Leibniz’s account of contingency changes the approach we have towards the analytic theory truth. He devises a method to distinguish the role of both necessity and contingency in truth conditions. In Necessary and Contingent Truths, Leibniz draws inspiration from mathematics to examine the dichotomy between the finite demonstrability of necessary truths and the infinite demonstrability of contingent truths. Consequently, Leibniz denies the Principle of Analytic Demonstrability by which a proposition is analytic if it is demonstrable. This is because both contingent and necessary truths are analytic but the former cannot be demonstrated while the latter can in virtue of the theory of infinite analysis. The truth of contingent propositions can be expounded by the vision of the mind of God only, while necessary assertions are always proven true regardless of the case. The sense to which Leibniz ascribes to contingency is the denial of a contradiction if the opposite case turns out to be true but this overlooks the possibility that it could have been otherwise. Thus, the argument seems to be drawing a restriction to the meaning of contingency. In addition to this, Leibniz supports the claim that all necessary truths are demonstrable within a finite series of steps. He does not allow for infinite non-recurring decimal numbers such as pie to be necessary truths because of the infinite step-process involved in the demonstration. The essay will also emphasize the function of Leibniz’s account in the possible world context. It will finally evaluate the extent to which contingent truths can be adequately distinguished from necessity.
The analysis of infinite series in mathematical propositions is Leibniz’s source of inspiration for the acc...
... middle of paper ...
...lanation for contingency. Why should not we conclude that some necessary truths are demonstrable and others are not? This new approach to this question would avoid making the distinction between necessity and contingency. The objections raised against Leibniz’s argument draw attention to infinite non-recurring decimals and approximations like pi or √2 (square root of 2), in order to show that not all finite propositions are necessary, but that some necessary truths also rely on infinite proof. The second objection to this view concerns the notion of possible worlds. A possible world can also exist on its own, not just in relation to the decrees of God. If necessary truths are valid in many different contexts, contingency allows different worlds to exist independent of God’s will. To conclude, no satisfactory account was given for the notion of contingency.
Coherence is an essential part of the theist’s belief structure. The individual arguments when joined collectively hold just that, coherence. While individually they do not point to evidence together they do. This coherence forms a basis of truth, supporting each other in their claim and not contradicting them. In this manner they establish truth where facts are lacking. If we examine independently the arguments presented by McCloskey they too lack adequacy to establish the nonexistence of God.
The intricacy of a simple time telling device has sparked controversy about the creation of the universe. In William Paley’s “The Analogical Teleological Argument” he argues that the universe must have been created by a universe maker, God, due to its complexity. However, David Hume, provides an empiricist objection by arguing that one cannot prove the existence of a universe maker due to lack of experience regarding the creation of a universe. Ultimately, I will argue that Paley’s argument by design is not sufficient for proving God 's existence because, as individuals, we cannot assume that the world works the way we wish it.
This forms Leibniz’s proof for the existence of God; a version of Aquinas’s cosmological arguments. God, then, is the necessary being which constitutes the explanation of contingent being, why the universe is this way rather than any other. Not only is God the explanation of the baseball scenario but he is also the source of the intelligibility of such concepts as bat, swing and pitch. Leibniz goes further to prove the omniscience of God. If God is the explanation of the intelligibility of the universe, then God must have ‘access’ to that intelligibility, such that God could be said to know what it is that being allowed to exist---that is, God must have the ability to grasp complete concepts. Not only does God constitute the contingent baseball game but he also knows what will take place before it happens. The pitch, swing and hit all take place not because God creates them but because he allows them. There is only one constraint on what God allows to happen, it must not violate Leibniz’s other basic principle---non-contradiction. God could not allow it to happen that the batter hit the ball and the pitcher got a strike. God chooses the universe that is most perfect, therefore the hitter hitting the ball out of he park was the most perfect of all possibilities.
...Contingency Argument that whether a contingent series of causes is infinite or not, that fact is now irrelevant because as long as the series as a whole is thought to be contingent the existence of God can still be proven. So the Contingency Argument looks something like this.
St. Thomas Aquinas presents five arguments to demonstrate the existence of God. However, this paper focuses on the fifth argument. The fifth argument is regarded as the Teleological Argument and states that things that lack intelligence act for some end or purpose. While the fifth argument satisfies God’s existence for Aquinas, some contemporary readers would argue that Aquinas neglects the laws of physics. Others argue that Aquinas allows a loophole in his argument so that the Catholic conception of God is not the only intelligent designer.
