1. Anything that exists 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 exists.
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence. (from 1,3)
5. Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God. (from 2,4)
Leibniz’s Cosmological Argument (or LCA) has its conception in Leibniz’s fundamental question: “Why is there something rather than nothing?”. For every contingent fact, there must be an explanation for why it is and not otherwise. This has been coined the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR). This principle implies a casual principle – that all contingent facts require a casual chain of facts to have existed.
Without a sufficient reason, we could not find any series of casual chains for why anything exists. For example, I could have not existed if my parents had never met but due to some previous causes, they did meet. But if PSR is not true, then I could not know why an individual or collection of contingent facts exist. We couldn’t even make a true statement without knowing “why” it is true.
Furthermore, a denial of PSR will ultimately make nonsense of the atheist’s request for a reason to believe theism is true. Why should we have a reason that God exists if you can have no reason why the universe exists? Answer that question, and you will affirm the PSR. Therefore, it is more plausible that “anything that exists has an explanation of its existence” (premise 1) is true than its denial.
From (1), it follows that the universe has an explanation of it’s existence. It is either necessary by nature or caused to exist by an external cause. Our universe cannot be necessary because we can conceive of a possible world in which concrete objects do not exist. This is confirmed through the Big Bang where we see a very dense universe that had no planets. The fact that we can easily conceive of the universe’s non-existence implies that it is not necessary but contingent.
How about an infinite series of causes? Even if this were true, it would not explain why there exists anything at all. You still have an infinite chain of contingent facts and therefore the “contingent infinite” itself needs an explanation! It follows that there must be a sufficient explanation that lies outside this casual chain of contingent facts. A necessary being seems to be the best explanation (from 2).We now have something that is “necessary” but what is it exactly?
It must be beyond the universe because anything that is physical or material has a prior cause and cannot be necessary. Therefore, this being transcends space and time which leaves us with two categories – either it’s an abstract object (like numbers) or it is a mind. However, all abstract objects do not have a casual relationship, otherwise, it’s not abstract! Therefore, the only explanation is an immaterial mind which has been commonly referred to as God.
This argument is probably the second worst for Theism, next to the moral argument of course.
I do affirm that you do not need a reason for God to exist to validate his existence, because the universe itself exists and could very well be spontaneous(and therefor uncaused). But how can you simply affirm that God is the cause of the universe even though we don’t have enough experience, or evidence to affirm that EVERYTHING has a cause. This is my problem with this argument and is why I believe it to be so terrible.
“Without a sufficient reason, we could not find any series of casual chains for why anything exists. For example, I could have not existed if my parents had never met but due to some previous causes”
This is true, if you affirm that free will exists. But I affirm it doesn’t. If the big bang happened again, in another dimension, in the exact same way as the universes one. Wouldn’t the events in that universe play out the same way as this one? Almost like a mirrored big bang if you will. Elgoog
Elgoog, Leibniz’s cosmological argument uses the principle of sufficient reason, not the principle of causality as in the kalam variant. The LCA works by positing a sufficient reason for the universe’s existence, not a cause. Hence, it is compatible with an eternal universe. Tim H
But why must a sufficient reason be God? Or any external being? Elgoog
Elgoog, I already explained why it must be God in this article. I suggest you read it again, carefully, without any presuppositions. You shouldn’t call something the “worst argument for theism” if you haven’t done the proper study. Gil S
I reread it, and I still refer to it as the second worst argument for Theism.
‘Therefore, the only explanation is an immaterial mind which has been commonly referred to as God.’
Not only is this a bad conclusion, but it’s not even an argument for theism. It’s an argument for deism. So basically, if you’re defending God, with a capital G, then this is just terrible.
You only dismissed a few other points, saying that they don’t have a sufficient reason. But you didn’t even touch on a self caused universe…. Elgoog
Elgoog, all you’ve done is ridicule. It is very clear that you still do not understand the argument, and by your own admission, you have not even studied it. Who said this was an argument for theism? Not only is this a straw man, but it’s completely irrelevant. By theism I am referring to the general notion that a God exists which includes deism. And my capitalization of “G” is a mere formality since I consider God to be a person.
Please. Your objections to the LCA are the worst I have seen. A self-caused universe is completely nonsensical… Gil S
How is it a strawman? I simply stated that this website is called ‘Rational Theism’, not rational deism. I do understand the argument, but all you’ve done is say that I cannot directly attack the argument because I have not studied it. I can attack it without worry, since it is the second worst argument for deism. Seriously, sufficient reason? You have got to be kidding me.
Nonsensical? Are you kidding me? Theism itself is nonsensical. Simply read the bible and figure out why. Philosophers like Quentin Smith, and scientist’s such as Stephen Hawkins say it’s perfectly sensible. They also give evidence. So please, refute a self caused universe. Prove that God is more likely. Elgoog
Hawking does not believe that the universe is self-caused. He affirms a quantum gravity model of the universe where the beginning is rounded off, like a badminton birdie. Tim H
How does the title of this blog have any relation to the article that I had written? You were clearly addressing my argument and made no mention of the blog title (which is in itself irrelevant). Thus it is a clear straw man that anyone acquainted with fallacious reasoning would be able to recognize. I find your display of complete ignorance and foolishness rather amusing. Do you really think an appeal to ridicule works in the real world?
Even if I agreed that the Bible is nonsensical, it would be a total non-sequitur to think that this implies theism is nonsensical. It only follows that Christian theism is nonsensical. This is exactly the kind of logic that I’d expect from someone untrained in critical thought. You have no warrant in thinking you can criticize anything without worry when you have this bogus reasoning.
