Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!husc6!uwvax!topaz!ll-xn!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!brahms!gsmith
From: gsmith@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Gene Ward Smith)
Newsgroups: net.religion,talk.religion
Subject: Re: The Cosmological Argument
Message-ID: <15246@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Thu, 14-Aug-86 02:26:01 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.15246
Posted: Thu Aug 14 02:26:01 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 16-Aug-86 00:38:01 EDT
References: <15222@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <2938@columbia.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: gsmith@brahms.UUCP (Gene Ward Smith)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 20
Xref: linus net.religion:10403 talk.religion:4

In article <2938@columbia.UUCP> hoffman@cheshire.UUCP (Edward Hoffman) writes:
>In article <15222@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> gsmith@brahms.UUCP (Gene Ward Smith) writes:

>>  We know that something exists. Suppose we grant that things cannot
>>exist without a reason (Leibniz called this "the principle of sufficient
>>reason"). It then follows that there must be a reason why something exists.

>Well, I think this is where the argument collapses.  To state that things exist
>for a reason implies that there was an intent to put them there.  This impli-
>cation in and of itself assumes the existence of a god.  This existence, of 
>course, is then supposed to be "demonstrated" by the argument.  Thus, the
>argument is circular.

   Clearly the invocation of this "principle of sufficient reason" is one
of the weaknesses of the argument. I don't think it makes the argument 
circular. A reason means an answer to a "why" question, and the principal
asserts that "why" always has an answer. Intent is not stated or implied.

ucbvax!brahms!gsmith    Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
ucbvax!weyl!gsmith                  Institute of Pi Research