The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument Is Sound

The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument 1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or an external cause. 2. The universe exists. 3. If the universe does have an explanation for its existence, that explanation is God. 4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1 and 2). 5. Therefore, the explanation for the existence of the universe is God (from 3 and 4). God: an eternal, transcendent, metaphysically necessary personal entity, who is the greatest conceivable being possible. [1]The Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR): The principle of sufficient reason (PSR) is a principle saying that everything (of a certain class) has an reason/explanation. The PSR has a number of different forms, but I will use the one version of the PSR says that anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause. [1]Justification for Premise 1: Premise 1 is the form of the PSR that the argument uses. Things don’t just pop into existence on their own. That would be “magic”, and we all know that magic is just an illusion and not real. Physical reality doesn’t seem to be the sort of thing that exists necessarily. There doesn’t appear to be any physical part of physical reality that is metaphysically necessary (e.g. stars and planets are contingent and indeed at one point they failed to exist; there are also no molecules that couldn’t fail to exist.) If there is a possible world where no physical reality at all exists, then a fortiori there is a possible world where our own physical universe does not exist, in which case the explanation of the universe’s existence cannot lie in the necessity of its own nature because the universe does not have necessary existence. With option (1) being unreasonable, let’s consider explanatory option (2): the universe having an external cause of its existence. If we go the explanatory route of some external cause of the universe, an external cause of all physical reality would have to be nonphysical, and there are only two sorts of things we know of that could fit requirement: abstract objects (like numbers) and unembodied minds (e.g. God, if he exists). But, abstract objects can’t cause anything. So the only viable candidate for a nonphysical cause seems to be a personal cause. Among the pool of explanatory options considered (the universe existing by the necessity of its own nature, physical things causing the universe, abstract objects causing the universe, and a transcendent personal cause of the universe) a transcendent personal cause is by far the best explanation; indeed it is the only viable explanation among the entire pool. Thus we’re left with a transcendent personal cause of the universe if the universe has an explanation of its existence. Justification for Premise 2: Pretty self-explanatory, I mean we know the universe exist through our five senses. [1] [2]Justification for Premise 3: If God does not exist, then the Universe does not have an explanation of its existence. God who by definition is the greatest conceivable being possible, that means he must be transcendent, personal, and external. Therefore, he must be the only viable explanation as to why the Universe exists. With a physical external cause of the universe’s existence being impossible, the universe’s external cause would have to be ethereal and no less strange than God creating the universe. By far the best option for my opponent is to say that universe exists eternally, inexplicably, with no external cause of its existence. But, we know that it is false. Our universe had a beginning. The BGV theorem- says that if the universe is on average expanding along a given world-line, this world-line cannot be infinite to the past. This theory also implies the theorem that even if our universe is just a tiny part of a so-called “multiverse” composed of many universes, the multiverse must have an absolute beginning. Alexander Vilenkin, Professor of Physics explicitly says: “It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning” (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176)[3] Justification for 4+5: Pretty self-explanatory since it logically follows after the other premises that I listed. First Conclusion: We can safely and soundly say that the LCA is sound and proves that God’s existence must be necessary in order for the Universe to exist. My opponent must show which 3 premises are not true. Sources: [1]http://www.maverick-christian.org......... [2]http://www.reasonablefaith.org......... [3]Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176