Q&A: The Principle of Sufficient Reason
The Principle of Sufficient Reason
Question
- Does the physico-theological argument ultimately have to rely on the Principle of Sufficient Reason rather than on causality, or is there another possibility?
This weakens the argument quite a bit. The Rabbi himself wrote that regarding just some eternal existent, it is not at all clear that it makes sense to ask what its reason is, only regarding a special and composite existent.
But if it was never created, then there is nothing for the question to apply to; it was always that way, and that's that. It seems like the invention of a new and unfamiliar ad hoc principle just in order to prove God. - What does science say about the eternity of the laws? Are they really eternal? And what does it even mean to say that they are eternal when the universe itself is not eternal?
Answer
- I think so, and it seems very logical to me. But in any case, this is a hypothetical discussion, because scientifically it is currently accepted that the world is not eternal.
- Science has nothing to say about the eternity of the laws.
Discussion on Answer
The argument is either way: if the laws were created, then the question of causality also arises; and if they are eternal, then only the Principle of Sufficient Reason applies.
So what exactly is the dispute over whether the laws are eternal? And what does the Rabbi think? I understand that the Rabbi thinks the laws are not eternal, because he called the question hypothetical. What is the reasoning?
Because if the world was created, then presumably the laws that govern it were also created. But I am not committing myself to either side. That is why this is an either-way argument.
The question is hypothetical not because the laws were created, but because the universe was created.
Thanks, two points.
1) But if the laws are eternal, the fact that the universe is not eternal does not make the question hypothetical.
2) There is some contradiction in the first answer you wrote. I asked whether the Principle of Sufficient Reason is necessary, and you answered yes—that is, the laws are eternal and therefore causality is not enough. On the other hand, you said that in your view the laws are not eternal, so causality is not necessary.
Hello.
1. In that section you were talking about the world, and about that I said that scientifically it is accepted that it is not eternal.
2. If the laws are eternal, you need the Principle of Sufficient Reason and causality is not enough; and if they are not eternal, then causality can also work. In that case, even without the Principle of Sufficient Reason there is still a proof, since even simple laws require a lawgiver. Where did they come from?
We've exhausted this. Forgive me, I'm worn out.
I'm talking outside the laws. After all, God did not create the world directly, but only the laws—unless you hold that there were interventions within the laws. The reason we are not satisfied with causality is that the laws are eternal, right? Because if they came into being at some point in time, then it would be preferable to use causality, which is more intuitive.