The principle of sufficient taste
- Must the physico-theological view ultimately rely on the principle of sufficient reason rather than causality, or is there another possibility?
This rather weakens the view, even the Rabbi wrote that with regard to a simple pre-existent being, it is not at all clear that one should ask what its meaning is, but only with regard to a special and complex being.
But if it was never created, there is no question of what it would apply to, it has always been that way and that is it. It seems like inventing a new, unfamiliar principle ad hoc just to prove God. - What does science think about the antiquity of the laws? Are they really ancient? And what is the point of saying that they are ancient when the universe itself is not ancient?
- I think so, and it seems very logical to me. But in any case, this is a hypothetical discussion because scientifically it is now accepted that the world is not ancient.
- Science has nothing to say about the antiquity of laws.
I'm talking outside the laws, after all, God did not create the world directly, but only the laws, or do you believe that there were interventions within the laws. The reason we are not satisfied with causality is that the laws are ancient, right? Because if they were created at some point in time, then it is better to use causality, which is more intuitive.
The argument is as simple as that: if the laws were created, then the question of causality also arises, and if they are ancient, then only the principle of sufficient reason.
And what is the actual controversy over the question of whether the laws are ancient? And what does the rabbi think? I understand that the rabbi thinks that the laws are not ancient because he called the question hypothetical, what is the reasoning?
Because the world was created, then apparently the laws that govern it were also created. But I am not committed to either side. Therefore, there is a ”N” argument here.
The question is hypothetical because the laws were created but because the universe was created.
Thanks, two points.
1) But if the laws are ancient, the fact that the universe is not ancient does not make the question hypothetical.
2) There is some contradiction in the first answer you wrote, I asked if the sufficient reason is required and you answered yes, meaning the laws are ancient and therefore causality is not sufficient, and on the other hand you said that the laws are not ancient in your opinion so causality is not required.
Hello.
1. In this section you talked about the world, and I said that it is scientifically accepted that it is not ancient.
2. If the laws are ancient, the principle of sufficient reason is needed and causality is not enough, and if they are not ancient, then causality is also possible (in this case, even without the principle of sufficient reason, there is evidence, because even simple laws need a legislator. Where did they come from?).
We've exhausted it. Excuse me, I got carried away.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
