Principle of Sufficient Reason and the Universe

[PumpkinCookie]

Does the principle of sufficient reason apply to the universe as a whole, defined as “everything that is, taken as a whole?” A concise formulation of the principle, for those who are unfamiliar is:

For every entity X, if X exists, then there is a sufficient explanation for why X exists.

Another way to think of this is to consider that one can ask the question “why” or “how” about basically anything. Imagine a young child constantly questioning his or her parents about every little thing. “Why is the sky blue, daddy?” “Why do you comb your hair, mommy?” The fundamental impetus behind these questions is an intuition of the principle of sufficient reason, in my opinion. It is the motivation of science, philosophy, and pushes us forth to all wisdom, if I may be a little dramatic.

Anyway, is “the universe as a whole” such an entity? If so, is God the best explanation for the fundamental existence of the universe, or is there a better explanation?

Many atheists I’ve read or spoken with seem to assert the universe is a “brute fact” or, “something that cannot be explained and needs no explanation.” To believe that there are such things as “brute facts” is to deny the principle of sufficient reason. However, I’m not sure that the denial of this principle is warranted. Is it truly illegitimate and pointless to ask “why does the universe exist, mommy?” Can we deny the principle of sufficient reason and still make sense of…anything at all?

Some atheists escape this problem by saying that the principle applies to everything in the universe, but not the “universe itself” because we have no reason to suppose it does. All the elements within a set sharing the same quality does not necessitate that the set itself has that quality. For instance, if we’re talking about the set of “animals” it doesn’t mean that the set itself has the quality and characteristics of an animal. However, this does not seem to be conclusive proof that “the universe” is in fact like one of these sets. Just because we have no reason to suppose the principle applies to the universe as a whole doesn’t mean it definitely doesn’t.

Other atheists point out the hypocrisy of believers by showing that we assert the existence of God as a “brute fact” and escape scrutiny by appealing to “faith.” Indeed, if a person asks “why does God exist?” or “where did God come from?” believers tend to say “he always has been” or “from himself” or “for himself.” We appeal to self-reference, which seems to me a kind of “brute fact.”

Why is it any less legitimate to do the same for the “universe as a whole” in that case? Why shouldn’t we appeal to a self-referential explanation of the universe rather than a transcendent God?

disclaimer: I believe in God, but most of my associates do not. I don’t have a solid answer to this objection

 

[catholictiger]

The principle of sufficient reason says that EVERYTHING must have a reason for it’s existence either in itself or in another.

I think the universe has its sufficient reason in something else. Many atheists will, many times unknowingly, say that the universe has it’s own reason for it’s existence.

What you can’t fall into is getting into an argument about God’s sufficient reason, they will try to walk you into a who created God trap, which is easy to get out of but many people don’t know how, and some atheists think you can’t get out of it. Try to focus on how can it be possible for the universe to exist without a sufficient reason outside of itself. They must argue that the universe is infinite because if it isn’t than it must have a reason for it’s existence.

 

[Rhubarb]

I can think of a few things to say thus far.

I think an answer to your question depends on one’s understanding of what counts as an object. (Or entity) There are legitimate arguments that composite objects do not exist except as a set of their parts. Under this view, “the universe” isn’t an object that one can make existential claims about, but a collection of entities. I think this argument fails, though, because an account of of the existence of everything in the universe amounts to an account of the existence of the universe.

I also think that using Sufficient Reason isn’t a real stumbling block for atheists. What counts as a sufficient reason can be widely debated.

 

[Oreoracle]

Firstly, I want to say I have misgivings with your formulation of the principle since existence is not the sort of thing explanations are used for anyway, at least not in science.

For example, let’s say a chemist prepares a solution by mixing two chemicals. In a manner of speaking, we can use chemistry to explain the existence of the resultant solution. But such an explanation would only account for how the chemicals could combine so as to produce the solution. The explanation would not account for the brute fact of the existence of those initial chemicals, nor does science attempt to do such a thing.

In other words, science is about interactions, not objects popping into existence. Any appearance of an object popping into existence is just a quirk of our use of language, e.g., an adult pops into existence simply when a child has existed for 18 years, and the child popped into existence after developing as a fetus, which popped into existence when an egg and sperm cell interacted in a certain fashion.

Another way to think of this is to consider that one can ask the question “why” or “how” about basically anything. Imagine a young child constantly questioning his or her parents about every little thing. “Why is the sky blue, daddy?” “Why do you comb your hair, mommy?” The fundamental impetus behind these questions is an intuition of the principle of sufficient reason, in my opinion. It is the motivation of science, philosophy, and pushes us forth to all wisdom, if I may be a little dramatic.