As for the universe being self-caused, my argument does not depend on the universe having come to existence. You’re STILL addressing the Kalam, not my argument which deals with contingency or necessity. Try again. Gil S
From what I’m reading, Stephen Hawkins actually does believe that the universe is self cause. Unless wiki is lying to me.
The title of this blog is ‘rational theism’. This is not even an argument fro theism. It’s not a strawman at all since I can actually defeat this argument by saying what it is arguing, which does not even help theism. It helps deism.
It doesn’t take critical thinking to defeat this argument. Infact, I find it kind of hilarious that a theist is telling me that I am untrained in critical thought(what ever the hell that means). Seriously, you’re telling me this? Give me a break…. I still cannot get over that someone who believes in demons, angels, and the virgin birth is telling me I am untrained in critical thought…
But back on topic; this so called argument. With some reading I did today, I found a rather interesting article on this argument. Apparently, the author thinks that this is the worst argument for deism available. I don’t agree, but I do agree that it is indeed bad.
I do agree that everything has an explanation for it’s existence. However, there are some things that we can never have explanations for. It happens every day. Elgoog
I know what this blog’s title is, but you completely ignored my question. How is this at ALL relevant to the article that I had given? I never said that this a specific argument for theism, therefore this IS a straw man. Address my points instead of throwing dust to cover your up failures. Even if I did argue for theism, I usually understand theism to be the general belief that a God exists which includes deism.
Are you serious? Without critical thought, you’re about as brainless as a rotten cabbage. There’s no way that you can refute this without being rational. I find it saddening how you attack what I believe (an ad hominem fallacy) in order to disprove my JUSTIFIED assertions that you’re clearly being illogical. I’ve shown you the fallacies, and you’ve simply ridiculed and ignored them.
Feel free to share the article. But if you’re gonna continue this nonsense, then I might as well not engage with you any longer. Please act charitably to me and I will return the favor. Otherwise, you’re just asking me to point out the foolishness of your arguments. Gil S
The foolishness of my arguments? You’re doing the exact same thing that I allegedly did, and not responding(even though I did). It’s not a strawman at all, since I have defeated this argument without even addressing it(since it is an argument for deism). It’s also wrong to say that theism includes deism. No, deism INCLUDES THEISM. Which is why this isn’t even arguing Christianity. You could be arguing a religion that I made up that only includes a similar God. But my religion also includes the slaughtering of babies. Thanks for the reinforcement!
I didn’t use any ad homimem attacks until you did, I simply said this was a bad argument(since good arguments for theism do not exist). And you overreacted, without even addressing my counter arguments. And you still continue to do them. I only return the favour, you hypocrite.
I cannot find the article at this time, but I don’t think it’s relevant(seeing as he didn’t offer any arguments against it). I guess I will do a lil’ bit of research on this argument before I say more. Elgoog
You responded with useless appeals to fallacious reasoning. If I did the exact same thing, then you need justify this assertion. How the heck can you defeat an argument without even addressing it? That’s like saying I can win a race without even competing in it. Wikipedia states that theism “in the broadest sense is the belief in at least one deity”. Therefore, this DOES INCLUDE deism.
Once again, you STILL insist on making a straw man argument. Please quote me in this article WHERE I had said that this proves theism as you understood it? I never even said that this is an argument for Christianity. Your reading comprehension is absolutely horrible. FYI, this is an ad hominem fallacy:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A’s claim is false.
And this is what YOU did:
1. I said “Even if I agreed that the Bible is nonsensical, it would be a total non-sequitur to think that this implies theism is nonsensical.” (Person A makes claim X)
2. You said, “I still cannot get over that someone who believes in demons, angels, and the virgin birth is telling me I am untrained in critical thought…” (Person B makes an attack on Person A)
3. Therefore, I didn’t make a non-sequitur. (Therefore A’s claim is false.)
This cannot be any more clearer. I justified my assertion that you’re untrained in critical thought by showing how you made a non-sequitor. Instead of addressing my criticism, you simply ignored it and made an attack on me because I believe in stupid stuff like “demons and angels”. How naive. Then you accuse me of making an ad hominem argument when I did no such thing?
Not once did I overreact, I simply pointed out the fallacies and you arrogantly ridiculed the argument like a troll. I’m only being harsh because you made fallacies but refuse to even acknowledge that you did. Be honest and move on so that we can actually address what I said in the article. Gil S
I didn’t read what you last said, and I’m just going to be the mature one and stop this nonsense. Elgoog
“I still cannot get over that someone who believes in demons, angels, and the virgin birth is telling me I am untrained in critical thought…” (Person B makes an attack on Person A)
But to respond to this, I said this because: “This is exactly the kind of logic that I’d expect from someone untrained in critical thought.”
So seriously, quit being so hypocritical and just move on. Elgoog
How? Did I make a logical fallacy somewhere in believing that demons exist? And nice job at trying to be the “mature one”. Gil S
No, I considered your remark as just a fancy way of calling me not intelligent. Now my attack was justified if this is the case. Therefor, you are the one who committed the fallacy. Elgoog
I showed how you made a straw man, a non-sequitur and various other fallacies. This is why I was justified in saying that you’re untrained in critical thought. But merely because I made a justified claim does not mean that you can suddenly make an ad hominem (another non-sequitur!). Show me how I made a fallacy in logical form like I did with QUOTES. Gil S