Leibniz's Argument
Chapter 3 – Why does anything at all exist?
G. W. Leibniz, codiscoverer of calculus and a towering intellect of 18th century Europe, wrote: “The first question which should rightly be asked is “Why is there something rather than nothing?” -“The Principles of Nature and of Grace, Based on Reason”
His conclusion was that the answer is to be found, not in the universe of created things, but in God. God exists necessarily and is the explanation why anything else exists.
LEIBNIZ’s Argument
There are 3 basic premises in his reasoning: 1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence. 2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God. 3. The universe exists.
From these premises one could follow …show more content…
There are no fallacies located within the logic, that is not to say that there is no one to disagree with it, but it is the premises individually that they would have to argue against. Not the conclusion if given the premises.
Let’s take a closer look at the premises individually so we can better defend them.
Premise 1 Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence. * One might argue that if the universe must explain its existence in God, then God must explain His existence. Since explaining God’s existence because there is nothing greater than God, it seems that premise 1 must be false and it means that some things must be able to exist without any explanation. If the lazy apologist just says that God exists inexplicably, then he has just given the atheist license to counter that the universe just exists inexplicably without any help from God leaving them both at a stalemate.
Things that exist NECESSARILY exist by a necessity of their own nature. It belongs to their very nature to exist. Things that exist CONTINGENTLY can fail to exist (die, never be born, never even come into existence) and so need an external cause to explain why they do in fact exist. * Objection to their objection of premise 1
In Leibniz’s view there are two kinds of
G. W. Leibniz, codiscoverer of calculus and a towering intellect of 18th century Europe, wrote: “The first question which should rightly be asked is “Why is there something rather than nothing?” -“The Principles of Nature and of Grace, Based on Reason”
His conclusion was that the answer is to be found, not in the universe of created things, but in God. God exists necessarily and is the explanation why anything else exists.
LEIBNIZ’s Argument
There are 3 basic premises in his reasoning: 1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence. 2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God. 3. The universe exists.
From these premises one could follow …show more content…
There are no fallacies located within the logic, that is not to say that there is no one to disagree with it, but it is the premises individually that they would have to argue against. Not the conclusion if given the premises.
Let’s take a closer look at the premises individually so we can better defend them.
Premise 1 Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence. * One might argue that if the universe must explain its existence in God, then God must explain His existence. Since explaining God’s existence because there is nothing greater than God, it seems that premise 1 must be false and it means that some things must be able to exist without any explanation. If the lazy apologist just says that God exists inexplicably, then he has just given the atheist license to counter that the universe just exists inexplicably without any help from God leaving them both at a stalemate.
Things that exist NECESSARILY exist by a necessity of their own nature. It belongs to their very nature to exist. Things that exist CONTINGENTLY can fail to exist (die, never be born, never even come into existence) and so need an external cause to explain why they do in fact exist. * Objection to their objection of premise 1
In Leibniz’s view there are two kinds of