In the critique of pure reason, Kant states, “All alternations occur in accordance with the law of the connection of cause and effect.”1 This statement is interpreted in two different ways: weak readings and strong readings. Weaker readings basically suggest that Kant's statement only refers to “All events have a cause”; however, the strong readings suggest that “the Second Analogy is committed not just to causes, but to causal laws as well.”2 To understand the difference between the readings, it is helpful to notice Kant's distinction between empirical laws of nature and universal transcendental principles. Empirical laws have an empirical element that universal transcendental principles cannot imply. On the other hand, empirical experiences require necessity to become a law, accordingly, “the transcendental laws “ground” the empirical laws by supplying them with their necessity.”3In this paper, according to this distinction, I first, argue that the second analogy supports the weak reading, second, show how in Prolegomena he uses the concept of causation in a way that is compatible to the strong reading, and third, investigate whether this incongruity is solvable.
Once Descartes has realized that he can know with certainty that “I exist” is true, he continues to build on his foundation of truths. The truth about the nature of God, proof of God’s existence, and the nature of corporeal objects are considered, among others, after Descartes proves his existence. Descartes’ principal task in the Meditations was to devise a system that would bring him to the truth. He wanted to build a foundation from which all further philosophical inquiry could be built. It was essential that his beliefs were sound. If any one of them were at all in doubt, then it put the credibility of the whole structure of knowledge in jeopardy. I will discuss a few of the topics Descartes analyzes after his epiphany of existence. Throughout the essay, I will raise some doubts that I have pertaining to Descartes’ conclusions as well.
In the second meditation of Descartes, he continues his topic about doubt and certainty. And he doubts that nothing is certain and wanted to use the Archimedes’s methods – “Demand just one firm and immovable point in order to shift the entire earth.” (Descartes, p394) - to make something certain. And the starting point is to find at least one thing that he can assure is “certain and unshakeable” (Descartes, p354).
In Descartes’ second meditation, he offers up an argument for Defective Nature Doubt that brings forth the idea that we can’t be certain of anything we perceive being actual and real (153). Descartes thinks that there is a possibility that we are constantly being deceived due to the fact that we don’t know, with perfect certainty, know where our ideas originate from (154). He tries to describe a method in order to dispel this Defective Nature Doubt by giving an argument for the existence of God. I think that the argument he gives for the existence of God is valid, yet I find it to be unsound due to the fact that a few of his premises are can easily be debated. In order to express this opinion, I will first provide explanations of the premises and conclusions of the argument, and then I will critique the premises that I find to be inadequate in order to support my opinion that Descartes’ argument is valid but unsound.
In this paper I intend to analyze logically this proposition, trying to focus the question of contradiction.
of Gods existence. The factors that go into their views on reason will be compared and accented within this essay. The order of the universe is knowable to Descartes. He proves these by
In Aquinas Selections from, “Summa Theologica” he wants us to understand that the nature of the universe is infinite. He talks about how there are different meaning to words that can be used to describe things. In the Selections from Summa Theologica it says, “whose power is to signify his meaning, not by words only (as man also can do), but also by things themselves.” Aquinas is trying to explain that the universe offers us multiple ways on putting meanings to words. I understood that the universe allows us to have different words that can have different meanings to them.
ABSTRACT: The Third Way is the most interesting and insightful of Aquinas' five arguments for the existence of God, even though it is invalid and has some false premises. With the help of a somewhat weak modal logic, however, the Third Way can be transformed into a argument which is certainly valid and plausibly sound. Much of what Aquinas asserted in the Third Way is possibly true even if it is not actually true. Instead of assuming, for example, that things which are contingent fail to exist at some time, we need only assume that contingent things possibly fail to exist at some time. Likewise, we can replace the assumption that if all things fail to exist at some time then there is a time when nothing exists, with the corresponding assumption that if all things possibly fail to exist at some time then possibly there is a time when nothing exists. These and other similar replacements suffice to produce a cogent cosmological argument.
In his epistemological quest for truth, through thought experiment, Descartes’ Meditations offers the reader a method of doubt that could be used in order to discover what is absolutely certain, and free oneself from the errors caused by misjudgments. Descartes’ purpose is to find indubitable truth. He makes used of the method of hyperbolic doubt in order to establish an absolute and convincing foundation of truth. He discovers that sense experience can be put to doubt, but Descartes cannot doubt that he actually doubts. Furthermore, he fears deception about everything. However, he cannot be deceived about his own existence since to be deceived, one must first exist. “I think, therefore I am”. I...
Immanuel Kant’s (1724-1804) Critique of Pure Reason is held universally as a watershed regarding epistemology and metaphysics. There have been anticipations regarding the notion of the analytic especially in Hume. The specific terms analytic and synthetic were first introduced by Kant at the beginning of his Critique of Pure Reason book. The mistake that metaphysicians made was viewing mathematical judgments as being “analytic”. Kant came up with a description for analytic judgments as one that is merely elucidatory, that is, what is implicit is transformed into explicit. Kant’s examples utilize the judgments of subjects or rather predicates, for instance the square has four sides. The predicates content is always already accounted for in