The Cosmological Argument
Edward Hoffman
> We know that something exists. Suppose we grant that things cannot
>exist without a reason (Leibniz called this "the principle of sufficient
>reason"). It then follows that there must be a reason why something exists.
Well, I think this is where the argument collapses. To state that things exist
for a reason implies that there was an intent to put them there. This impli-
cation in and of itself assumes the existence of a god. This existence, of
course, is then supposed to be "demonstrated" by the argument. Thus, the
argument is circular.
> Clearly, with all the postulations and suppositions involved, this is
>not a proof for the existence of God. It will be interesting to see if anyone
>cares either to fix it or to rip it to shreds and stomp on the pieces.
I wouldn't call this "ripping it to shreds", just pointing out the main flaw
of the argument.
Edward Hoffman
ARPAnet: hof...@cheshire.columbia.edu
BITnet: CC4.EA-HOFFMAN@CU20A
UUCP: ...![seismo,topaz]!columbia!cheshire!hoffman
Gene Ward Smith
>In article <15...@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> gsm...@brahms.UUCP (Gene Ward Smith) writes:
>> We know that something exists. Suppose we grant that things cannot
>>exist without a reason (Leibniz called this "the principle of sufficient
>>reason"). It then follows that there must be a reason why something exists.
>Well, I think this is where the argument collapses. To state that things exist
>for a reason implies that there was an intent to put them there. This impli-
>cation in and of itself assumes the existence of a god. This existence, of
>course, is then supposed to be "demonstrated" by the argument. Thus, the
>argument is circular.
Clearly the invocation of this "principle of sufficient reason" is one
of the weaknesses of the argument. I don't think it makes the argument
circular. A reason means an answer to a "why" question, and the principal
asserts that "why" always has an answer. Intent is not stated or implied.
ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
ucbvax!weyl!gsmith Institute of Pi Research
Charlie Martin
This whole arghument is based on the idea of a "reason" for something to
happen -- which seems to be identical to a "cause" for something existing;
then the total/partial-ordering of reasons argument is just the old
first-cause argument for the existence of a creator (often spelled with
a capital letter.)
But the underlying assumption in this is that all events must have a
"cause" -- and observation does not bear that out, especially on a quantum
level. Once there are non-causal events, then the ordering breaks down.
As does the argument.
--
Charlie Martin
(...mcnc!duke!crm)
Tim Maroney
all events are simply mathematical potentials, rather than an ordered series
of causally-connected things; that is, if "the universe" is simply a set of
potentials, with no potential excluded; then Not-X also exists. Therefore,
the entire criterion of "existence" becomes invalid.
If your little mind is still befuddled, feel free to write again, but please
don't strain yourself thinking about it....
--
Tim Maroney, Electronic Village Idiot
{ihnp4,sun,well,ptsfa,lll-crg,frog}!hoptoad!tim (uucp)
hoptoad!tim@lll-crg (arpa)
Give me food, or give me slack (or kill me).
Michael Ellis
> Easy to shoot down. There is no reason to assume that anything
> exists. All events may simply be mathematical potentials, none more
> real than any other. Our experiences are simply some of the
> potentials. Therefore, since there is no objective reason to assume
> that anything exists, the first premise of the argument is flawed or
> at least unneccessary, and the argument becomes suspect.
In that case, existence as an all-or-none affair is replaced by
existence as a superposition of potentia. Doesn't weakening
"strict objective existence" to "intersubjectivity" assert that
existability, if not existence, exists?
>(No, this is not a joke; yes, I am prepared to doubt that anything exists.)
But are you prepared to doubt slack?
-michael
The fact that operant behavior seems "directed toward the future"
is misleading.
-BF Skinner
Gene Ward Smith
>Not at all, Gene. To say "X exists" is to say "Not-X does not exist."
This is simply false. If Not-X is everything that is not X, then if X is
not already everything, "X exists" *implies* "Not-X exists". On the other
hand, if you mean "X exists" is to say "Not-Not-('X exists')", then this is
a double negative which helps you not at all.
>If all events are simply mathematical potentials, rather than an ordered series
>of causally-connected things; that is, if "the universe" is simply a set of
>potentials, with no potential excluded; then Not-X also exists. Therefore,
>the entire criterion of "existence" becomes invalid.
I translate your statement about potentials into "everything which *can*
exist, *does* exist". Clearly if all potentials exist, something exists; in
fact, a great deal exists.
>If your little mind is still befuddled, feel free to write again, but please
>don't strain yourself thinking about it....
You neither, Y'hear?
ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
ucbvax!weyl!gsmith "When Ubizmo talks, people listen."