Wednesday, May 21, 2008

The Leibniz Cosmological Argument

Gottfried Leibniz, philospher, scientist, mathematician and all round genius asked, "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

Think about it. If nothing existed, then no answer is required because nothing needs no explanation. But, if something does exist, then some explanation of why it exists is needed.

In response, Leibniz developed a logical principal called the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) which states that all things have an explanation or cause for their existence.

Thus:
For every entity x, if x exists, then there is a sufficient explanation why x exists.
For every event e, if e occurs, then there is a sufficient explanation why e occurs.
For every proposition p, if p is true, then there is a sufficient explanation why p is true.

Using the PSR, Leibniz posited the following argument for the existence of God:

1. Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe is an existing thing.
4. Therefore the explanation of the universe is God.

Since the universe clearly exists, there must be reason for its existence. Self-causation to explain the Universe's existence is unsupported by the evidence of the Cosmological argument. The cause for the universe, then, must be something other than the universe itself - something external to it.

When used in conjunction with the Comological Argument, Leibniz's argument provides good reason to believe that God is the best explanation for the origin of the Universe.

17 Comments:

At May 26, 2007 at 7:05 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

>> 2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

HUH? That is a huge jump in logic. Why is the explanation God? Why not gods ?? Why not Roy ? Why not E.T?

 
At May 26, 2007 at 10:23 PM , Blogger Roy Clemmons said...

Good catch. You've pointed out the weakness in the Leibniz argument. That's why this argument is usually offered in conjuction with a stronger one. Thanks for your question.

 
At June 1, 2007 at 5:21 PM , Blogger Elliot Richmond said...

I think this objection is itself weak. Within the structure of the logical argument that Roy is presenting (as I understand it) the explanation of the universe is God, by definition. This is what Roy means when he says God.

 
At June 2, 2007 at 10:50 AM , Blogger duane voth said...

Ok, but then the definition of God is up in the air. The problem with using the word "God" is that we have so many preconcived notions about it that it is pretty much a faux pas to choose to use it represent "the reson the universe was created". We should really assign a new word with no history and then attempt to objectively define the parameters of our new concept. This new concept will hopefully grow into a foundation for what God is like, but we can't start at some end point, find a path to it, and then claim scientific reasoning was used.

 
At June 17, 2007 at 6:10 PM , Blogger Roy Clemmons said...

Actually, I'm attempting to use the evidence from science as a foundation for a very precise definition of God.

 
At June 17, 2007 at 6:13 PM , Blogger Roy Clemmons said...

My objective is too methodically construct a solid case from science where reason leads not only to the existence of God as the best explanation of the Cosmos, but also to a very precise definition of his ontological attributes.

 
At February 26, 2008 at 11:26 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Roy Clemmons
Where are you at in respect of redefining the concept of God as the explanation for the universe?

I am interested in a new definition or a new word replacing 'god' which covers the scientific cosmological issues involved.

 
At February 26, 2008 at 1:01 PM , Blogger Roy Clemmons said...

How to refresh the meaning of the word, God, so that it makes sense to everyone? That is a challenge.

While I support a redefinition that is more accurate or more appealing or one that resonates more with the modern era, we must be very careful.

It seems to me that a redefinition of the word "god" or the concept of "god" must not only address the scientific, cosmomological and biological issues, but also the philosophical implications of his existence. If God exists, what does that mean for us? Does his existence explain our own? Can we detect his design in the Cosmos and in biological shystems?

Moreover, how do we derive a definition that originates from our limited human understanding that adequately conveys the idea of a transcendent being? How do we articulate the inconceivable?

A reference to God as the "Ultimate, Rational Mind" doesn't speak to the one who perceives God as the "Ultimate Artist". Yet, I think he is both but not limited by either.

So, to answer your question, I'm still searching. Part of my intent for this blog is to review traditional definitions and concepts of God and to determine if they are still relevant.

Because God, if he exists, can not be a notion that is relevant only for a particular people in a particular place and time. God must be relevant to all people, in all societies throughout time. At least, that's my position. That's the way I see him.

In my mind, addressing the scientific concerns are not that difficult it's the philosophical, moral and ethical concerns that pose the most problems.

Science is what it is, but it's our philosophical interpretations and biased positions that are difficult to unite.

I'm open for ideas and suggestions.

 
At September 16, 2008 at 4:10 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you. You have really helped in my research for the cosmological argument for my AS course.

Just thought i'd let you know that it was really helpful and you deserved a thanks :)

 
At September 16, 2008 at 8:52 PM , Blogger Roy Clemmons said...

Thanks for the encouraging words!

 
At October 16, 2008 at 1:25 PM , Blogger Alex said...

I'd like to echo the the anon. comment, this was very useful for researching leibniz' cosmological argument.

However the argument, as has been pointed out, assumed that God created the universe. Maybe God is an error in language here as the word carries considerable baggage.

I would like to object on several other grounds however. Many of these work for all the cosmological arguments.

1. Why can there not be an infinite regression of explanations? The argument assumes that such a regression is not possible, yet only William Lane Craig has ever tried to explain why and his argument is poor in any case.

2. What is the explanation for God? The argument creates an unexplained entity which is a contradiction of the premise upon which it is built.

3. Why can the universe (that is existence, or energy if current scientific thinking is correct) not be necessary? (very similar to the contingency argument of Aquinas.)

4. The Principle of Sufficient Reason is an assumption. While it sounds like common sense, quantum theory has been pushing back the boundaries of what we assume to be true for a long time now. It may be possible that something may exist that has no explanation per se.

 
At November 13, 2008 at 7:32 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you SO much for putting this up! My notes of Leibniz have vanished and this helped me make another load so much.
I can't say thank you enough.
Also you make things sound so simple, it's brilliant.

 
At November 13, 2008 at 7:40 AM , Blogger Roy Clemmons said...

Your comments humble me. Thank you and your welcome.

 
At February 25, 2009 at 2:37 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

wow you are really helpful , my essay is so much richer because of this little article of information
A.S result A for theoloy here i come ^^

 
At February 25, 2009 at 3:23 PM , Blogger Unknown said...

Really? Cool! Thank you.

 
At May 3, 2009 at 8:10 PM , Anonymous Carl Roves texas sucks said...

How bout you give credit to the people's work you stole namely Craig. Good work copying and pasting.

 
At May 3, 2009 at 8:12 PM , Anonymous Carl Rove texas sucks said...

And anyone who is looking at this should not only read Craig but also read Richard Swinburne to help "ënrich" their essay.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home