Let’s say we take for granted that everything is explicable. I don’t find this axiom especially intuitive, honestly. But it’s just one of those things you “might as well” do. If something can’t be explained, it was all hopeless to begin with, right? So you might as well try to explain as much as you can to increase your understanding as much as you can. If it turns out that there’s a barrier beyond which nothing else can be explained, then we didn’t really lose anything by putting forth the effort, right?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Firstly, I want to say I have misgivings with your formulation of the principle since existence is not the sort of thing explanations are used for anyway, at least not in science.

For example, let’s say a chemist prepares a solution by mixing two chemicals. In a manner of speaking, we can use chemistry to explain the existence of the resultant solution. But such an explanation would only account for how the chemicals could combine so as to produce the solution. The explanation would not account for the brute fact of the existence of those initial chemicals, nor does science attempt to do such a thing.

In other words, science is about interactions, not objects popping into existence. Any appearance of an object popping into existence is just a quirk of our use of language, e.g., an adult pops into existence simply when a child has existed for 18 years, and the child popped into existence after developing as a fetus, which popped into existence when an egg and sperm cell interacted in a certain fashion.

Let’s say we take for granted that everything is explicable. I don’t find this axiom especially intuitive, honestly. But it’s just one of those things you “might as well” do. If something can’t be explained, it was all hopeless to begin with, right? So you might as well try to explain as much as you can to increase your understanding as much as you can. If it turns out that there’s a barrier beyond which nothing else can be explained, then we didn’t really lose anything by putting forth the effort, right?

Sure, we don’t have to formulate the “PSR” using existence, it could be anything e.g, “For every event X, if X happens, there is a sufficient explanation for why X has happened.”

I don’t think the existence of chemicals is a “brute fact.” I seem to remember something about heavier elements being the result of extreme forces inside of collapsing stars, etc. There are explanations for why the universe isn’t just all electrons, or all hydrogen. Right, I agree that words are not objects and agree with the example you gave.

OK, why don’t you find the axiom “everything is explicable” to be intuitive? How can some things be explicable but others not, and how can we tell if we’re dealing with something that can’t be explained or doesn’t need an explanation?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Secondary issue

I do think that if the PSR is reflective of reality or true, it suggests the existence of a self-existent necessary being (God). BUT, I think it also implies absolute determinism. Any notion of free will is impossible if the PSR is true. But, if the PSR isn’t true, why do we ask questions, and how do we make sense of anything? Is asking questions just childish silliness, or insanity?

 

[Oreoracle]

Sure, we don’t have to formulate the “PSR” using existence, it could be anything e.g, “For every event X, if X happens, there is a sufficient explanation for why X has happened.”

Okay, so let’s apply this to your question about the origins of the universe. How do we know that the universe “happened”? Perhaps it always existed in some form. Perhaps it is metaphysically necessary. The jury is still out on those questions–physicists are still divided on the former, metaphysicians on the latter.

This will sound similar to the concerns you raised in the OP, but I’m not really sure what it would mean for something to “happen” outside the universe. Again, in science, happenings are interactions between observable things, which are things in the universe. So not only is it an open question as to whether or not the universe happened, I would say it’s a possibly meaningless question.

I don’t think the existence of chemicals is a “brute fact.”

The matter, the energy, the materials, etc., are a brute fact. Whatever you wish to call them. All science does is explain how the materials interact. Indeed, creationists often lament that science doesn’t explain where the matter/energy in the singularity of the Big Bang Theory came from, and they are correct.

OK, why don’t you find the axiom “everything is explicable” to be intuitive? How can some things be explicable but others not, and how can we tell if we’re dealing with something that can’t be explained or doesn’t need an explanation?

An axiom is something we are willing to take for granted, presumably because it is obvious. I can’t really explain why I don’t find it obvious anymore than you can explain why you do find it obvious. If you could explain why it’s obvious, it wouldn’t be an axiom.

I would say I deal with mysteries much as a doctor would deal with a dying patient. When a patient’s heart stops, the doctor doesn’t ponder whether this patient is the sort that can be resuscitated, he just does his best to resuscitate the patient. If he fails, he has lost nothing. If he succeeds, he saved a patient. Likewise, if I fail to explain something that is inexplicable, I’ve lost nothing. If I do explain something, my understanding increases.

So I think it’s perfectly rational to attempt to explain the world, regardless of whether one believes everything is explicable or not. Nothing is lost by making the attempt.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

There are several problems here. The first one is the concept of “explanation”. An explanation is simply a reduction of something that is complicated into something else, that is simpler. Such a process cannot be infinite, eventually we arrive at some principles which do not need “explanation”, and cannot be reduced into something even more fundamental.

