NationStates Jolt Archive

Now, I have seen this used many times in proofs and such for God. Most of you know what the principle of sufficient reason is, but for those who don't, it pretty much states that everything has a cause.

I've been thinking about it a little, and one thing confuses me. If everything has a reason or cause, what is the reason for the principle of sufficient reason? One could say God is the reason for the principle, but that creates a circular arguement. The PSR is used to prove God exists, and then God's existance is used to prove the PSR works.

Any thoughts on this? As a foundation for most rationalist philosophers, this is a big discrepency.

Now, I have seen this used many times in proofs and such for God. Most of you know what the principle of sufficient reason is, but for those who don't, it pretty much states that everything has a cause.

I've been thinking about it a little, and one thing confuses me. If everything has a reason or cause, what is the reason for the principle of sufficient reason? One could say God is the reason for the principle, but that creates a circular arguement. The PSR is used to prove God exists, and then God's existance is used to prove the PSR works.

Any thoughts on this? As a foundation for most rationalist philosophers, this is a big discrepency.

I'm not big on this kind of discussion in general, but I'm curious to see what are the responses to this specific question.

I've never understood why faith is not enough for some people in matters of religion. If you are religious, your faith should be able to look all manner of argument and sciences full on and say "That's nice, but I still believe in my faith."

I've always thought that faith was a trump card. You cannot trump faith with evidence to the contrary, faith literally conquers all in a debate. Faith is lost and gained only within a person, not from external factors, right?

But some people just need to be RIGHT. They need to belive that they believe something that can be backed up. They do not want faith, they want to be right. That's why so many spend so much time trying to "justify their faith"

I honestly wish they could learn that faith is pretty much its own justification. If you have faith, you don't need to be "right", you have all the faith in your beliefs already that would supposedly come from being "right" already.

Oh well, perhaps that why I don't like to participate in such discussions.

That's very well put. Faith in an omnipotent God is a trump card. So long as it cannot be disproved, and if he is omnipotent then it never can be, then faith cannot be completely knocked down.

Genesis 0:0

On the evening before God beganth his creating, he decided to make a single entity. He made the entity out of his hair clippings and named him Jesus. The next day, God gave Jesus a stopwatch and said "Time me". And thus, Jesus timed the lord on how long it took him to create. And when all was done, the lord turned to Jesus and said "Done". Jesus looked down at the stopwatch and spoketh "7 days flat". God smiled and put Jesus in his hand. "I won't be needing you for a while, my son", he spoke to the hairy entity. God crushed the entity made of hair and fashioned for himself, a toupe."

Now, I have seen this used many times in proofs and such for God. Most of you know what the principle of sufficient reason is, but for those who don't, it pretty much states that everything has a cause.

I've been thinking about it a little, and one thing confuses me. If everything has a reason or cause, what is the reason for the principle of sufficient reason? One could say God is the reason for the principle, but that creates a circular arguement. The PSR is used to prove God exists, and then God's existance is used to prove the PSR works.

Any thoughts on this? As a foundation for most rationalist philosophers, this is a big discrepency.

To quote from a previous thread, people differ in their need for frameworks around their beliefs. Some people are only comfortable when the structures around what is right and wrong are very clearly outlined by society. They accept themselves based on how they fit within their society's framework of what is right. Others are not afraid to see the shades of grey and accept themselves based on a belief that they are right, irrespective of society. They can blur the lines and still respect themselves.
In some ways I'm the former, and in other ways one of the latter. As far as the PSR goes, I think it's a security mechanism for philosophical thought. Comprehending ideas without begining or end is a rather momentous cognitive task, and can make us feel like tiny amoeba in the grand scheme of all things. I think that the PSR is a myth, because it restricts philosophical thought to the boundaries imposed by a definition of begining. It would be akin to removing the falsification criteria from scientific methodology. To use PSR as an argument for god's existence still leaves us with the question of where god came from. It also only explains the traditional concept of god as creator, which doesn't fit with non-creator constructs of what god is.

Things happen with no obvious cause to people all the time. It's nice to have an explanation for accidents and terrible diseases, but that isn't always possible. I think it's far more intelletually and spiritually healthy to accept that not all things have a root cause. You can plan for all your variables, but you won't know the outcome until it's played out. PSR makes you look for causes that may not exist, and so plan outcomes which may not occur. I don't think that PSR is a valid argument for philosophical issues.

You cannot trump faith with evidence to the contrary, faith literally conquers all in a debate. Faith is lost and gained only within a person, not from external factors, right?

There's faith, and there's deliberate ignorance.

Genesis 0:0

On the evening before God beganth his creating, he decided to make a single entity. He made the entity out of his hair clippings and named him Jesus. The next day, God gave Jesus a stopwatch and said "Time me". And thus, Jesus timed the lord on how long it took him to create. And when all was done, the lord turned to Jesus and said "Done". Jesus looked down at the stopwatch and spoketh "7 days flat". God smiled and put Jesus in his hand. "I won't be needing you for a while, my son", he spoke to the hairy entity. God crushed the entity made of hair and fashioned for himself, a toupe."Now you're just Cutting and Pasting... :p

Now you're just Cutting and Pasting... :p
Yeah, I origionally came up with that on PB

http://s3.invisionfree.com/Paradise_Beach/index.php?act=idx

I'm not big on this kind of discussion in general, but I'm curious to see what are the responses to this specific question.

I've never understood why faith is not enough for some people in matters of religion. If you are religious, your faith should be able to look all manner of argument and sciences full on and say "That's nice, but I still believe in my faith."

I've always thought that faith was a trump card. You cannot trump faith with evidence to the contrary, faith literally conquers all in a debate. Faith is lost and gained only within a person, not from external factors, right?

But some people just need to be RIGHT. They need to belive that they believe something that can be backed up. They do not want faith, they want to be right. That's why so many spend so much time trying to "justify their faith"

I honestly wish they could learn that faith is pretty much its own justification. If you have faith, you don't need to be "right", you have all the faith in your beliefs already that would supposedly come from being "right" already.

Oh well, perhaps that why I don't like to participate in such discussions.Niccolo Medici, almost every time I see a post by you I agree, and this is again one of those times. I guess that's to be expected for someone who borrows his name from Lorenzo and Macchiavelli (if I'm guessing correctly).

I'm not big on this kind of discussion in general, but I'm curious to see what are the responses to this specific question.

I've never understood why faith is not enough for some people in matters of religion. If you are religious, your faith should be able to look all manner of argument and sciences full on and say "That's nice, but I still believe in my faith."

I've always thought that faith was a trump card. You cannot trump faith with evidence to the contrary, faith literally conquers all in a debate. Faith is lost and gained only within a person, not from external factors, right?

But some people just need to be RIGHT. They need to belive that they believe something that can be backed up. They do not want faith, they want to be right. That's why so many spend so much time trying to "justify their faith"

I honestly wish they could learn that faith is pretty much its own justification. If you have faith, you don't need to be "right", you have all the faith in your beliefs already that would supposedly come from being "right" already.

Oh well, perhaps that why I don't like to participate in such discussions.

I have to disagree with you here. Faith is in no way a legitimate reason for justification of a set of beliefs that have social and moral implications. To simply look away from arguements and science is to propogate ignorance.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Video/050419/n_pope_ratzinger_050419.vsmall.jpg http://www.colianni.net/aj/archives/images/palpatine.jpg

I think the essential probalem with the Principle of Sufficient Reason is that it contradicts itself. The principle ststes that everything has a cause independent of itself: why should God be an exception to that principle?

I have to disagree with you here. Faith is in no way a legitimate reason for justification of a set of beliefs that have social and moral implications. To simply look away from arguements and science is to propogate ignorance.

Please distinguish faith from religion. A set of personal beliefs do not have, under normal circumstances, social and ethical implications. They do have moral implicaytions, but as morals are about personal actions this is to be expected. To insist that logical argument and science can and should justify all is as much a faith as the belief in God is.
Niccoli Medici was not proposing that a society should be run on religious grounds and this justified on the basis that one should have faith. He was simply saying that for those that do have faith this is, in and of itself sufficient. If it is not then it is not faith.

I think the essential probalem with the Principle of Sufficient Reason is that it contradicts itself. The principle ststes that everything has a cause independent of itself: why should God be an exception to that principle?

Technically God exists necessarily. He is not his own cause, but he has to exist prior to anything else. I know this is unclear, but so is the thinking behind it. Gods existence is caused by logic!

Please distinguish faith from religion. A set of personal beliefs do not have, under normal circumstances, social and ethical implications. They do have moral implicaytions, but as morals are about personal actions this is to be expected. To insist that logical argument and science can and should justify all is as much a faith as the belief in God is.
Niccoli Medici was not proposing that a society should be run on religious grounds and this justified on the basis that one should have faith. He was simply saying that for those that do have faith this is, in and of itself sufficient. If it is not then it is not faith.

Nor was I saying that Medici was proposing a society that should be run on religious grounds. What i was merely responding to was the clause that those who have faith this is, in and of itself sufficient. I dont believe that to be a legitimate justification of religious belief whatsoever.

I have to disagree with you here. Faith is in no way a legitimate reason for justification of a set of beliefs that have social and moral implications. To simply look away from arguements and science is to propogate ignorance.

Remember, I specifically said to look at science and logic and agree with it, but hold on to one's faith nonetheless.

Its the absolutism of faith. Everything that is attributed to natural or scientific causes can be trumped by "Oh, my god did that." From Gravity to love, quantum mechanics to chemical reactions; there is nothing that cannot be trumped by the old "My God did that" answer. It may seem shaky to you, but in terms of faith, its perfectly sound.

God set down the laws of nature, god could break them if he wanted...right now he doesn't choose to. Science is law unless a supernatural force steps in. Gods are a flexible response that do not have to DENY to be AFFIRMED. That's the core of my argument.

However, faith and dogma are two different things. Faith can trump any logic, dogma can be challenged. Therin lies the problems we sometimes see. When one codifies their beliefs and disbeliefs in writing, they impose limits on their worldview. If dogma, scripture, laws form from the religious faith, then my argument can be difficult to pursue.

FAITH and SCRIPTURE are different. Faith can be molded to fit a situation.

Let's take a really silly example; In star trek, Time travel is seen for the first time in the first Star Trek series. Now, any time travel before that by a federation starship goes against series canon, right?

In Enterprise (the series that I believe got cancelled) time travel occurs...in much the same way as it does in Star Trek. The problem is, the series "Enterprise" takes place 100 years before Star Trek supposedly does.

Now, geeks can go one of two ways with this situation, use their faith to look at the logic of the situation and accept that somehow, someway, what the Enterprise did was within Canon (finding some rational explination for why the Star Trek cast believed they were the first)

...Or they can deny that the Enterprise series is canon, can find reasons to say that the Enterprise didn't ACTUALLY travel through time, it was all a dream, etc. Its FAITH or SCRIPTURE.

See?

I'm not big on this kind of discussion in general, but I'm curious to see what are the responses to this specific question.

I've never understood why faith is not enough for some people in matters of religion. If you are religious, your faith should be able to look all manner of argument and sciences full on and say "That's nice, but I still believe in my faith."

I've always thought that faith was a trump card. You cannot trump faith with evidence to the contrary, faith literally conquers all in a debate. Faith is lost and gained only within a person, not from external factors, right?

But some people just need to be RIGHT. They need to belive that they believe something that can be backed up. They do not want faith, they want to be right. That's why so many spend so much time trying to "justify their faith"

I honestly wish they could learn that faith is pretty much its own justification. If you have faith, you don't need to be "right", you have all the faith in your beliefs already that would supposedly come from being "right" already.

Oh well, perhaps that why I don't like to participate in such discussions.

Faith is not something that should be used as a trump card. I have faith that my car will start and its true that I require no evidence to support that, but if I were to walk out and try to start my car but it won't turn over then I won't use faith as a trump card, I will lose my faith right then and there. If I continue to believe my car will start I am not religious I am stupid. Also faith is not an entirely internal thing it is made from past experiences, in the past my car started which is why I have faith it will do so again. Faith is not its own justification. It must be backed up by evidence or it turns from faith to stupidity. In John 4:24 it says "God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth." It is not enough to have faith, it must be backed up by fact.