility of what you're suggesting as an explanation. Naturalists at least have the advantage that they don't claim more than is observed - that nature exists.

[Gnomefro]

There's also a mistake at the point where you jump to a spaceless/timeless/immaterial thing. You can easily draw the line before that and declare nature to be the brute fact of reality. All it takes is an eternal nature, in the sense of "existing at every possible point in time". Such a system could bounce around inside that space forever, for no reason, and with zero problems with infinite regress due to simply moving between fixed points. There's no reason to think you need an immaterial cause

[Gnomefro]

It is also false to say that we presuppose the principle of sufficient reason in science. Science hinges on phenomena being demonstrable, not that they have reasons for them. You can easily see this at work in quantum mechanics where causation is replaced by statistics, as well as in pretty much any theory that simply defines phenomena, such as the theory of gravity. Newton's theory of gravity would be useful even if gravity was a brute fact of reality.

[Gnomefro]

Given that you're throwing out the principle of sufficient reason for "God" anyway, this argument has no explanatory power over an eternal nature. People have imagine all sorts of different gods, so it's absurd to suggest that they are any more necessary than a naturalistic universe. In fact, that the principle of sufficient reason leads to infinite regress is a very good reason to think it is not a universal principle. Same with causation.

[choongification]

hmm i find this wrong but i cant get it out in writing why lol. its something to do with the questions asked and the general principle that humans are the universe and everything, and words/logic fail where it cannot exist, (and cannot even start to not exist) if you catch my drift?

at least im doing a Physics degree to help me figure this all out :)

[Sinkh]

@choongification

Not quite sure what you mean, but a degree in physics will not help because this is philosophy. All the physics in the world won't help one figure out whether the principle of sufficient reason is true or not. That must be reasoned out logically instead.

[choongification]

@Sinkh you are the product of everything around you. i actually chose physics over philosophy when i was choosing my course because words lie, but nature doesnt. The question of whether god exist is the wrong question, but to answer it with a trail of words (albeit using "logic") is like trying to draw draw sounds. anywho physics is a means to finding out what i, therefore everything else, is made o

[MegaExelo]

@thejewishagnostic

I commented on your post, but misspelled your name. Look at the post under this one.

[MegaExelo]

@ thejewishagnostic

1. If the universe was "self explanatory" then this world is the only possible world. That is quite absurd.

2. The universe is not eternal, since you cannot have an infinite intervals of time (grim reaper's paradox, hilbert's hotel, etc.) Therefore, it cannot be neccesary/self explanatory.

3. God does not need an explanation as we are labeling him as the neccesary object/agent which the argument concludes at.

[Gnomefro]

@MegaExelo

1. If the universe is self explanatory, and true randomness exists, such as quantum fluctuations, then this is not the only possible world. Even if it is, the state of the universe could be ever changing and what we observe could be one state of a vast state-space of "the only possible universe".

2. Your conclusion hinges on your assumption of a linear theory of time. It is not necessary.

3. That's unmotivated special pleading regarding the nature of the unobserved.(=nonsense)

[Sinkh]

@thejewishagnostic

It's clear you did not watch the video. I address the multiverse in it, and also the argument has nothing to do with the origin of the universe. Let the universe be infinitely old, if you desire. Doesn't affect the argument.

There is no point in discussing it if you can't be bothered to actually watch it.

[Sinkh]

@thejewishagnostic

You can see in the video why it does.

[MegaExelo]

@Sinkh

If you weaken the principle of sufficient reason, you cannot only defeat Peter Van Inwagen's argument but also that the neccesary explanation of the universe is an agent.

[MegaExelo]

@Sinkh

However, Alexander Pruss has provided a good refutation of Peter Van Inwagen. If the necessary agent provides a personal explanation for the existance of contingent facts, then the contingent facts are not neccesary. Furtheremore, one cannot ask foe an explanation which fully explains a personal cause.

[MegaExelo]

@Sinkh

Agreed, Peter Van Inwagen in probably my favourite philosopher of religion (and action). I love philosophers who are actually objective.

[elliottwallace]

When you jump from the fact that the universe could possibly have been different to the supposition that it MUST have had an external cause is where you lose me... that simply doesn't follow from your argument.

[Sinkh]

@elliottwallace

If something could have been different then there must be something else that made it turn out the way it did rather than some other way.

[OppressedAnarchist]

If god exists and wanted us to know then he would do something obvious like show us its butt from the heavens or take over all of the television stations and say "hello I am god". If god really existed it could just easily make a youtube channel and say: "hey everybody I exist"

If I am ever doing to be convinced a god exists then I need physical evidence not a logical argument...

[Sinkh]

@OppressedAnarchist

You want physical evidence of a non-physical being? Riiiiigght.

[OppressedAnarchist]

@Sinkh How can a non physical being have anything to do with the physical world ???

[examinfo]

Similar to Spinoza in Ethics.

[YouthMovementuk]

concise. brilliant

[DAminovLaw]

Good, concise presentation...I enjoyed it. where do you stand on it?

[Sinkh]

@DAminovLaw

Quite honestly, I don't see how anyone could be anything other than agnostic. Proponents and opponents of the PSR both make good points, and I have no idea who is correct. I think the proponents of it have a slight edge, as they avoid the special pleading that universes are the one thing that don't require explanation.

[DazedSpy2]

@Sinkh Huh? Because theres a hell of a lot more to consider in relation to God than this argument. The sum of all the arguments are not equal, nor is their explanatory power, moral worth or effect on our lives. [and before you claim thats an irrational point, no it isnt: If I had two potentially equal propositions its irrational not to operate under the assumption the vastly better one is true].

[Sinkh]

@DazedSpy2

I don't understand what you are responding to (partially thanks to this stupid Youtube commenting system).

[DazedSpy2]

@Sinkh You said: Quite honestly, I dont see how anyone could be anything other than agnostic. That was what I was replying to.

[Sinkh]

@DazedSpy2

Well, I can see taking sides on the God-question. But the PSR specifically seems tricky to me. Especially in light of the fact that one of its main opponents, Peter van Inwagen, is a Christian.

[M3PanoS]

@Sinkh Why would a Christian oppose PSR? Why does Peter van Inwagen believe in God? He seems like a mystery to me...

[Sinkh]

@M3PanoS

Because a good rational person does not just trumpet his side of the debate. He rationally opposes things he thinks are incorrect, regardless of what "side" they are on.

[M3PanoS]

@Sinkh So do you know what grounds he rejects it on then?

[Sinkh]

@M3PanoS

He rejects it because he thinks that if something necessary explains something contingent, then the contingent thing is necessary as well. Which makes no sense. So a necessary thing cannot explain contingent things.

[M3PanoS]

@Sinkh When I read this at first, I thought I agreed, but now it seems to me as if its completely wrong -unless I'm misunderstanding it. It seems to me as if a contingent thing can be anything that could exist with conceivably different properties -making what it's existence not necessary. For example, the universe could have an infinite array of different properties. A necessary being, like God, would necessarily be not God and something else if any of His properties were altered though. ...?

[MartjeB1]

2+2=4 is not a self-contained explanation. I can count 2 items, count another couple of items and put them together. When I count all the items, does it equal four? If so, I've proved the equation.

See watch?v=g9x_oa--KAc

[Sinkh]

@MartjeB1

No external state of affairs explains why 2+2=4 is true. It is true by necessity. Self-contained.