The contingent argument
Good evening.
Have you written anywhere about Leibniz’s contingent argument?
I didn’t understand his uniqueness (what was missing from the ontological or cosmophysical argument). I doubt if I got to the bottom of his mind.
If you wrote, I would be happy to refer you, and if not, I won’t be bold enough to ask for light and opinion, and I will remain in my ignorance.
thanks.
I don’t know what you mean. The argument that assumes that everything contingent has a cause? This is nothing more than a type of cosmological argument. There was a reference here in the past to a video from Copenhagen (which has disappeared from the site for several years now) that explains this well.
Yes. In my opinion, it's simply a particular formulation of the cosmological argument. That's what I didn't understand, why dedicate a stage to it as a new argument. To me, it looked like the ontological, cosmological, or physico-theological argument with a discussion of the difference between contingent and necessary - all well and good, and I didn't understand what was new here, I was afraid I missed the point, but if you don't know what I mean, I probably didn't miss anything and it's just a formulation that is careful not to assume that everything must have a cause, because otherwise what is the cause of God.
Exactly like that.
Thank you very much!
*I meant the teleological argument not the ontological one
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
