• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Principle of Sufficient Reason

Angel

Angel

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2017
Messages
18,001
Reaction score
2,909
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The Principle of Sufficient Reason

dkiW4Ar.jpg


"Nothing happens without a reason."

Does anyone doubt this?

Does anyone have reason to doubt this?

Let's hear your reason.



Below please find six links to articles explaining the Principle of Sufficient Reason -- you need read only one.

https://www3.nd.edu/~jspeaks/courses/2008-9/10100-spring/_LECTURES/5 - Leibniz.pdf

Principle of Sufficient Reason (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Sufficient reason, principle of - New World Encyclopedia

Sufficient Reason, Principle of Sufficient Reason

The Principle of Sufficient Reason

https://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/handle/1911/8938/article_RI281024.pdf


The Principle of Sufficient Reason is a fourth law of thought, as fundamental to human thought as the principle of non-contradiction.

Indeed, the Principle of Sufficient Reason entails that there must be a sufficient reason for the existence of the universe.

Argument

If nothing happens without a reason, then the event that started the universe has a reason.
If the event that started the universe has a reason, then the reason for the event must lie outside the universe.
If the reason for the event that started the universe must lie outside the universe, then that reason is super-universal.
We call that super-universal reason God.


Comments?
Counter-arguments?
Concessions?
​
 
Here we go again. Zzzzzzzzz......
 
Angel said:
The Principle of Sufficient Reason
​
Click to expand...


For people who believe in the existence of storybook characters, as do Christians, Muslims, etc., clearly anything is going to be considered "sufficient reason". These are people who believe in the existence of their version of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.​
 
Angel said:
v9SMFcT.jpg

"Well done, good and faithful servant!"
Sir Richard Doofus​
Click to expand...

Exactly. Who is to say storybook characters like the Easter Bunny and Yahweh aren't real. You're just being a "faithful servant" of Dawkins when you refuse to believe in the existence of Santa Claus.
 
JustHanging said:
For people who believe in the existence of storybook characters, as do Christians, Muslims, etc., clearly anything is going to be considered "sufficient reason". These are people who believe in the existence of their version of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
Click to expand...
Possibly the most ridiculous post on DP today. Which is saying a lot. Do you even know what the word "sufficient" means?
 
JustHanging said:
Exactly. Who is to say storybook characters like the Easter Bunny and Yahweh aren't real. You're just being a "faithful servant" of Dawkins when you refuse to believe in the existence of Santa Claus.
Click to expand...

Santa Claus has no connection to Jesus

Please :failpail:again
 
Angel said:
Internet Atheists don't seem to have much at all in the way of argument, do they?
Click to expand...

Actually they have a lot...

of nonsense...:2razz:
 
Angel said:
Internet Atheists don't seem to have much at all in the way of argument, do they?
Click to expand...

We don't need to.

You made the claim. You need to show supporting evidence.

We don't need to prove you wrong. ;)
 
Angel said:
And I asked you what there is, if anything, that you need to do as an atheist engaging a theist in a discussion?
Click to expand...

As an atheist/skeptic, I need to give you an opportunity to provide some evidence of your claim.

In this case, your claim is nothing happens without a reason. But things do happen all the time without a reason - especially at the quantum level.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is based on this. This is important, because at the moment of the Big Bang, all that existed was the quantum field.
 
SkyChief said:
As an atheist/skeptic, I need to give you an opportunity to provide some evidence of your claim.

In this case, your claim is nothing happens without a reason. But things do happen all the time without a reason - especially at the quantum level.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is based on this. This is important, because at the moment of the Big Bang, all that existed was the quantum field.
Click to expand...
We pick up the Big Bang one Plannck second after it began. Any assertion of what existed before that is pure speculation.

So all you need to do in this conversation is sit back and listen? Is that the atheist role in discussion of God? That's rich! All you need to do is give me the opportunity to convince you? You guys kill me!

I provide an argument for my claim. The evidence is the existence of the universe. Do you doubt the evidence? Can you refute the argument (it's in the OP in case you have not read it)?
 
Angel said:
We pick up the Big Bang one Plannck second after it began. Any assertion of what existed before that is pure speculation.

