The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument

About | Information | History | Online | Facts | Discovery

1. I came here wishing to just see if my research for my MA was valid regarding Leibniz alone. I have to say, that whilst I welcome the fact that this video cannot reproduce the works of any of these scholars, a lot of what is being said is very biased. That is to say that to make the arguments and state their current relevance and applicability in the way that this video does actually misses the point. The main thing I wish to point out is the phrase 'deny science' I would really like for the author to amend this to: deny the philosophical propositions that science has influenced the conception of. Science requires no narrative, the discourse of philosophy that it produces cannot deny it. If we are discussing philosophy, lets discuss philosophy. Science has implications that have not been denied by language in the senses being discussed here. Great video though. Thanks.
2. Consciousness is a coping mechanism to overcome obstacles. A god would have no obstacles to overcome.
3. How do we know that only god-like beings don't need explanation?
4. Why does a necessary being have to be god? Or god-like being (omni-everything)?
5. the universe may have no cause, we know of nothing before the expansion.
6. AWESOME VIDEO! SUBBED!! :D
7. I still don't understand why a God has to be the only cause of the universe. You say consciousness is the only thing that can create itself, but particles in the universe do things randomly as you know.
8. 6:20 that's simply not true
   we can't know the properties of that necessary substance
   if it exists then it can be in a perpetual activity of some sort such as motion
   a disturbance in that motion may be responsible for the creation of any universe including ours
9. 6:35 - That's where your flaw lies. The substance just needs to be a part of some kind of causal process, which causes stuff to form.
   Just because we don't have any idea about what the substance, the causal process and the resulting stuff are doesn't imply there is a conscuousness at work.
   
   Or maybe if causality is something that just exists as a part of the laws of physics inside the universe, and doesn't exist outside of it, then anything is possible
10. People need to detach "necessary being" from "God".
    
    The term "God" has copious preconceived notions.
    
    This is how i think of it, take it or leave it. (keep in mind the restrictive nature of language in explaining this matter, i am attempting to explain this to get this across conceptually)
    
    Start with an infinite potential, that is, everything, everywhere all the time, in other words, an infinite sameness with no distinctions between this or that i.e. nothing, not even a being
    
    From that we get a "coming into being" so the infinite potential has now 'actualized' into a being (a being is not nothing, therefore it is different, so it is no longer an infinite sameness).
    
    So from infinity (nothing) we get 1 (something)
    
    Imagine that being to be a 1 piece of paper. Now from the 1 whole piece of paper we divide it in half (whether cut, color, fold, etc) we now have 3 something. Let us say we folded it horizontally and unfolded it. How is that 3? we have the top half, the folded line and the bottom half. we are going from simple to complex, from unity to diversity. So i imagine every THING came from this originally differentiated being through further differentiation. No man in the sky, no religion, just deduction. it is little wonder then that math and geometry seem to transcend our reality.
    
    i have no intention on defending this, just offering it as food for thought
11. The Necessary Substance is the Omega Point
12. Doesn't the PSR imply determinism? Wouldn't that be incompatible with indeterminsitic views of quantum mechanics? (e.g. copenhagen interpretation?)
    
    To explain my thought:
    Subatomic particles may come from fluctuations in a field, but the element of indeterminacy of these fluctuations means that the fluctuation is only neccesery to explain the existence of particles, not sufficient. There is only a partial explanation. We can say, counterfactually, that had the field not been there the particle fluctuation wouldn't have occured and so the particle wouldn't have come about. However, we cannot say positively that, (given the field) this or that fluctuation would have occured and so this or that specific particle would have come about. We lack a full explanation, because (without a hidden variable theory or the multiverse interpretation) there isn't one to be had. The quantum fluctuations are explained neither by their own nature or by something else. They simply happen as a brute fact.
13. Just wondering why it's not an unconscious necessary "being". Babies aren't conscious of themselves until they pass the mirror test yet they have the ability to create things. The same goes for animals who don't recognize themselves in the mirror. what of the unconscious sleepwalker who acts upon space and time but is unconscious in his thoughts/mind?
14. But where did the necessary being (God) come from?
15. I love this argument, hence it must be true!
16. Vid says there is no reason to suppose the Universe exists necessarily. But it is also true that there is no reason to suppose the Universe doesn't necessarily exist.
    
    That is, the assumption that the Universe has contingent existence is just a baseless assumption. This destroys the whole argument presentedin vid. Adding contingent vs necessary to obfusticate things does only that - add another layer of irrelevance to lose your logic in if you want to believe in a sky fairy, or convince someone you believe in one.
    
    The 4 dimensional universe exists eternally and statically in 5 dimensions, and is a changeless 4 dimensional object. If there are N dimensions in the universe, then that universe exists changelessly and eternally in N+1 dimensions.
17. So everything must have a cause (every fact must have an explanation). Except for one thing. God. God caused everything. Problem solved... Because I say so.
    
    That's a shit argument. Even an 8 year old can see the flaw. Seriously! Once we give in to the notion that at least one thing can be uncaused or in no need of explanation (which is logically questionable), we might as well just say the Big Bang was uncaused and be done with it. Why introduce a sky daddy? Occam's Razor suggests that we should dispense with Sky Daddy and just say the Universe is uncaused (if we're going with the whole "at least one thing doesn't need an explanation" line).
    
    Sheesh!
18. @ 06:30 - A bridge too far. Conscious agency is not a prerequistite because Premise 2 is an insertion in the chain. We are presently at the supposed infinite regress due to lack of knowledge of all existing conditions. The ball is still in play and it is still too early to call "God".
19. P1: I was there when the universe was created.
    P2: I saw it being created by massive space monkey
    C: The universe was created by a massive space monkey.
    
    Now, if you want to object to premise one then you have to prove that I was somewhere else when the universe was created and if you want to object to premise two then you have to explain my observations in some other way.
    
    Off you go...
20. Things don't need consciousness to "create". Basic chemistry can tell you that.