In a single paragraph near the beginning of the Theodicy, Leibniz gives a very compressed version of an argument a contingentia mundi (from the contingency of the world) from which he purports to derive not just the existence of God, but several of the most important traditional divine attributes (from which, Leibniz seems to think, the other divine attributes follow). In this post, I'll try to unpack Leibniz's reasoning. I'm not going to do too much evaluation of the arguments, since this post will be long enough without that; I'll just lay out the arguments as I see them and we can discuss their soundness in the comments.
First, here's the paragraph:
God is the first reason of things: for such things as are bounded, as all that which we see and experience, are contingent and have nothing in them to render their existence necessary, it being plain that time, space and matter, united and uniform in themselves and indifferent to everything, might have received entirely other motions and shapes, and in another order. Therefore one must seek the reason for the existence of the world, which is the whole assemblage of contingent things, and seek it in the substance which carries with it the reason for its existence, and which in consequence is necessary and eternal. Moreover, this cause must be intelligent: for this existence being contingent and an infinity of other worlds being equally possible, and holding, so to say, equal claim to existence with it, the cause of the world must needs have had regard or reference to all these possible worlds in order to fix upon one of them. This regard or relation of an existent substance to simple possibilities can be nothing other than the understanding which has ideas of them, while to fix upon one of them can be nothing other than the act of the will which chooses. It is the power of this substance that renders its will efficacious. Power relates to being, wisdom or understanding to truth, and will to good. And this intelligent cause ought to be infinite in all ways, and absolutely perfect in power, in wisdom and in goodness, since it relates to all that which is possible. Furthermore, since all is connected together, there is no ground for admitting more than one. Its understanding is the source of essences, its will is the origin of existences. There in a few words is the proof of one only God with his perfections, and through him of the origin of things (Theodicy, tr. Huggard, sect. 7)
(1.1) Everything has a reason for its existence. (Premise)
(1.2) A being which is or contains its own reason for existence is necessary. (Definition)
(1.3) A being which has a reason for existence distinct from and not contained in itself is contingent. (Definition)
:. (1.4) Every being is either necessary or contingent. (From 1.1-1.3)
(1.5) Every collection of contingent beings is itself a contingent being. (Premise)
(1.6) The World, the most inclusive collection of contingent beings, exists and is non-empty. (Premise)
:. (1.7) The World is a contingent being. (From 1.5 and 1.6)
:. (1.8) The World has a reason for existence distinct from and not contained in itself. (From 1.4 and 1.7)
:. (1.9) A necessary being is the reason for the existence of The World. (From 1.4 and 1.8)
(2.1) Whatever has a reason for existence is actual. (Premise)
(2.2) Only one world is actual. (Premise)
:. (2.3) The reason for existence of The World (henceforth 'The Reason') is not a reason for existence for any other possible worlds. (From 2.1 and 2.2)
(2.4) If a being B1 is the reason for existence of a being B2, and there is a merely possible being B3 which has an "equal claim" to have B1 as the reason for its existence, then B1 must choose B2 over B3. (Premise)
(2.5) There are many possible worlds which have "equal claim" to have The Reason as the reason for their existence. (Premise)
:. (2.6) The Reason chooses The World over any other possible world. (From 2.3-2.5)
(2.7) Choosing requires understanding and will. (Premise)
:. (2.8) The Reason has understanding and will (From 2.6 and 2.7)
(2.9) A being B1 which chooses a being B2 is thereby the reason for B2's existence only if B1 has power. (Premise)
:. (2.10) The Reason has understanding, will, and power. (From 2.8 and 2.9)
Power relates to being, wisdom or understanding to truth, and will to good. And this intelligent cause ought to be infinite in all ways, and absolutely perfect in power, in wisdom and in goodness, since it relates to all that which is possible.
(3.1) The Reason chooses The World from among all the possible worlds. (Premise)
(3.2) There are infinitely many possible worlds. (Premise)
(3.3) A being which can choose between several alternatives must understand each of them. (Premise)
(3.4) A being which understood infinitely many distinct alternatives would be infinitely wise. (Premise)
:. (3.5) The Reason is infinitely wise. (From 3.1-3.4)
(3.6) A being which can choose between several alternatives must have the power to bring any of them about. (Premise)
(3.7) A being which could bring about any of infinitely many alternatives would be infinitely powerful. (Premise)
:. (3.8) The Reason is infinitely powerful. (From 3.1, 3.2, and 3.6)
(3.9) To choose something is to judge it the best among alternatives. (Premise)
(3.10) A being which could make a judgment as to which of infinitely many alternatives was best would be infinitely good. (Premise)
:. (3.11) The Reason is infinitely wise, infinitely powerful, and infinitely good. (From 3.1, 3.2, 3.5, and 3.8-3.10)
(Cross-posted at The Prosblogion)
Trackbacks |
TrackBack URL for this entry: https://blog.kennypearce.net/admin/mt-tb.cgi/617
|
How can it be that an act of free choice which is genuinely contingent has a sufficient reason? Does it constitute its own sufficient reason? Or does its sufficient reason lie in some other act of free choice?
Posted by: undergrad at December 23, 2010 7:11 AMLeibniz has a funky theory of contingency, which I have discussed in connection with arguments for the existence of God here and here. So Leibniz would say there is a sufficient reason and, in fact, the choice is fully determined, but it is nonetheless contingent.
If you're not Leibniz, you might want to accept a weaker version of PSR, as I suggested here.
Posted by: Kenny at December 23, 2010 11:33 AMThank you for your response.
If every contingent state of affairs/event has a sufficient reason that lies in a free choice, every act of free choice has some other act of free choice as its sufficient reason.
Merry Christmas!
Posted by: undergrad at December 23, 2010 4:27 PMThat is kind of a tricky problem. It might show that my formulation is bad. The whole thing is supposed to get started by God understanding the infinite analysis (even God can't perform an infinite analysis; he just grasps it all at once) which shows that this world is best. So that's going to be a contingent fact. God then chooses this world. So there is a contingent fact that is (at least logically) prior to choice.
Posted by: Kenny at December 24, 2010 9:47 AMTo be, or not to be. That is the question. ;-)
Posted by: Maryannn at January 10, 2011 8:43 PM