So all you need to do in this conversation is sit back and listen? Is that the atheist role in discussion of God? That's rich! All you need to do is give me the opportunity to convince you? You guys kill me!

I provide an argument for my claim. The evidence is the existence of the universe. Do you doubt the evidence? Can you refute the argument (it's in the OP in case you have not read it)?
Click to expand...

I don't doubt the universe exists, but the Principle of Sufficient Reason doesn't explain what caused it to exist. It only provides one possibility.

Nobody truly knows what caused it. Many claim God caused it, but there is no empirical evidence to support that argument. You must have faith to believe that God caused the Big Bang.

Even the braniac astrophysicists admit they don't know what caused it. They'll even admit that man(kind) may never know for sure.

Atheists and skeptics want to see evidence. Its a part of Critical Thinking. ;)
 
SkyChief said:
I don't doubt the universe exists, but the Principle of Sufficient Reason doesn't explain what caused it to exist. It only provides one possibility.

Nobody truly knows what caused it. Many claim God caused it, but there is no empirical evidence to support that argument. You must have faith to believe that God caused the Big Bang.

Even the braniac astrophysicists admit they don't know what caused it. They'll even admit that man(kind) may never know for sure.

Atheists and skeptics want to see evidence. Its a part of Critical Thinking. ;)
Click to expand...
Angel's Empirical Argument For God
​

The experience of the person I am in the world—my consciousness, my life, and the physical world in which my conscious life appears to be set—these phenomena comprise a Stupendous Given. There's no getting around them and no getting outside them and no accounting for them from within the phenomena themselves. These phenomena point to something beyond themselves. The attempt to account for these phenomena from within the phenomena themselves has given rise to science, art and religion and the whole cultural adventure we call "civilization"—the long human struggle for purchase on the Stupendous Given. In the end, however, the only account that accords with reason is the account that infers to a Stupendous Giver. In sum, from the existence of consciousness, the existence of life, and the existence of the physical universe, the inference to the best explanation is God.
 
I'm curious as to the application of this argument. How does one go about discerning the Sufficiently Reasoned god from all the others that are just the product of human imagination?
 
spud_meister said:
I'm curious as to the application of this argument. How does one go about discerning the Sufficiently Reasoned god from all the others that are just the product of human imagination?
Click to expand...
Fair question.
The fair answer lies in the distinction between the question of the existence of God and the question of the nature of God. The former is the object of the various arguments I've posted for the existence of God, including the argument from the principle of sufficient reason presented here in this thread, and is the subject of all of my threads.

The latter (the nature of God) is the province of the 1001 religions of the world, which offer stories about the nature of God that people can relate to. None of my threads or arguments is about the nature of God.

The distinction made here was originally made some time ago here:
Angel said:
The God Question

The God Question involves two propositions that must be distinguished in any discourse that aspires to clarity:

Proposition One

That God is.

Proposition Two

What God is.


Proposition One goes to the question of the existence of God.
Proposition Two goes to the question of the nature of God.

In discourse on The God Question, the conflation of Proposition One and Proposition Two should be avoided for the sake of clarity.
The conflation of Proposition One and Proposition Two makes for incoherence in discourse.
Much of contemporary discourse on The God Question is incoherent.

This thread is devoted to the philosophical exploration of the distinction between Proposition One and Proposition Two.
​
Click to expand...
The God Question
 
Angel said:
Fair question.
The fair answer lies in the distinction between the question of the existence of God and the question of the nature of God. The former is the object of the various arguments I've posted for the existence of God, including the argument from the principle of sufficient reason presented here in this thread, and is the subject of all of my threads.

The latter (the nature of God) is the province of the 1001 religions of the world, which offer stories about the nature of God that people can relate to. None of my threads or arguments is about the nature of God.

The distinction made here was originally made some time ago here:

The God Question
Click to expand...

I'm not sure the two are as distinct as you claim. Christians believe in a god that suits your argument best, an eternal being. However, the Greeks believed in gods appearing from a pre-existing, eternal condition, which matched better with modern astrophysics, characterising the emergence of Gaia as the Big Bang. The nature of god is relevant if the existence of god is to be determined in any sort of objective manner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom