Getbig Misc Discussion Boards > Religious Debates & Threads
Leibniz's Argument from Sufficient Reason
SuperNatural:
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:
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:
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:
2 baseless assumptions there.
1.There was a non-contingent first cause.
2.That non-contingent first cause was a "God".
SuperNatural:
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?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version