What is the principle of sufficient reason?

Answer

The principle of sufficient reason is closely linked to cosmological arguments for the existence of God. Its name can be somewhat misleading. In this context, reason is used to denote either an “explanation” or a “cause,” and these two interpretations lead to significantly different conclusions. The principle of sufficient reason can be broadly defined as “every fact, entity, or event has a satisfactory explanation for its truth, existence, or occurrence.” In simpler terms, it asserts that “everything happens for a reason.”

Within general philosophy, the principle of sufficient reason provides ample material for debate. Ongoing discussions revolve around how to ascertain the adequacy of an explanation and whether certain facts must be accepted without supporting evidence. Additionally, the principle serves as a maxim to promote logical thinking by discouraging “just because” responses. As with many profound concepts, the interpretation of the principle of sufficient reason hinges on the definitions of its terms and the underlying worldview principles at play.

Regarding its application to God, the principle of sufficient reason is intricately connected to cosmological arguments. In this context, the precise definition of reason becomes particularly crucial. If the axiom is phrased as “everything has a cause,” it gives rise to a logical paradox. However, stating it as “everything has an explanation” resolves this issue.

Linking the principle of sufficient reason to causality—asserting that “everything that exists has a cause”—results in a logical paradox. This formulation implies an endless chain of causality. There can be no definitive “beginning” since each step in the sequence necessitates its own cause. This scenario is not only physically implausible but also logically untenable: a truly infinite past cannot exist. If the time between points A and B is measurable or traversable, they are not “infinitely” distant, indicating the absence of an infinitely distant point in the past.

Until recently, you may not have considered the concept of “the principle of sufficient reason.”

In essence, logic necessitates an uncaused origin for existence and causality. The assertion that “everything has a cause” cannot be universally true. This is where the kalam cosmological argument becomes relevant. Logic requires the existence of something uncaused and eternal to serve as the cause of all other things. It is evident that the universe itself does not fulfill this role. Just as a group of black bricks cannot transform into a white wall, a collection of effects cannot amalgamate to form an uncaused cause. If we uphold the principle of sufficient reason as “everything has a cause,” then it becomes untenable.

Rephrasing the principle of sufficient reason as “everything has an explanation” avoids this pitfall. In most cases, cause and reason can be used interchangeably without issue. However, when addressing the logically necessary “First Cause,” an “explanation” is required. This explanation posits the existence of something—whether a single entity or One Being—that inherently and inevitably exists and gives rise to all other things. God’s existence is self-contained; this does not imply self-causation but rather uncaused existence.

This concept is mirrored in God’s revelation to Moses, where He identifies Himself as “I Am” «And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. », (Exodus 3:14). God’s existence simply “is” and is necessary. God is the sole entity that must exist and has existed eternally. The principle of sufficient reason, when articulated correctly, aligns with this assertion. When articulated incorrectly, the principle of sufficient reason contradicts itself and goes against biblical teachings.