Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2011 12:16:32 GMT
In a recent thread, the question of why is there something rather than nothing and its relationship to philosophy appeared. I mentioned there that on this question rests a famous formulation of the cosmological argument given by the early modern philosopher Gottfried Leibniz. So here's for everyone an introductory overview of the Leibnizian cosmological argument: www.nd.edu/~jspeaks/courses/10100/LECTURES/5-leibniz.pdf Enjoy!  |
|
|
|
Post by elephantchang51 on Apr 16, 2011 14:19:56 GMT
No doubt Leibniz and others have employed their considerable intelligence in tackling this question,my only point is that it seems to me that conclusions arrived at by them are limited by the scope of human intelligence,and thus hopelessly inadequate considering the size of the question,and that it is fatuous to believe otherwise.
|
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Apr 16, 2011 21:16:23 GMT
No doubt Leibniz and others have employed their considerable intelligence in tackling this question,my only point is that it seems to me that conclusions arrived at by them are limited by the scope of human intelligence,and thus hopelessly inadequate considering the size of the question,and that it is fatuous to believe otherwise. Unless God's really there and has given us the capacity to think logically, and Leibniz's logic is true. We use that logic in all sorts of ways, and it works, so what's wrong with using it here? Isn't the real test whether the logic stands up? Where would you say Leibniz's logic is wrong? |
|
|
|
Post by elephantchang51 on Apr 17, 2011 6:43:04 GMT
Unklee,needless to say as an atheist I lack belief in God(s),so could hardly think he has 'given' us anything.It is possible Leibniz is spot on but how would we ever know?What if the truth is so far beyond our comprehension that we are incapable of even imagining it?I suspect I have far less faith in the abilities of my fellow homo sapiens than you and most others,and we will never agree on this.
|
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Apr 17, 2011 12:42:53 GMT
Unklee,needless to say as an atheist I lack belief in God(s),so could hardly think he has 'given' us anything.It is possible Leibniz is spot on but how would we ever know?What if the truth is so far beyond our comprehension that we are incapable of even imagining it?I suspect I have far less faith in the abilities of my fellow homo sapiens than you and most others,and we will never agree on this. I too don't expect to reach agreement, but we can hopefully understand each other better. We actually agree on some things, namely that "the truth is so far beyond our comprehension that we are incapable of even imagining it". (So I don't necessarily have any more "faith in the abilities of my fellow homo sapiens" than you do, perhaps even less.) But where we disagree is that I don't think we are left without help in that regard, so I think we can ask and receive help in understanding, but you (I presume) don't believe that is even a possibility, and so don't ask. |
|
|
|
Post by jim_s on May 1, 2011 17:30:42 GMT
I've read some philosophers who argue that libertarian freedom conflicts with the principle of sufficient reason. So in order to affirm free will, at least in the strong sense, one has to deny Leibniz's principle. Allegedly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2011 18:26:13 GMT
I've read some philosophers who argue that libertarian freedom conflicts with the principle of sufficient reason. So in order to affirm free will, at least in the strong sense, one has to deny Leibniz's principle. Allegedly. It depends on what formulation of the PSR you have in mind. Alexander Pruss defends the one that deals with explanations. You may have made a choice indeterminably as a free agent, but this doesn't mean there's no explanation for that choice. |
|
