Resolved: The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument is Sound

Pointing out the fallacies in my opponent's arguments: Regarding Premise 1: An Overview of Modality The deterministic model pretty much shows everything is necessary. Determinism is a philosophy stating that for everything that happens there are conditions such that, given them, nothing else could happen. This would in essence, make everything necessary and nothing contingent. [1] The Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) The deterministic model applies to this as well. "God is also a necessary being, a being that logically could not have failed to exist. It is in the very nature of God that he essentially possess all compossible perfections" The above is a bare assertion. That which can be asserted without evidence and reasoning, can be dismissed without evidence and reasoning. Regarding Premise 2 "the necessary being cannot provide a natural explanation for [the universe], for we know of no natural,non-contingent causes and laws or principles from which the existence of the universe follows. What is required is a personal explanation in terms of the intentional acts of some eternal supernatural being. " the necessary being cannot provide a natural explanation for [the universe], for we know of no natural,non-contingent causes and laws or principles from which the existence of the universe follows. God of the Gaps fallacy. Just because you don't have an natural explanation for something at a certain point in time, doesn't mean you can just claim "That means God must have did it". What is required is a personal explanation in terms of the intentional acts of some eternal supernatural being This is a bare assertion fallacy. This is no reason why the cause has to be an eternal supernatural being, there are explantions involving a "cause" of the universe (M-Theory) that don't involve a supernatural being. The claim that a supernatural being is required is baseless. Arguments against The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument being sound: If one of the premises of the The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument is shown to be most likely false and surely fallacious, then the whole argument crumbles as an argument for the existence of God. I'm going to defend three contentions in this debate. 1. The The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument is fallacious 2. There are reasons to believe at least one of the Premises is not true, and these reasons are stronger than the reasons for why it is true. 3. The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument is fallacious, most likely false, and can be dismissed. The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument is fallacious: What I'm going to do is address each premise to see if they are sound and logically follow. "P1: Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause. " Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence This does seem logical enough based off current knowledge, so I will accept it. . .. either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause This is where I have a problem, there is no evidence that the explanation of a thing existing can be an external cause, because objects exist due to the necessity of their atoms. A cause isn't a term you can logically use to describe why an object exists, you can only use it to describe a situation involving a change in form, or a rearrangement of things that pre-exist. If someone asked "whatwas the cause of the plastic cup's existence? ", the lazy everyday answer would of course be"somebody caused it to exist ". The error in scientific logic, is believing that multiple things being rearranged somehow equates to a single new thing being added to exisence. Their was noadditional mass added to the universe due to the creation, no atoms coming into existence due to the creation ect. .. .Basically, nothing actually began to exist that didn't already exist within the universe in some form or another due to something being created. Now, if someone asked "what was the cause of the plastic cup's existence? ", the nitty gritty scientific answer would be "the plastic cup has no cause for it's existence, it exists due to the necessity of it's atoms". "P2: If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God. " The reason this premise is fallacious is because it just made the entire argument a non-sequitur. Even if I were to grant you Premise 1, that explanation of God does not logically follow. Also, the explanation of the universe could be in the necessity of it's own nature according to Premise 1, so simply stating that God is the cause would be committing the bare assertion fallacy [2]. "P3: The universe is a existing thing. " Sure, no arguments there. "P4: Therefore the explanation of the universe is God. " The problem with the conclusion, is that it can only be logical if it followed step by step from the premeses. Now, even if I didn't refute Premise 1, Premise 2 would still be a non-sequitor [2] and a bare assertion fallacy [2]. However, because I did refute Premise 1 and 2 I have clearly demonstrated that the argument is fallacious. Additonal noticed fallacies:The fallacy of compositionClaiming that because everything within the universe require causes, then the universe as a whole must require a cause is committing the fallacy of composition. [2] The equivocation fallacy Using the word "cause" to descibe both re-arrangments of material and the beginning of the exisence of a material is commiting the eqvivocation fallacy. [2] There are reasons to believe at least one of the Premises is not true, and these reasons are stronger than the reasons for why it is true:M-TheoryP1: When there are two opposing theories attempting to describe a hypothetical cause, the one which can adequately describe the "how" is more likey true that the one which can only assert the "what" or "who". P2: M-Theory describes the "how", God only asserts the "what" or "who". P3: Based on all available knowledge, if the universe needs a cause, M-Theory is most likely true. Also, Saying that a cause can be the explantion to the existence of something that didn't already exist prior in some form is most likely false for two reasons: 1) All examples of causes are either a force that acts on pre-existing things, or a rearrangement of pre-existing things. 2) Causes don't bring things into existence. Example 1: If there was an asteroid coming to Earth and someone asked "what is the cause of the asteroid being pulled into earth? ", the answer would be "Gravity". Therefore in this case, a cause is a force which acts on pre-existing things, it didn't bring anything new into existence. Example 2: If someone asked me "what caused the cup? ", they would be using the word "cup" to describe a peticular assembly of pre-existing things (plastic for example), not some new "stuff" being added to existence. Even the plastic didn't begin to exist, it was made of pre-existing monomers that pre-existed before the oil it was made from and so on and so forth. Once more, the "cup" (which is only a specific assembly of pre-existing materials) exists due to the necessity of it's atoms in all scientific reality. The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument is fallacious, most likely false, and can be dismissed: Since one or more of the premises of the The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument was shown to be most likely false and surely fallacious, then the whole argument crumbles. Conclusion: I said I was going to defend three contentions in this debate: 1. The The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument is fallacious 2. There are reasons to believe at least one of the Premises is not true, and these reasons are stronger than the reasons it is true. 3. The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument is fallacious, most likely false, and can be dismissed. I believe I have fufilled my burden. The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument is not sound. Sources:[1] . http://www.informationphilosopher.com...;[2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] . http://en.wikipedia.org...;.