Source:

Sämtliche schriften und briefe series II volume 1
Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften (ed)
pp 585-586


Date: January 1678

Translated from the Latin


View this translation in PDF format (10k)

Back to home page


Search texts by category:

METAPHYSICS
MIND, BODY AND SOUL
FREE WILL AND NECESSITY
SCIENCE
POLITICS, LAW AND ETHICS
THEOLOGY

LEIBNIZ: PROOF OF A NECESSARY BEING


[A II 1, p585]

     If a necessary being is possible, it actually exists.
     For let us suppose it does not exist - from that I shall argue like this:
     A necessary being does not exist, by the hypothesis.
     Whatever does not exist can possibly not exist.
     It is falsely said of whatever can possibly not exist that it cannot not-exist.
     Of whatever it is falsely said that it cannot not-exist, it is falsely said that it is necessary.
     For necessary is that which cannot not exist.
     Therefore it is falsely said that a necessary being is necessary.
     This conclusion is either true or false.
     If it is true, it follows that a necessary being implies contradiction, or is impossible, because contradictory things are demonstrated of it, namely that it is not necessary. For a contradictory conclusion can be shown only when a thing implies contradiction.

[A II 1, p586]

     If the conclusion is false, it is necessary that something is wrong with the premises. yet the hypothesis can only be false because of the premises, namely that a necessary being does not exist.
     Therefore we have concluded that a necessary being is either impossible or exists.
     Therefore if we define God as ens a se [being from itself], or as a being from whose essence existence follows, or as a necessary being, it follows that if God is possible he actually exists.

     It should be noted that a conclusion which implies contradiction can be true, namely if it is about an impossible thing. For example, a square circle is not a circle. This proposition is true, although it is contradictory, for it is proved from legitimate truths like this: a square is not a circle, a square circle is a square, therefore a square circle is not a circle.


© Lloyd Strickland 2006