Cosmological arguments from contingency

Question 1

Question: What is Aquinas’ third way in the cosmological argument?

Aquinas’ 3rd way (contingency)

Answer 1

Answer: Aquinas’ third way argues from contingency, stating that we observe contingent beings and that a series of contingent beings cannot regress infinitely into the past.

Question 2

Question: How does Aquinas argue for the existence of a necessary being?

Aquinas’ 3rd way (contingency)

Answer 2

Answer: Aquinas argues that since a finite series of contingent beings cannot be the ultimate explanation, there must be a necessary being that provides the ultimate explanation for contingent beings. This necessary being is what we call God.

Question 3

Question: What is the main inference drawn from Aquinas’ third way?

Aquinas’ 3rd way (contingency)

Answer 3

Answer: The main inference is that there must be a necessary being beyond the finite series of contingent beings, as the existence of contingent beings cannot regress infinitely into the past.

Question 4

Question: What is Leibniz’ principle of sufficient reason?

Leibniz’ principle of sufficient reason

Answer 4

Answer: Leibniz’ principle of sufficient reason states that for every true fact or assertion, there is a sufficient reason why it is thus and not otherwise.

Question 5

Question: How does Leibniz use the principle of sufficient reason in his argument for the existence of God?

Leibniz’ principle of sufficient reason

Answer 5

Answer: Leibniz argues that the principle of sufficient reason necessitates the existence of a necessary being to provide the ultimate explanation for contingent facts. This necessary being, which he identifies as God, is required to prevent an infinite regress of contingent explanations.

Question 6

Question: What is the main conclusion drawn from Leibniz’ argument based on the principle of sufficient reason?

Leibniz’ principle of sufficient reason

Answer 6

Answer: The main conclusion is that God exists as the necessary substance that provides the ultimate explanation for contingent facts, thereby preventing an infinite regress of contingent explanations.

Question 7

Question: What are the premises of Leibniz’ argument based on the principle of sufficient reason?

Leibniz’ principle of sufficient reason

Answer 7

Answer: The premises include:

1. For every true fact or assertion, there is a sufficient reason why it is thus and not otherwise.
2. There are truths of reasoning and truths of fact.
3. The sufficient reason for contingent facts must be found outside a series of contingent things.
4. The sufficient reason for contingent facts must be a necessary substance.
   5, That necessary substance is identified as God.

Question 8

Question: How does Leibniz distinguish between truths of reasoning and truths of fact in his argument?

Leibniz’ principle of sufficient reason

Answer 8

Answer: Leibniz explains that truths of reasoning are necessary and their opposite is impossible, while truths of fact are contingent and their opposite is possible. This distinction helps him argue for the necessity of a sufficient reason outside contingent things, which ultimately leads to the existence of a necessary substance, namely God.

Question 9

Question: What role does the principle of sufficient reason play in Leibniz’ argument?

Leibniz’ principle of sufficient reason

Answer 9

Answer: The principle of sufficient reason serves as the foundation of Leibniz’ argument, providing the basis for the necessity of a sufficient explanation for contingent facts. By invoking this principle, Leibniz contends that there must be a necessary being, God, to serve as the ultimate explanation for contingent truths.

Question 10

Question: How does Leibniz’ argument based on the principle of sufficient reason strengthen Aquinas’ third way?

Leibniz’ principle of sufficient reason

Answer 10

Answer: Leibniz’ argument removes unnecessary reasoning about nothing once existing, making it more concise and logically robust. By focusing on the principle of sufficient reason, Leibniz provides a clearer and more a priori justification for the existence of a necessary being, which he identifies as God. This strengthens the argument by grounding it in logic rather than empirical observation.

Question 11

Question: What is the significance of Leibniz’ distinction between truths of reasoning and truths of fact in his argument?

Leibniz’ principle of sufficient reason

Answer 11

Answer: Leibniz’ distinction between truths of reasoning and truths of fact helps to clarify his argument regarding the principle of sufficient reason.

By categorizing truths in this way, he highlights the necessity of a sufficient explanation for contingent facts, which cannot be derived from within the contingent realm itself. This allows him to argue for the existence of a necessary being, God, as the ultimate explanation for contingent truths.

Question 12

Question: How does Leibniz address the possibility of an infinite regress in his argument?

Leibniz’ principle of sufficient reason

Answer 12

Answer: Leibniz argues that an infinite regress of contingent beings is untenable because it would lead to an infinite deferring of the reason for existence, ultimately resulting in the absence of a sufficient explanation.

By invoking the principle of sufficient reason, Leibniz contends that there must be a necessary being to break this chain of contingency and provide the ultimate explanation for the universe. This necessary being, he argues, is God.

Question 13

Leibniz’ principle of sufficient reason