Leibniz's Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God

Gottfried Leibniz's cosmological argument, also known as the contingency argument. Examples to illustrate the principle of sufficient reason taken from Richard Taylor's formulation of the argument found in Metaphysics (1961).

Category:

Education

Tags:

• leibniz
• cosmological
• argument
• contingency
• god
• theism
• atheism
• christianity
• richard
• taylor

[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.

[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.

[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)

[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