In the abstract sciences these are called axioms, in the inductive sciences these are called basic principles. As such these axioms or principles form the foundation of everything “above” them. They are by definition “brute facts”. For theists the fundamental foundation of everything is “God”. For the atheists it is the “universe”.

For a theist it is a nonsensical question: “why does God exist”? For the atheists it is a nonsensical question: “why does the universe exist”?

Sometimes the question is presented: “why is there something rather than nothing”? Totally nonsensical question. “Nothing” is not an ontological entity, it is an abstraction, a concept. “Nothing” does not and cannot exist in the same sense as an ontological object (say a chair) can exist.

Conclusion. The PSR is not universal. There are brute facts, which do not need explanation. And these are not just the axioms or basic principles. Just for the fun of it, let’s ponder a few more such brute facts. Observe that the virtual size of the Moon and the Sun are the same, when looking at them from the Earth. This is the reason for the occurrence of the solar eclipse. If the Moon would just a little bit smaller, or a little bit further, there would be no solar eclipses. But there is no reason that the size of the Moon and its distance from the Earth should be exactly what it is (by the way the distance happens to be varying).

Or let’s look at the speed of light in vacuum. It is one of the fundamental constants of the Universe. There is no reason why the value should be exactly what it is. Another brute fact. All the observed constants are of this nature. The Avogadro number is 6.022 * 10[sup]23[/sup]. Just another brute fact…

So this whole PSR must be discarded as an irrelevant and useless method to try to “carve” out a “Lebensraum” for God. Better to stick with good, old “faith” - which is a theological virtue. As the Protestants say: “Jesus said it, I believe it, that is the end of it”. To which the Catholics answer: “The church said it, I believe it, that is end of it”. And we all live happily ever after.

 

[Bradski]

Anyway, is “the universe as a whole” such an entity? If so, is God the best explanation for the fundamental existence of the universe, or is there a better explanation?

I think we could start with that question if it read" ‘If so, is a god the best explanation…’

There is a world of discussion right there. Assuming, for arguments sake that that the answer was in the affirmative, then anyone who has a claim on it being their god can chip in.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

I think we could start with that question if it read" ‘If so, is a god the best explanation…’

There is a world of discussion right there. Assuming, for arguments sake that that the answer was in the affirmative, then anyone who has a claim on it being their god can chip in.

Fair point. According to the general agreement among those famous philosophers who hold that the PSR is true: God is a singular self-extant transcendant necessary being. This precludes polytheist or pantheist/panentheist gods. It is late in the usa right now, will get back tomorrow.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Another way to think of this is to consider that one can ask the question “why” or “how” about basically anything… is “the universe as a whole” such an entity? If so, is God the best explanation for the fundamental existence of the universe, or is there a better explanation?

Many atheists I’ve read or spoken with seem to assert the universe is a “brute fact” or, “something that cannot be explained and needs no explanation.” To believe that there are such things as “brute facts” is to deny the principle of sufficient reason. However, I’m not sure that the denial of this principle is warranted. Is it truly illegitimate and pointless to ask “why does the universe exist, mommy?” Can we deny the principle of sufficient reason and still make sense of…anything at all?

There are 2 major ideas here:

1. Is “Why do contingent things exist at all?” a coherent question that demands an answer?
2. Does God actually explain why our particular set of contingent things exist?

Each of those ideas has sub-parts
1a) It is logically possible (i.e. there is no contradiction) for nothing to exist.
1b) Assuming 1a: without some sort of cause or reason, the default state of affairs is for nothing to exist.

2a) Any and all contingent things are dependent on God at all times.
2b) Without God, there is no explanation for contingent things, and therefore they should not exist.

I think there are 2 major problems here. Specifically these:

1. If you are going to a-priori your way to assertions about the nature of the universe (i.e. that its default state is to have nothing contingent (1b)) your assertions ultimately hinge on empirical evidence. Unfortunately, there isn’t any empirical evidence for 1b), and the a-priori defenses are weak at best. We can easily see the problem by imagining 1a) universe where nothing exists, and asking ourselves “why is there nothing instead of something?”
2. I’ve never seen any academic theists get published in a cosmology journal. If God actually provided an explanation for why the universe has the properties it does, theologists should essentially be waiting around for cosmologists to find evidence for things they already know. But that isn’t how things are going; God has only ever provided post-hoc explanations for what we know about the world. The best explanations offered by the God theory are: “See what the cosmologists have found? That’s exactly what God would have done.” That makes me suspect that God is not defined well enough; regardless of what the cosmologists find, someone’s definition of God could explain it.