But isn't the greater part of both philosophy and science engaged in the search for reasons? When I was a kid, there was that famous B&W TV show, Julius Sumner Miller, called "Why is it So?" which was almost wholly concerned with explaining causal relations - the reasons why 'things are so'. The fact that there might be an element of chance or happenstance at the quantum level doesn't necessarily conflict with that; there might a reason for that as well! Reason is not all-encompassing, and we are not omniscient, but I still think the belief that there are causal explanations for phenomena is a perfectly rational principle. (I've noticed the 2011 Alexander Pruss book on the subject, which looks a good modern source.)

Overall, I think that receptivity or hostility to the principle of sufficient reason might be closely tied to theist or non-theist views of the Universe. For the religious believer, which the OP obviously is ('A Christian Philosopher') it is natural to believe that the Cosmos is an expression of divine reason. Conversely that is just the kind of attitude that secular philosophy disdains. Hence

Basic theistic bullshit — Banno

Which I'm sure forecloses the possibility of any interesting discussion, so I'll see you elsewhere ;-)

Question: how is it that, what it the reason, I can walk on the sidewalk? Ans.: because it's solid ground. And that's a perfectly good reason. Except it is not true, not even a little bit. Most folks know that atomic-scale spaces are profoundly empty, The point being that whenever, wherever there is a question, some answer can always be provided. Some of course are better than others and that depending on the particular need. But necessity/sufficiency simply not a part of this. Further, if the Principal under discussion is the one attributed to Leibniz, and his reads, "nihil est sine ratione, which I believe is accurate, then from where exactly came the "sufficient"? Because "sufficient" is no part of the PR.

If the PSR is a separate and distinct principal, then by whom and what did he or she have to say about it in terms of any justification. A reason for Leibniz, it seems, was evaluated on practical grounds.

I agree with you that the argument only aims to demonstrate the existence of a designer, which is far from the notion of God. Now, I happen to believe this designer is God, but that will be an argument for another post :)

Fair enough. Was mostly playing devil's advocate anyhow to give a little food for thought.

Question: how is it that, what it the reason, I can walk on the sidewalk? Ans.: because it's solid ground. And that's a perfectly good reason. Except it is not true, not even a little bit. Most folks know that atomic-scale spaces are profoundly empty, — tim wood

You're living the grand illusion, I see. Corporeal you, here, being utterly unreal to begin with, this physically, as equally applies to everything and everyone else. Save for the reality of the atomic-scale "spaces of profound emptiness". Okay. Just as long as it ain't spiritualish in its implications, such as might apply to the Eastern notion of maya, right?

-------

Further, if the Principal under discussion is the one attributed to Leibniz, and his reads, "nihil est sine ratione, which I believe is accurate, then from where exactly came the "sufficient"? Because "sufficient" is no part of the PR.

If the PSR is a separate and distinct principal, then by whom and what did he or she have to say about it in terms of any justification. A reason for Leibniz, it seems, was evaluated on practical grounds. — tim wood

Here are some not too hard to look us references for this information:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sufficient-reason/
more specifically as to Leibniz and sufficient reason:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sufficient-reason/#Leib

Or, as a far more laconic article:

The principle of sufficient reason states that everything must have a reason or a cause. The principle was articulated and made prominent by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, with many antecedents, and was further used and developed by Arthur Schopenhauer and William Hamilton. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_sufficient_reason

At least according to these two references, the PSR was indeed endorsed as such by Leibniz, as per:

In the Monadology, he says,

Our reasonings are grounded upon two great principles, that of contradiction, in virtue of which we judge false that which involves a contradiction, and true that which is opposed or contradictory to the false; And that of sufficient reason, in virtue of which we hold that there can be no fact real or existing, no statement true, unless there be a sufficient reason, why it should be so and not otherwise, although these reasons usually cannot be known by us (paragraphs 31 and 32). — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_sufficient_reason#Leibniz's_view

Overall, I think that receptivity or hostility to the principle of sufficient reason might be closely tied to theist or non-theist views of the Universe. — Wayfarer

There is a text by Heidegger in which he speaks of the principle of reason and criticizes it in a certain sense. In the text he speaks of something more fundamental of the being of things than their casual reason. There appear phenomenological notions about light in which something is given and appears. Something more proper to the thing (its being) that is differentiated from the reference to something else (a cause or a reason). That is to say the criticism is made that when we speak of reason or cause we speak of something else other than what we should speak of. I recommend reading it. Especially because it is indirectly a critique of the notion of causality and the ontotheology of a causal God.

I recommend reading it. — JuanZu

Can you give it a name?

Except it is not true, not even a little bit. Most folks know that atomic-scale spaces are profoundly empty — tim wood

That was something played up in Sir Arthur Eddington’s ‘Two Tables’.

Can you give it a name? — Wayfarer

The principle of reason.

Why should the first cause, of all possibilities, be a god and not the universe itself or chaos itself or any other fluctuation itself? — Quk

The OP argument only concludes that something designed the universe. It does not extend so far as to claim that the designer or the first cause is God. I happen to believe it is God, but that will be an argument for a later post, to not derail the current discussion.

On the assumption you buy your own argument as valid - not a good look for you - what, exactly, do you think you've proved? — tim wood

That if we accept the PSR as a valid first principle of metaphysics, then we infer the existence of a designer and of a first cause with inherent existence (which may or may not be the same). Now, this is still far from the notion of God, but it is a step towards it.

You have not given sufficient reason for us to accept he principle of sufficient reason. — Banno

A full defense of the PSR is provided in this post under the section called "Argument in defense of the PSR". But here is a summary:

There is a strong parallel between logic and the PSR. They are both first principles of metaphysics and epistemology. On the epistemology side, logic is associated with deduction, and the PSR is associated with induction/abduction.

We accept the laws of logic, not merely because we observe outcomes in reality to be logical (otherwise we could not say that everything must necessarily be logical; only that things happen to be logical), but because our voice of reason, specifically our deductive reasoning, tells us to. If we entertain the idea that some outcomes could be illogical, our voice of reason says "That's illegal".

Similarly, we should accept the PSR, not merely because we observe that things in reality have reasons to exist or occur, but because our voice of reason, specifically our inductive/abductive reasoning, tells us to. If we entertain the idea that some things exist or occur without reason, our voice of reason says "That's illegal".

Further, it is not a law of logic nor of rationality, and so we are not under any obligation to accept it. — Banno

Being that logic and the PSR are both first principles of metaphysics, they stand side by side; one is not underneath the other. Thus, we cannot derive logic from the PSR or vice versa. However, it is a law of rationality on the epistemology side, called induction or abduction.


You've asked other questions but I'll stop here for now for the sake of brevity.

Perhaps you should read your own references. If you did you would have found this. "We have also seen that overall Leibniz’s attempts to justify the PSR were not particularly successful (in Spinoza’s early works there is an attempt to justify the PSR, but he deserted this path in his later works)." And if you wade through the whole thing, you'll get a reasonably clear sense of why.

Also this, "Thus, in a 1676 marginal note to his copy of Spinoza’s “Letter on the Infinite” (which we have just discussed at the end of §2), he writes: “This is rightly observed, and agrees with what I am accustomed to saying that nothing exists but that for whose existence a sufficient reason can be provided” (Leibniz, Labyrinth of the Continuum, 117/ Aiii71)." As to what was meant by "sufficient reason," is not so clear. Or rather is not clear, partly because of issues of truth, which were not resolved.

Bottom line, one can believe in the Principal, and that belief can yield a level of efficacy. But like a lot of things supposed proved, it isn't, and I suspect cannot be for a variety of reasons.

A quick thought experiment I've used before: a fellow wants to get rid of a tree stump. He buys dynamite, puts it in place, lights the fuse, and blows the stump out of the ground. Question: what caused the dynamite to explode. If you give it no thought or very little thought, you will suppose you know, but the more you think about it - even this simple example - you will recognize a plethora of causes, even to the extent where it is no longer reasonable to think in terms of a cause.

Which leaves the PSR as a pragmatic principal, worth what it is worth when it is worth something, and otherwise not. Like a tool in a tool-box, of value in its proper application, otherwise not, or worse if misused or used incorrectly or in the wrong application for the wrong purpose.

On the assumption you buy your own argument as valid - not a good look for you - what, exactly, do you think you've proved? — tim wood

That if we accept the PSR as a valid first principle of metaphysics, then we infer the existence of a designer and of a first cause with inherent existence (which may or may not be the same). — A Christian Philosophy

The OP does not evidence this claim.

For instance, try to evidence that natural laws are not in fact the global result of all cooccurring existents acting as their material, bottom-up, cause – which, as global laws, then simultaneously in turn formally cause their respective constraints to apply in a top-down fashion to all individual existents in the cosmos.

Note that this reasoning for the occurrence of natural laws dispels the requirement that natural laws occur due to the intentional creation of an intellect – just as it dispels the requirement for a first efficient cause to all that exists as their reason for being.

While it might be true that humans design things, so too do some species of termites intentionally create termite mounds, intentional creation being a from of designing (the list of intentional creations in the spectrum of lifeforms is vast).

And there is no noted reason for why evolution cannot of itself serve as sufficient reason for this ability to intentionally create within the domain of life. If one likes, one can then find reason to expand this same notion of evolution to the cosmos itself – such as via the notion of a cosmically evolving logos. Teilhard’s metaphysics serving as just one example of such an understanding of cosmic evolution; in Teilhard’s view, this cosmic evolution moves toward the omega point. C.S. Peirce’s metaphysics of evolution via Agapism, replete with the evolution of natural laws as cosmic habits, as yet another example of such a perspective. Neither of which logically require there being such a thing as a first efficient cause as intentionally creating intellect to all existents, one that is thereby itself other relative to these existents. (Teilhard's notions are more akin to God being within all beings throughout all time as a perpetually driving force of cosmic evolution toward the omega point). *

As to the question of how it all began, I’ll again mention the possibility that – although the cosmos might have a contingent end as per, for one example, Teilhard’s notions of the omega point – it could nevertheless potentially be utterly devoid of any beginning: such as would be the case were this known universe to be just the latest iteration of a Big Bounce process.

----------

* to make this more explicit:

Teilhard de Chardin wrote two comprehensive works, The Phenomenon of Man and The Divine Milieu.[29]

His posthumously published book, The Phenomenon of Man, set forth a sweeping account of the unfolding of the cosmos and the evolution of matter to humanity, to ultimately a reunion with Christ. In the book, Teilhard abandoned literal interpretations of creation in the Book of Genesis in favor of allegorical and theological interpretations. The unfolding of the material cosmos is described from primordial particles to the development of life, human beings and the noosphere, and finally to his vision of the Omega Point in the future, which is "pulling" all creation towards it. He was a leading proponent of orthogenesis, the idea that evolution occurs in a directional, goal-driven way. Teilhard argued in Darwinian terms with respect to biology, and supported the synthetic model of evolution, but argued in Lamarckian terms for the development of culture, primarily through the vehicle of education.[30]

Teilhard made a total commitment to the evolutionary process in the 1920s as the core of his spirituality, at a time when other religious thinkers felt evolutionary thinking challenged the structure of conventional Christian faith. He committed himself to what he thought the evidence showed.[31]

Teilhard made sense of the universe by assuming it had a vitalist evolutionary process.[32][33] He interpreted complexity as the axis of evolution of matter into a geosphere, a biosphere, into consciousness (in man), and then to supreme consciousness (the Omega Point). Jean Houston's story of meeting Teilhard illustrates this point.[34] — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin#Teachings

... of note, for Teilhard, who was a devout Christian, this omega point was interpreted a cosmic unification with Christ.

As to Agapism:

In 1893, the American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce used the word "agapism" for the view that creative love is operative in the cosmos.[2] Drawing from the Swedenborgian ideas of Henry James, Sr. which he had absorbed long before,[3] Peirce held that it involves a love which expresses itself in a devotion to cherishing and tending to people or things other than oneself, as parent may do for offspring, and as God, as Love, does even and especially for the unloving, whereby the loved ones may learn. Peirce regarded this process as a mode of evolution of the cosmos and its parts, and he called the process "agapasm", such that: "The good result is here brought to pass, first, by the bestowal of spontaneous energy by the parent upon the offspring, and, second, by the disposition of the latter to catch the general idea of those about it and thus to subserve the general purpose."[2] — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agapism

---------

All this isn't to argue for any specific metaphysics, but, again, to illustrate that the OP does not evidence the necessity for a first efficient cause as designer of existence. This very much granting the reality of the PSR.

Dude, I'm not gonna argue with you as to whether you should be reasonable. Be as unreasonable as you want. To each their own, and their own consequences of belief.

You asked as to where the Principle of Sufficient Reason originated. And to this I replied.

You asked as to where the Principle of Sufficient Reason originated. And to this I replied. — javra

You are right and I'm mistaken. My bad. Sorry.

You are right and I'm mistaken. My bad. Sorry. — tim wood

Cool, but no need to be sorry. Even a broken clock can be right twice a day, as the saying goes.

Teilhard’s metaphysics serving as just one example of such an understanding of cosmic evolution; in Teilhard’s view, this cosmic evolution moves toward the omega point. C.S. Peirce’s metaphysics of evolution via Agapism, replete with the evolution of natural laws as cosmic habits, as yet another example of such a perspective. Neither of which logically require there being such a thing as a first efficient cause as intentionally creating intellect to all existents — javra

Bearing mind that both Du Chardin and Peirce were believers. Peirce obviously not of a conventional type, but makes it clear often enough that he has no intention of disputing the reality of God (per his book A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God). Peirce deliberately posed his ‘agapē-ism’ (awful word, by the way) in opposition to what would become the later ‘selfish gene’ outlook of the new atheism.

The universe is infinite and very old so any form of life is possible within!

Bearing mind that both Du Chardin and Peirce were believers. — Wayfarer

Yes, very much so.

Peirce obviously not of a conventional type, but makes it clear often enough that he has no intention of disputing the reality of God (per his book A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God). — Wayfarer

From my scattered readings, Peirce equated God to necessary being - such that God thereby occurs throughout all of existence and time, being for one example an aspect of us humans. This rather than being an intentionally creating intellect which served as first efficient cause to existence, and hence to existence's being, at large - one that thereby created us and is therefore as separate from us as we are from a scissor of our own creation and design.

If there are any references to the contrary, I'd be grateful to learn of them.

That said, neither was Teilhard Du Chardin much of the conventional type, devout Christian though he was. As an aside to this, I find interest in his notion of the Omega Point - which gets defined by him as, generally speaking, an ultimate single point of global consciousness devoid of anything else that becomes perfectly unified (for him, furthermore, in perfect convergence with Christ) - which at least seems to share many an aspect with the Neoplatonic notion of the One. It would be differently interpreted, of course, and this in a manner that encompasses the sciences known in his day, that of biological evolution much included, but - at least arguably - both the One and the Omega Point might as terms and concepts hold as referent the same ultimate ontic (though non-physical) reality of "pure/transcendental ego as perfectly unified and sole essence". Anyways, for what its worth, thought I'd mention this.

And, of course, one can easily translate both their metaphysics into one of cosmic logos - a cosmic logos, however, that can at the very least just as well be utterly devoid of a first efficient cause as designer.

A full defense of the PSR is provided in this post under the section called "Argument in defense of the PSR". — A Christian Philosophy

Well no, it isn't.

There is a strong parallel between logic and the PSR. They are both first principles of metaphysics and epistemology. On the epistemology side, logic is associated with deduction, and the PSR is associated with induction/abduction. — A Christian Philosophy

Is this supposed to be an appeal to authority? PSR is not a principle of logic. Nor is it the case that in order for reason to take place, one must assume the PSR. Quite simply, we can look for a reason, but there is no guarantee either that we will find the right reason - whatever "right"" might be - nor that there must be a reason. Further, and infamously, induction is not logically grounded - see Hume and Popper and most of the subsequent work on scientific method. Abduction - forget it.

The "strong parallel" isn't there.

Notice that you have not actually set out the how in your claim that PSR is supported inductively. Were is the inductive (or abductive, whatever that might be) argument?

The trouble is that it remains unclear when a reason is sufficient, and what a reason is. Analysis of the PSR over the last hundred years has turned up problem after problem, as the quite sympathetic SEP article shows.

All this before we address the unintelligible notion of intelligent design.

There's much more going on in these arguments than has been discussed in your posts.

But isn't the greater part of both philosophy and science engaged in the search for reasons? When I was a kid, there was that famous B&W TV show, Julius Sumner Miller, called "Why is it So?" which was almost wholly concerned with explaining causal relations - the reasons why 'things are so'. The fact that there might be an element of chance or happenstance at the quantum level doesn't necessarily conflict with that; there might a reason for that as well! — Wayfarer

Bell's theorem, and the overwhelming experimental evidence since, strongly support the view that there are no local hidden variables. That is, the behaviour of particles like electrons isn't determined by any deeper, pre-existing local properties that we just haven't discovered yet.

You know that.

And the point here is not that Bell is correct. The point is that the Strong version of the PSR being used in the OP (and by ) says that we cannot even contemplate Bell being right without dismantling the entire edifice of epistemology, ontology, physics and science...

And yet we do.

The idea that PSR is a law of rationality or whatever is bullshit.

I still think the belief that there are causal explanations for phenomena is a perfectly rational principle. — Wayfarer

As do I. But you take things a step too far - as is your want.

That we look for, or expect to find, a reason simply does not imply that there MUST be a reason.

This is basic modality.

And again, it remains unexplained what it is that makes something a reason, and what makes that reason sufficient.

Yes, this sort of analytic work is a pain in the arse. It's meant to be, to goad you into thinking this through properly.

Perhaps you should read your own references. — tim wood

I also smiled when I saw @javra refer to that article. It's good work, and surprisingly sympathetic to what in the end is a bad idea.

I'mm quite happy with PSR as a methodological maxim: we can look for a reason. What's not guaranteed is that there must be a reason.

Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR): For every thing that exists, there is a sufficient reason/explanation/ground for its existence or occurrence. — A Christian Philosophy

And the "sufficient reason" for (every instantiation of) the "PSR" is what exactly? :chin:

For instance, try to evidence that natural laws are not in fact the global result of all cooccurring existents acting as their material, bottom-up, cause – which, as global laws, then simultaneously in turn formally cause their respective constraints to apply in a top-down fashion to all individual existents in the cosmos. — javra

This cycle of "bottom-up cause to top-down natural laws" does not seem to have inherent existence (reason type 3 as described in the OP) since it can be denied without contradiction. If so, then it needs an external reason to explain its existence (reasons type 1 or 2).

While it might be true that humans design things, so too do some species of termites intentionally create termite mounds, intentional creation being a from of designing (the list of intentional creations in the spectrum of lifeforms is vast). — javra

Real metaphysical intentions imply free will, since an intention must be freely chosen. So, if animals do not have free will (which I believe most people accept), then this apparent intention from termites is not a real intention, and can be reduced to mere instinct.

And there is no noted reason for why evolution cannot of itself serve as sufficient reason for this ability to intentionally create within the domain of life. — javra

I accept that the laws of nature, including evolution, can explain the existence of life forms. But I don't believe it can explain the existence of freely chosen intentions. As described in the OP, a process that is fully determined cannot give rise to a non-determined thing.

As to the question of how it all began, I’ll again mention the possibility that [...] it could nevertheless potentially be utterly devoid of any beginning — javra

An infinite regress of causes does not fulfill the PSR. Like chasing a carrot on a stick, every prior cause adds the need for one more explanation, and the gap to fulfill the PSR never closes.

I accept that the laws of nature can explain the existence of life forms. But we need a reason for the existence of the laws of nature in the first place.

But we need a reason for the existence of the laws of nature in the first place. — A Christian Philosophy

Why?

continuation of ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/981975

I accept that the laws of nature can explain the existence of life forms. — A Christian Philosophy

Cool.

But we need a reason for the existence of the laws of nature in the first place. — A Christian Philosophy

I agree that the laws of nature are enforced by an entity called the Mind, but I wonder how this can be called intelligent design. In fact, I can argue that given any laws of nature and considering that the universe is infinite, one can expect a form of life soon or late so I wonder what the design is about.

I agree that the laws of nature are enforced by an entity called the Mind — MoK

Fundamental physical regularities are not legistlated "laws" that need to be "enforced" but are mathematically derived from countless, extraordinarily precise observations (measurements) of the most explanatory physical theories available (SR, GR, QFT, Standard Model, etc). The term "laws of nature" is a metaphorical shorthand that it makes no sense to attribute some hidden (occult) agency such as "the Mind" to – which only begs the question 'and whence the Mind?' leading either to an infinite regress or unwarranted, arbitrary terminus (e.g. "first cause", "unmoved mover", "intelligent designer", "creator", etc).

I agree that the laws of nature are enforced by an entity called the Mind, — MoK

What twaddle. "Laws" of nature are just ways of talking about the way things are, ways that have been shown to work. They are not "enforced" - as if one were fined for braking the law of gravity... or sent to jail for creating a perpetuum mobile.

Yep. What nonsense.