Principle of Sufficient Reason - Does it Prove the Existence of God? DEBATE

Join George and John as they discuss and debate different philosophical ideas, in this video they will be looking into the Principle of Sufficient Reason. Everything in our universe has a reason for its existence, so is it fair to claim that the universe has a reason and that reason is God? Watch as this is explained and debated.

Check out the Philosophy Vibe paperback anthology, volume 1 "Philosophy of Religion" available on Amazon:

For further explanation and discussion on...

[PhilosophyVibe]

Check out the Philosophy Vibe paperback anthology, volume 1 "Philosophy of Religion" available on Amazon:

[TimPowerGamer]

Excellent video again! I'm a big fan of how these are formatted. I'm a bigger fan of how charitable the discussion is set-up. One of the big problems that I often see is that when philosophical disagreement occurs, any given side might want to state that what convinces them, personally, just is what's reasonable and that the other side has no valid (even prima facie) reason for believing what they do. Being able to have both sides state, "That seems reasonable" or "That's fair, I understand" is becoming progressively less common, so I greatly appreciate it in this script!

[jacobriley]

U guys have helped me through many a level tests thank you 🙏🏻

[Steve]

I think it's brilliant that you created a channel on philosophy that presents philosophical arguments using the Socratic method. It allows for the presentation of both sides of an argument using a philosophical tool in itself.

[ragnarokfps]

PSR leads you to necessitarianism. Why was that left out?

[smokiedapoo]

Great video! Highly recommend for anyone studying philosophy to watch their series!

[juandominguezmurray]

I would say fallacy of composition for the universe and special pleading fallacy for a god ... and no, we do not all accept the principle of sufficient reason, I do not, it makes no sense to postulate it as a principle. We just make some basic assumptions for the universe we live in, but those does not apply to the universe as a whole

[zakirnaikahmaddeedat]

Call it God = obedience to God
Call it brute fact = follow personal whims and desires, no objective morality.

[tanned]

Even there is sufficient reason to say the universe must have a 'creator' or better wording the cause(s) of its arising/manifestation, it doesn't necessarily mean such a cause need to have an anthropomorphic, supernatural conscious being/deity i.e., "God" behind such a process. If there is observable and plausibly rules of regularity that underlie the workings of things or phenomena in the universe, it would just be sufficient reason to stop at these impersonal rules and regularities which are behind it.

[airatoryt]

Necessary entities do have an explanation. It is that they have an explanation in their own nature

[davesadler]

Why should we presume "the universe" is a contingent thing? Presuming this has been a mistake humanity has been making throughout our history. It's a presumption that entails thinking of "the universe" as a finite dynamic thing. In my view, this involves a critical category error. We should think rather of "the universe" as the set of all things that physically exist, understanding that given its dynamic nature, and given how the principle of sufficient reason applies to all things that exist physically, this set is something that exists as an abstract thing rather than as a physical thing. In this sense, "the universe" is a conceptual construct. It cannot be a member of itself. It is not a physical thing that exists, but rather the collective set of all things that physically exist - that thing we refer to as "reality".

Alternately, why presume "God" is a necessary being? Is it reasonable that we presume that God is something real, rather than an abstract thing? We must be careful not to presume God is something real as a consequence of simply defining God as something real. In what sound sense could we ever establish that God is anything other than a narrative character and conceptual construct - an abstract thing in essence?

[augustodelerme]

If you accept the principle of sufficient reason we still would not know if the cause is a god or not, and to avoid the black & white fallacy we dont know if it is one cause or multiple causes and we still dont know those causes so Agnosticism is the best approach.

[friendsandfamily]

I love this channel. I hate the philosophy of existentialism as defined by Sartre. Sorry if I got angry about a reading you did of a fictional character.

I think there exists theories in the world that are "non falsifiable". In other words you can't prove that God does not exist, but the converse is also true. You can't prove that God exists.

That is where faith comes in. If we go back to the very annoying philosophy of solipsism, we can't even really be sure that anything exists outside our mind. But we can certainly hope that an external world exists, in fact we can even have faith that it does.

Faith is the evidence of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen. Many of us struggle with our faith, but if God does exist it looks obvious to me that he created a universe where faith is needed, and where science and reason which I love can only get you so far.

Well good luck and keep up the good work gentalmen. I love how this channel does not tell you what to think, but rather tells you about the major ideas but also tells you how they have been qiestioned.

[belindamendoza]

Not because the universe needs a cause doesn't mean we can just plug in whatever cause we think it is. This does not prove that god exist. It's like saying, there is a rainbow cereal in my bowl. I don't know who put it there. Oh, it must be the unicorn.

[zakirnaikahmaddeedat]

Empiricism scientism = infinite regression = oxymoron. Allaah is As-Shomad = the only one necessary being. Stop by Efdawah, Scdawah, thought adventure podcast, Mohammed Hijab, Subboor Ahmad, Sapience Institute, muslim metaphysician, muslim lantern, Abdullah Al Andalusi, muslim Skeptic youtube channels live streams and have friendly fruitful discussions insya Allah.

[elite]

This video keeps conflating the terms 'brute fact', 'necessary fact' and 'necessary being'. Here is the difference:

- A brute fact is a fact for which there is no explanation, not even an unknown one. It simply is and that's all that there is to it.

- A necessary fact is a fact that is necessarily true meaning that it cannot be any other way without contradiction. It is true in all possible worlds.

- A necessary being is a being that necessarily exists to ground all of contigent reality. Necessary beings by definition don't depend upon anything else, they explain their own existence.

Tldr: Necessary facts and necessary beings do have (self-contained) explanations whereas brute facts lack explanations entirely.

[HATSUCHl]

Your videos are always nice to listen to.

[robertferraro]

Why does our causation need to be a God? The creation of worlds would more likely be a technological achievement of an advanced civilization or some kind of mind-like entity that has nothing to do with a concept of divinity. It would be safer to say we have a causation or even a "creator" and not make the leap of it being "God".

[treeflamer]

The uncertainty principle exists because we’re dumb and don’t have the tools yet

[blackdynamite]

Y’all should do a video on the presuppositional argument aka TAG