MIG's Tournament Round 2: The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument

Arguments from Incredulity Does existence of the universe have an explanation? Pro argues that he cannot imagine it doesn't. Could the universe have always existed or have created itself? Pro argues he cannot imagine that either is true. If the universe was created through agency, must the agent have been a god? Pro cannot imagine otherwise. Pro's entire case is that he personally believes that any alternative to the universe being created by a “personal god” to be implausible. He dismisses the theory of cosmologist Stephen Hawking and hundred of the top scientists as “absurd.” Never mind that scientists are most qualified to judge what is possible in science. Pro doesn't even have to understand Hawking's theory to know it is too ridiculous to be considered. Pro tells us that if the X, Y, and Z are the only explanations for the existence of the universe and if he believes X plausible while finding Y and Z implausible, then X is proved. Pro's proof depends solely on Pro's concept of what is plausible. Pro can, of course, use the same method to prove anything not completely explained by science. He only has to personally rule out alternatives as implausible. Keep in mind that Pro has the burden of proof. I do not have to prove Hawking correct. In fact, I do not have to suppose that the human conceptual apparatus is capable of encompassing an explanation for all of existence. Pro presupposes than an explanation exists, and that it must be capable of being offered up for him to reject as implausible. Most of modern physics is explained by analogy. For example, we struggle with analogies to “explain” wave-particle duality. Perhaps the explanation for existence is beyond analogy. None of this poses a concern to Pro. Premise 1: Everything that exists has a cause Why is it that everything that exists has a cause? Only because Pro cannot believe otherwise. The reason Pro cannot believe otherwise is because he has not experienced any exception. However, modern physics is full of things that are now proved true, but which are completely outside of ordinary experience. I cited wave-particle duality and the speed of light being an absolute as things that are completely implausible based upon everyday experience. Pro answers, essentially, that once they are proved to be true they are no longer implausible. Things being created spontaneously having not so far been proved to Pro's satisfaction, he claims to be able to rule them implausible. I pointed to quantum fluctuation as an example of things coming into existence without cause. Pro claims that quantum fluctuations are a product of a pre-existing quantum field. No, quantum fluctuations are not explained by a quantum field any more than whales are explained by the ocean. Quantum fluctuations remain unexplained events of spontaneous existence. (One unproved theory, for example, is that time is actually two-dimensional with only one time dimension observed in our universe.) My entire point is that science finds uncaused events plausible, even though Pro does not. Perhaps quantum fluctuations the causes exist, but are hidden, but science does not rule out the possibility of their being uncaused. Similarly, one current theory of vacuum energy is that as the universe expands new vacuum is created and with the new vacuum new energy is created. http://en.wikipedia.org... The new energy is detectable by it's gravitational pull causing the universe to expand at an accelerating rate. Perhaps the theory of vacuum energy spontaneously popping into existence is wrong, but scientists have no problem finding it plausible. Pro repeats that if something exists it must be either contingent of necessary of it's own nature. The Hawking theory is the universe is necessary of it's own nature. Pro allows that the ill-defined personal god he offers has the property of existing of it's own nature, but he denies the universe itself could have that nature. There is every reason to prefer Hawking's conclusion over Pro's. Hawking believes in scientific explanations, Pro does not. Premise 2: if the universe has an explanation, the explanation is God Pro is yet to prove that the universe has an explanation. He must prove it does to use God as the explanation. Pro claimed to prove the existence of not just any god, but a “personal god.” He started out with a fairly clear definition of a “personal god” by quoting A.W. Pink's definition. Pink's definition implied omnipotence and miracles (“showing His instruments”), among other attributes. Pro said this is a preliminary definition. That implies that the full definition is similar and more detailed, but Pro changed the claim entirely. Now, it seems what Pro calls a god need not meet any accepted general definition of a personal god, but might be a law of nature. I suggested a being that was not omnipotent, not omniscient, and took no interest in humanity. Pro said that such a being would qualify as a “personal god.” Pro says that what makes the god “personal” is that the god wills creation of the universe. But why does a god with the power to create universes necessarily have to will it? It could be a necessary attribute of the god's nature, just as plants automatically turn to the light. We can further dumb down the “personal god” so that the god has no consciousness whatsoever, but still performs the creation function. At that point, there is nothing left but laws of nature. Pro argues I should have read his previous debates and somehow figured out what he was talking about. No, it's Pro's job to make his arguments. Premise 3: The universe is an existing thing The equivocation is that Pro imagines a list of things and observes that every one he considers has an explanation. The claim that the universe has an explanation requires that the universe be a type of thing like all the other things that he considered. I argue that it is not, that existence as whole is not like the individual things that Pro considers. Pro rebuts that since existence is not a concept, it must be a thing like all others. I'm not claiming existence to be a concept, I'm claiming it is a different type of thing. Let's first consider the visible universe. That is only the part within about 14.3 billion light years of the Big Bang and only comprises three spatial dimensions and one time dimension. Even within those bounds, things like quantum fluctuation and vacuum energy defy Pro's generality that all things are caused, but lets put that aside for the moment and suppose that all the things that anyone can identify in the visible universe have causes. Modern theories of physics embrace more dimensions, possible eleven spatial dimensions and two time dimensions. Perhaps there are other dimensions that are neither space nor time and of which we have no concept. The observable universe is a tiny part of the totality of existence. We don't know if any of such speculations are true, but we know that scientists do not find them implausible. The question is whether the totality of existence is in the same category of things as things in the observable universe from which the LCA has derived conclusions. Perhaps in the totality of existence, there are events and objects that are inconceivable to beings locked in the visible universe as we are. Pro cannot prove that they are same. Summary Pro's case flows from narrow religious belief. Hindus have no problem believing the universe existed forever. Buddhists have no trouble believing that the universe may have no explanation. Scientists will accept whatever is observed. Pro's assertions of plausibility are culturally dependent. The resolution fails.