made a similar point to proponents of the Documentary Hypothesis, ..
It is difficult to say exactly why Leibniz denied inter-substantialcausation. Some of the things he tells us, in both private and publicwritings, seem unsatisfactory. For example,in Primary Truths (1686?), we are given this:
Theory of Knowledge » The Argument from Deception
The dialectic of the First Meditation features a confrontation betweenparticularism and methodism, with methodism emerging the victor. Forexample, the meditator (while voicing empiricist sensibilities) putsforward, as candidates for the foundations of Knowledge, such primafacie obvious claims as “that I am here, sitting by the fire,wearing a winter dressing-gown, holding this piece of paper in my hands,and so on” — particular matters “about whichdoubt is quite impossible,” or so it would seem (AT 7:18). Inresponse (and at each level of the dialectic), Descartes invokes his ownmethodical principles to show that the prima facie obviousness ofsuch particular claims is insufficient to meet the burden of proof.
example: Husband to ex-wife: Well, if you want to be completely fair about dividing everything up, you should get one of my testicles and I should get one of your breasts!
Religion's "God hypothesis" is intended to explain ..
A social organism of any sort whatever, large or small, is what it is because eachmember proceeds to his own duty with a trust that the other members will simultaneously dotheirs. Wherever a desired result is achieved by the co-operation of many independentpersons, its existence as a fact is a pure consequence of the precursive faith in oneanother of those immediately concerned. A government, an army, a commercial system, aship, a college, an athletic team, all exist on this condition, without which not only isnothing achieved, but nothing is even attempted. A whole train of passengers (individuallybrave enough) will be looted by a few highwaymen, simply because the latter can count onone another, while each passenger fears that if he makes a movement of resistance, he willbe shot before any one else backs him up. If we believed that the whole car-full wouldrise at once with us, we should each severally rise, and train-robbing would never even beattempted. There are, then, cases where a fact cannot come at all unless a preliminaryfaith exists in its coming. ,that would be an insane logic which should say that faith running ahead of scientificevidence is the lowest kind of immorality into which a thinking being canfall. Yet such is the logic by which our scientific absolutists pretend to regulate ourlives!
The deceptive God | Thought Leader
If we can the premises, show that they are to believe, we will give rational support to the conclusion. (Of course, on a Bayesian model, the levels of uncertainty in each premise multiply to make a more uncertain conclusion, but if you think you can know something without having credence 1 then this is going to happen with known premises too.) I’ve hinted at ways we might do this for one particular assignment (x = the empty tomb; o = the life and example of Jesus; p = we ought to love our enemies). On the view of faith I have (or, for that matter, on ), if we can give a similar defense for some other relevant substitutions (rather stronger than my example), this ought to be a sufficient basis for rational faith.
That indicates to me that you not only believe in a deceptive god, ..
Noah's own account of his ancestry and event leading up tothe Mabbul were recorded by him (Toledoth Noah) and appended tothe writings of Adam. (NOTE: The fact that throughout the toledothdocuments there are 'catch phrases' which end one and begin thenext shows that they were made into a connected series step-by-stepas they were composed by the patriarchs through the centuries.)