Leibniz’s rebuttal of Clarke consists, likewise, in four key points. Firstly (1) That space and time do not bear priority over physical bodies (2) To characterise space as the sensorium of God violates God’s dignity (3) Clarke’s view violates the Principle of Sufficient reason and (4) Clarke’s view violates the Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles.
In opposition to the first element of Clarke’s account, without physical bodies there would be no space, and without occurrences there would be no time. Leibnizan space and time is a relative notion. Leibnizian space and time is therefore contingent on the existence of physical bodies and of occurrences. Space and time is not logically or metaphysically superior to occurrences and physical bodies. Leibniz claims that without physical bodies situated in…show more content… The Principle of Sufficient Reason though dating back to antiquity can be attributed in its modern formalisation to Leibniz. Leibniz explained this principle states everything must have a sufficient reason or cause. In effect, there must be some cause for God’s creation. If God had created the world without reason, it would undermine God’s infinity: “A mere will without any motive, is a fiction, not only contrary to God's perfection, but also chimerical and contradictory” (4th letter, paragraph 2). Consequently, if space and time were absolute as claimed by Clarke, there would be no sufficient reason for God to design the world in any particular, specific way or at a particular point in time. Creating the world in any way, location in space, or location in time, would be sufficient. Given though that the world has a design, that the earth and planets orbit in a specific orientation, it is clear that there must have been a sufficient reason leading to this. The notion of space and time as absolute violates God’s dignity in this respect