Leibniz's Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God

About | Information | History | Online | Facts | Discovery

1. I must have missed something. What causes a "necessary" entity to exist again? Necessity? (?)
   
   Or is a "necessary" entity uncaused? If so, how is this substantively different than any other Cosmological Argument involving an uncaused first cause?
   
   It seems like this argument just substitutes the word "necessary" for "uncaused". But I've never come across a meaningful definition for the word "necessary" as it is used here. It always seems like a tautology: "A necessary being could not have failed to exist." Well, yeah...and a circle cannot fail to be round.
   
   Either there's an infinite regress of causes or there's an uncaused first cause (it would have to be uncaused by definition). There is no logical third way. Saying something is "necessary" doesn't solve this problem.
   
   Please, somebody help me with this.
2. Can God, or the timeless spaceless supernatural creature, break the principle of sufficient reason ? If so, then the principle is itself non-necessary (contingent), therefore a universe with no explanation (It just exists) is possible within the system.
   If the principle can't be broken, then what we call "God" is not a supernatural being since it is submitted to at least one law. In this perspective, "God" is just a part of the universe which behaves differently, not a transcendant being (Although we can call it "transcendant" at this rate, but not in the same sense as in theistic religions).
   I hardly see how we can reconcile the necessity of the existence of a transcendant (in the theistic religion sense) being and the necessity of application of certain laws. You can't have it both ways.
   
   God is necessary only if PSR is necessary
   God is transcendant only if PSR is not necessary
   
   (Sorry for my bad english)
3. Defenders of PSR seem to often conflate PSR with "many things have reasons." Just look at the list in this video. Science presupposed that some things have reasons, not PSR. Scientists find reasons for as many things as they can, but there is no illusion that they will be able to find a sufficient reason for everything.
   
   There being no widespread violations of PSR is just another way of saying that many things have reasons. If all that PSR actually said were that many things have reasons, then we'd have solid evidence.
   
   PSR is presupposed in some philosophical arguments, but obviously not all. There is no good reason to use PSR and then dump it when it comes to the universe since PSR serves no purpose that can't be served just as well by "many things have reasons."
4. +Jason Barr
5. +Jason Barr "P1: In order for the universe to be contingent, it must have been possible for the universe not to exist. P2: In order for it to have been possible for the universe not to exist, there must have been a time, when it was possible for the universe not to exist. P3: There never was a time, when it was possible for the universe not to exist (from T=0 to now, the universe existed, and there was never a time, when the universe didn't exist). C: The universe is not contingent" -- Dear, Jason, I just want to say that you are wrong here (you shoot yourself in the foot by speaking of at T=0). 
   
   The universe did not exist, and was not a reality, at T=0; for the universe cannot exist, or be a reality, without time, and time at 0 is non-existent, thus the universe at T=0 is a non-entity; the universe can only exist, or be a reality, at T=1, i.e., with time.
   
   Moreover, either the universe is eternal or it is not. If the universe is eternal, then it exists necessarily (i.e., the idea of its non-existence is contradictory); and if it is not eternal, then it exists contingently (i.e., the idea of its non-existence is not contradictory). Thus, the universe is not eternal and is contingent, for, at T=1 was PRECEDED by at T=0;- in other words, there was a time (a time, NOT within the timeline which SUCCEEDS at T=1) that the universe did not exist, and was not a reality, which was at T=0!
6. @Jason Barr"P1: In order for the universe to be contingent, it must have been possible for the universe not to exist. P2: In order for it to have been possible for the universe not to exist, there must have been a time, when it was possible for the universe not to exist. P3: There never was a time, when it was possible for the universe not to exist (from T=0 to now, the universe existed, and there was never a time, when the universe didn't exist). C: The universe is not contingent" -- Dear, Jason, I just want to say that you are wrong here (you shoot yourself in the foot by speaking of at T=0). 
   
   The universe did not exist and was not a reality, at T=0; for the universe cannot exist, or be a reality, without time, and time at 0 is non-existent, therefore the universe at T=0 is a non-entity. The universe can only exist or be a reality at T=1, i.e., with time.
   
   Moreover, either the universe is eternal or it is not. If the universe is eternal, then it exists necessarily (i.e., the idea of its non-existence is contradictory); and if it is not eternal, then it exists contingently (i.e., the idea of its non-existence is not contradictory). Thus the universe is not eternal and is contingent, for at T=1 was PRECEDED by at T=0. Or in other words, there was a time (a time NOT within the timeline which SUCCEEDS at T=1) that the universe did not exist, and was not a reality, which was at T=0!
7. "It isn't. It's a principle of human thought." Its a made up principle based on observation within space-time. There is 0 warrant for thinking it is anything more. 
8. It isn't. It's a principle of human thought.
9. Why should anyone believe the principle of sufficient reason is not just a spatio-temporal principle? 
10. I've explained it thoroughly enough for everyone reading. Thanks for letting me comment. Cheers.
11. @DickJohnson3434 yes and you are seeing something that isn't there or isn't meant to be there.
12. Are you really reading what I'm writing?
13. Then you are seeing something that isn't there. That is not how the argument works.
14. A and B are not the same, A is a subset of B. At 2:45, you give a bunch a ways in which A (a subset of B) could have been different, while claiming to give reasons why B (the whole shebang) could have been different. The things you listed were features of A (the local very small part of B) and do not necessarily apply to B. 
15. A and B are the same. I don't mean two different things by this.
16. At 2:04 you say "by universe I don't mean just our physical universe with all the stars and galaxies". We'll call that definition of universe A. At 2:22 you say "by universe, I mean all of this together, the whole shebang". We'll call that definition of universe B. But then at 2:45 when you talk about having a different kind of universe, you give examples of different kinds of A, not B.
17. Now we don't know if determinism is true or not, so to say that this universe is contingent, is a little early. Also, the fact that a universe is necessary (even it's not our universe specifically), doesn't leave this God character with much of a big role.
18. "There is nothing necessary about our universe because there is no logical contradiction in supposing another universe in its place." If determinism is true, then there is a massive contradiction. "I never denied that God is a sentient creator of the universe." There is no good reason, to believe there was a sentient creator of the universe. 
19. There is nothing necessary about our universe because there is no logical contradiction in supposing another universe in its place. I never denied that God is a sentient creator of the universe.
20. "It might be impossible for NOTHING to exist, but there is probably nothing necessary about universes" We don't know there is probably nothing necessary about our universe, for all we know it couldn't have turned out any other way (without physical certainty, there is no logical certainty). On this particular point, it's mostly speculation on both our parts. "For Aquinas, God is existence itself." God is defined as the sentient creator of the universe though, to deny this would be dishonest.