Author Topic: Leibniz's Argument from Sufficient Reason  (Read 7504 times)

SuperNatural

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 698
Leibniz's Argument from Sufficient Reason
« on: May 02, 2006, 08:01:26 PM »
x is independent of y= df- x and y are diverse and have no parts in common

x is a sufficient reason for y= df- facts about x fully explain why y is as it is rather than otherwise.

Principle of Sufficient Reason  = For every contingent thing, there is some independent sufficent reason.

x is the world = df- x is the aggregate consisting of every contingent thing that ever did exist, does not exist, or ever will exist.

1.  The world is a contingent thing.

2.  If (1), then there is some independent sufficient reason for the world.

3. If there is some independent sufficient reason for the world, then God exists.

4.  Therefore, God exists [1,2,3, MMP]

Johnny Apollo

  • Guest
Re: Leibniz's Argument from Sufficient Reason
« Reply #1 on: May 02, 2006, 08:37:07 PM »
This is no argument at all. Just a complex way of saying "If the world exists then God did it". It's assuming "God" is the sufficient reason for the world. This isn't established in any premise.

SuperNatural

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 698
Re: Leibniz's Argument from Sufficient Reason
« Reply #2 on: May 02, 2006, 08:50:37 PM »
I know what you mean... maybe St. Thomas' argument seems more logical?

1.  I exist now and I am a contingent thing

2.  Every contingent thing has a cause.

3.  Causes precede their effects.

4.  Therefore 1, 2, and 3

5.  If 1, 2, and 3, then there was a non-contingent first cause

6.  If there was a non-contingent cause, then God exists

7.  Therefore, God exists

x is God = df- x is a Prime Mover and which nothing greater can be conceived.

Why is there something rather than nothing?

Johnny Apollo

  • Guest
Re: Leibniz's Argument from Sufficient Reason
« Reply #3 on: May 02, 2006, 09:12:07 PM »
2 baseless assumptions there.

1.There was a non-contingent first cause.

2.That non-contingent first cause was a "God".

SuperNatural

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 698
Re: Leibniz's Argument from Sufficient Reason
« Reply #4 on: May 02, 2006, 10:24:51 PM »
Which premise do you object?  5 and 6?

Do you believe in the Principle of Universal Causation (Every event has a cause)?

c is the cause of e = df-
c and e are wholly distinctive events
c is tomporarly prior to e
c makes e happen

x is a contingent thing = df- x exists but it would be possible for x to fail to exist

x is a non-contingent thing = df. x exists and it would be impossible for x to fail to exist

What is your rationale for rejecting 5? (If that is what you are rejecting)

I'm trying to understand where you are coming from.  I see the flaws in the soundness of this argument?  Do you?

Johnny Apollo

  • Guest
Re: Leibniz's Argument from Sufficient Reason
« Reply #5 on: May 02, 2006, 10:32:33 PM »
Let's keep it simple...


I reject..

Quote
6.  If there was a non-contingent cause, then God exists


There being a first cause doesn't mean that first cause was "God".


What does "non-contingent" even mean? Contingent means possible but not necessarly true. "Non-Contingent" would then mean impossible? This means a first cause is impossible therefor "God" exists? Maybe there was no "first cause" but a never-ending chain of causes?

OzmO

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22723
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: Leibniz's Argument from Sufficient Reason
« Reply #6 on: May 02, 2006, 10:52:58 PM »
You won't find God with logic.

Belief in God is not logical.

God's exsistence is not based on logic.

Nor is it scientific.

Elohim.  Start looking there for fun.

Cavalier22

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3309
  • Citizens! The Fatherland is in Danger
Re: Leibniz's Argument from Sufficient Reason
« Reply #7 on: May 03, 2006, 09:58:51 PM »
god, or at least some form of energy/spirit we are unable to comprehend most certainly exists.  highly doubtul he bears any relation to any of the gods humans worship
Valhalla awaits.

Johnny Apollo

  • Guest
Re: Leibniz's Argument from Sufficient Reason
« Reply #8 on: May 03, 2006, 10:01:26 PM »
god, or at least some form of energy/spirit we are unable to comprehend most certainly exists.


Why?

SuperNatural

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 698

Johnny Apollo

  • Guest
Re: Leibniz's Argument from Sufficient Reason
« Reply #10 on: May 03, 2006, 10:24:21 PM »
Why not?


I don't know of a contingent reason why a "universal god spirit energy" can't exist. I never claimed it can't exist. Though I don't beleive it does.

I'm simply asking the one who claimed it must exist(Cavalier22) to explain why it must exist.

OzmO

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22723
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: Leibniz's Argument from Sufficient Reason
« Reply #11 on: May 04, 2006, 07:17:24 AM »
Quote
I'm simply asking the one who claimed it must exist(Cavalier22) to explain why it must exist.

Why should he explain it to a liar and a scare little boy?

SuperNatural

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 698
Re: Leibniz's Argument from Sufficient Reason
« Reply #12 on: May 04, 2006, 10:54:02 AM »
What's with all the name calling on this stupid board?  Why can't arguments be strictly based on factual logic? 

Anyway, I respect your view Apollo (althouh there is the possiblity I do not agree with it).

OzmO

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22723
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: Leibniz's Argument from Sufficient Reason
« Reply #13 on: May 04, 2006, 11:43:14 AM »
Quote
What's with all the name calling on this stupid board?  Why can't arguments be strictly based on factual logic? 

Have you considered that my assertion is based on factual knowledge?

SuperNatural

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 698
Re: Leibniz's Argument from Sufficient Reason
« Reply #14 on: May 04, 2006, 12:43:51 PM »
"Scared little boy?"  I probably agree more with you Ozmo, but I don't see why we can't use the cleanest of logic to make Apollo look incorrect? 

OzmO

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22723
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: Leibniz's Argument from Sufficient Reason
« Reply #15 on: May 04, 2006, 01:57:45 PM »
Quote
"Scared little boy?"  I probably agree more with you Ozmo, but I don't see why we can't use the cleanest of logic to make Apollo look incorrect?

You are right i guess.

"scared little boy"  just adds a little "color".

SuperNatural

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 698
Re: Leibniz's Argument from Sufficient Reason
« Reply #16 on: May 04, 2006, 02:56:07 PM »
And it seems Apollo may not like "color."  My question is why does an atheist hate minorities?  Seems a little ironic.

Johnny Apollo

  • Guest
Re: Leibniz's Argument from Sufficient Reason
« Reply #17 on: May 04, 2006, 07:28:34 PM »
And it seems Apollo may not like "color."  My question is why does an atheist hate minorities?  Seems a little ironic.


Do you know what a "joke" is?

SuperNatural

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 698
Re: Leibniz's Argument from Sufficient Reason
« Reply #18 on: May 04, 2006, 07:35:59 PM »
Cool man.  I don't find it funny, but what I do find funny is how many stalkers you have on this website!  You're real popular!

Johnny Apollo

  • Guest
Re: Leibniz's Argument from Sufficient Reason
« Reply #19 on: May 04, 2006, 07:40:12 PM »
Cool man.  I don't find it funny, but what I do find funny is how many stalkers you have on this website!  You're real popular!


They just have no lives.