Types of sustainability of applications

שו”ת › Category: general › Types of sustainability of applications

asked 8 years ago

Have a good week!
Thank you very much for your full attention here to my question regarding the flood,

I saw a funny video by Lane Krieg on Friday about Leibniz’s argument as part of the cosmological argument.
Leibniz divides all beings into two categories: things that exist necessarily and things that exist by chance. I also saw similar references on the site, but I didn’t understand the concepts.
I wanted to ask if the Rabbi could explain a little about the definition of these things?
I) What does it even mean that things necessarily exist? Is a primordial thing something that necessarily exists? Do the laws of nature necessarily exist? Does the Rabbi have a dogma of a thing that necessarily exists?
II) What does it mean that something is its own cause? A synonym for something that necessarily exists? After all, if it does not necessarily exist, then how is it its own cause? Are the laws of nature, for example, their own cause?
III) What does it mean to be a primordial thing? Is a primordial thing something that is its own cause? Something that necessarily exists? Can a primordial thing cease to exist at some point or must it always exist?

Sorry for the trouble, it’s just quite important to me to understand what these divisions in words are – whether they are different matters or one expression for all things.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

0 Answers

0 Vote Up Vote Down

מיכי Staff answered 8 years ago

Something that necessarily exists is something that must exist. It cannot possibly not exist. A thing that is “its own cause” means that it does not need a cause outside of itself. An ancient thing is something that has always existed. Regarding the relationship between the concepts, many recognize them, but in my opinion it is not at all simple. It is clear that what is necessary has always existed (because it cannot not exist). But what has always existed is not necessarily necessary. It is possible that it always exists by chance (and could not have existed). The cause itself is a trickier concept, since it is possible to think that it would not exist (only if it exists it does not need a cause outside of it, but perhaps it is possible that it does not exist). Although in simple terms, the cause itself means that its existence does not need a cause, that is, it is necessary and has always existed. Regarding the laws of nature, it is not clear whether they are things or beings. Simply put, they are forms of behavior of beings, not beings. The laws of logic and mathematics are necessary, and therefore have always been true (but do not always exist because they are not necessarily beings). On the other hand, it is common to think that the laws of nature are not necessary (they could be different), otherwise natural science would be a branch of mathematics.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

עדי replied 8 years ago

Thank you very much!
Suppose there is a primordial entity, should I assume that it is the necessity of reality?
How can one identify that the entity is the necessity of reality? After all, I can think about anything that it might be different/not exist. So I can never assume that the entity that is truly the necessity of reality is the necessity of reality.

Does the Rabbi really think that existences are like entities?! He fulfilled the cause of himself but the necessity of reality….

מיכי Staff replied 8 years ago

No. I explained that there is a difference.
Beyond that, you assume that the conclusion that this is the necessity of reality is the result of observation, and therefore claim that it can always be interpreted differently. But here we are talking about the conclusion of a logical-philosophical argument (like the cosmological argument and the like).
Regarding the cause itself/primordial, this is a logical consequence of the cosmological and physico-theological argument.