MIG's Tournament Round 2: The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument

I have not had the opportunity to pick apart arguments from incredulity in such detail. I think that arguments from incredulity appear in debate far more often than acknowledged. Perhaps the analysis in this debate will therefore be generally useful. Errors in all arguments from incredulity An "argument from incredulity" is an alleged proof that poses the answer to a question as one of a limited number of alternatives and then dismisses all the alternatives listed as impossible. The alternatives are dismissed based solely upon the proponent's opinion that the alternatives are impossible. One classic argument for the existence of God is to invoke the argument from incredulity by saying, "Either God created everything we see or it happened by chance. I cannot believe it happened by chance, so God as I conceive of Him must exist. " The error in this basic argument is well established. The two possibilities offered are not the only two possibilities, and the proof depends upon the proponents belief as to what is possible. In this debate, my opponent has tried to revive the classic argument from incredulity by narrowing the scope to the existence of the universe. He wrong gives only two alternatives for the existence of the universe, then claims proof based upon his belief that God is the only one he can conceive. Errors in setting up the LCAIn recasting the scope of the argument, he introduces two additional problems. First, he must establish that "the universe has an explanation. " That's explicitly required in Premise 2. Pro never establishes that. What must be established is that the existence of the universe must have an explanation that humans can understand. Modern physics now abounds with things that we only claim to understand through rough analogies: light acts both as a wave and as a particle. We don't understand what it really is in the way that we understand what ordinary objects are. Perhaps we cannot explain the existence of the universe in any meaningful way; we may be able to write the equations but be unable to form a meaningful analogy to everyday experience. Pro's second problem in recasting the argument from incredulity is to establish a meaningful definition of the "personal god" claimed to be proved. Pro starts out by eluding to something akin to the Christian God, but he then disclaims that allusion and admits that the "personal god" at issue could be neither omnipotent, omniscient, or good and might in fact have no interest whatsoever in humanity. All that's needed, according to Pro, is that the being will the creation of the universe. Then I ask why the creation would have to be an act of will, and not just a reflexive property. Plants do not turn to the sun as an act of will, they do so because it is their nature. So the hypothesized "personal god" that is far removed from the Christian God, might have no intelligence and no will. At that point the "personal god" is indistinguishable from a law of nature. A magnet attracts iron with no act of will, but solely of it's nature. So might the universe have been created. Failure to list all alternativesPro has failed to prove the necessary premises for the LCA, but the LCA itself has two irreparable errors; the two that plague every argument from incredulity. Pro must establish that all the alternatives have been listed. Pro says that the existence of the universe was either caused or uncaused. By caused, he only includes "caused by an external agent. " Pro carves a necessary exemption for the proposed personal god that is allowed to be uncaused basically by Pro's definition of a god. The excluded alternatives are that the universe always existed or that the universe caused itself to exist. The visible universe came into existence about 14.3 billion years ago, but current theory is that the visible universe is a part of a multiverse wherein Big Bang events occur ever trillion years or so. The mulitiverse may have eleven or more spatial dimensions and possibly two time dimensions. This puts concepts for "always" and for "causation" up for grabs. We do not understand what all the possibilities are, let alone which is correct. Dependence on Pro's judgement of plausibilityThe second inherent error in arguments from incredulity is that they depend upon what the proponent finds incredible. In the case of the existence of the universe, Stephen Hawking, perhaps the foremost of modern cosmologists, believes that the universe created itself. I certainly don't know if Hawking is correct. All that matters with respect to this debate is that Pro's concept of what is plausible is not shared by people equipped to know better. Pro's claim that everything is caused is based upon experience with the visible universe. Even within the bounds of the visible universe, quantum fluctuations and vacuum energy appear to be things that pop into existence. Again, scientists find the possibility plausible, even though Pro does not. In any case, extending generalities derived from the visible universe to a larger multiverse is clearly unwarranted. Pro's concept of what is plausible is poorly derived and not shared. The existence of God is not at issue in this debate, only the LCA as proof. Pro so narrowed the definition of God that even it were proved, the proof would be of very little religious interest. Pro's "god" does nothing that a physical law could not accomplish. Religion is built upon faith, not upon bogus logical deductions of gods that have no relevance to mankind. The Debate Pro has forfeited the previous round. This is a conduct violation. It also leaves my arguments unanswered, which I claim loses the arguments. I make no claim about whether God exists or not. The LCA is rank with errors in setting up the argument and in the proof itself. It does not prove the existence of a personal god. The resolution is negated.