The sufficient taste
What do you think of this kind of proof? Is that what you mean when you use Leibniz’s sufficient taste?
The concept is based on a logical law called the sufficient reason, which states that every concept is the reason for the recognition of something, and what is known by it is its cause. Just as in the concept ‘plant’ I know by it the concepts tree and grass, which is the reason for their recognition, so tree and grass are the reason for the recognition of the concept plant. And this was known without the need for examination and experience [a priori]. And this is the difference between a cause and a reason in the Hebrew language [and this is where many people make a mistake in Leibniz’s formulation of this law as the Principle of sufficient reason, who think that he means that every cause necessarily has a cause in reality. But in reality he is talking about a logical law that every cause has a cause, only that their language does not have a sufficient term to distinguish between them]. This is the case when one observes a particular concept such as a fat cell, for example [which includes other concepts under it], and how it constitutes a higher concept called ‘fat tissue’ – not from the perspective that the cell is the cause that causes the tissue, but from the perspective that the cell is the cause of logical recognition of the concept of tissue, and likewise the concept of fat tissue is the cause of recognition of a higher concept called earlobe, etc. In this, one sees wisdom that has no end. And the more one observes the concepts, the greater the wonder at the magnitude of wisdom.
You’re going to ask something, so ask. That vague phrasing serves no purpose.
Can the logical connection between every detail in reality to something more inclusive and vice versa prove the existence of God?
Is the evidence equivalent to evidence of intelligent design?
Chinese.
Forgive me, I'll try one last time.
First, do you agree with the distinction made here between a cause (logical factor) and a reason (physical factor)?
Second, the physio-theological evidence explains or, more accurately, deduces the existence of God from the creation he created, as a planner, etc.
Is it possible to deduce his existence also through our way of thinking?
I will only address this statement, which is also unclear.
1. Without “here”. There is no such thing as a logical cause. A cause is physical. There is a logical condition. Logically, rain is a sufficient condition for clouds. And clouds are a necessary condition for rain. I have explained several times that the causal relationship includes a logical component.
2. What does “our way of thinking” mean? As opposed to the thinking of elephants? The physical-theological view is formulated in our thinking. I did not understand the connection to question 1.
See the series of columns from 459 onwards.
Sorry for digging, so would you define the principle of sufficient reason as distinct from causality?
“By our way of thinking” I mean that we are built to think in a certain way, for example, all logical principles such as the law of non-contradiction are sufficient grounds (sufficient reason), even someone who has not been taught can easily understand this, that there cannot be a “shell that blows up every wall and every wall that faces every shell”.
And I will check the series of columns, probably where I will find my answer.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
