Objection · Case 09 · Atheism
The principle of sufficient reason leads to modal collapse: if God’s choice to create this world has an explanation, he couldn’t have chosen otherwise, so everything is necessary. Doesn’t van Inwagen’s argument show the principle undermines itself?
One objection from the free evidence repository at apologetics.pro.
Response
Van Inwagen’s objection is a serious one. The standard reply, from Alexander Pruss and Joshua Rasmussen, is to weaken the principle: not everything needs an explanation, but every contingent fact does, and a free choice can be explained by the agent’s reasons without being necessitated by them. Whether a restricted principle avoids collapse while still supporting the argument is exactly the technical debate. The argument’s strength depends on how much weight the principle can carry, and that is the honest summary of where it stands.
About this exhibit
This objection is to Gottfried Leibniz and the argument from contingency.
One common form of the argument. Whatever exists has an explanation, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause. The universe exists. A collection of contingent things cannot…
Under Claim 02: Things that could have failed to exist cannot explain themselves, so reality rests on a necessary, self-existent being.