Resolved: The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument is Sound

I apologize if my arguments weren't formulated in the most organized manner, and will try to do better this time. Regardless, there are still huge flaws in my opponent's reasoning. My founded assertion of the Fallacy of Composition and M-theory are all I believe I need to win this debate (unless they go logically refuted of course). Also my opponent claims that The LBA is an argument for why god exists if he does (whatever that means) and not an argument for the existence of God. This is false (cosmological arguments are inferring a God). "The cosmological argument is an argument for the existence of a First Cause (or instead, an Uncaused cause) to the universe, and by extension is often used as an argument for the existence of an "unconditioned" or "supreme" being, usually then identified as God." [1] Premise 1 Pro made some good points regarding my "existing due to the necessity of it's atoms" claim and my bare assertion of determinism (which I apologize for), however this is in no way harmful to the overall point regarding Premise 1 which needs to be made clear. The overview of modality and The Principle of Sufficient Reason could very well be true...It would still only be known to apply to parts of the universe, to assume they must apply to the universe as a whole once more, is committing the fallacy of composition (which my opponent didn't even address). "It is in the nature of God that he is a perfect being, for if he were not then he would not be God." I'm shocked at how fallacious this argument is, you can't define properties into existence without reasoning. What reasoning is there to believe God is perfect besides some random property applied to him? This would be like arguing: P1: The girl down the street likes me P2: If the girl down the street didn't like me, then she wouldn't be the girl down the street Of course we can chuck out this argument. "My evidence for God existing comes from the inability of an infinite series of contingent beings to explain their own existence, and the logical requirement of a necessary being serving as the first cause" Being, Why? You have just asserted "God" without any reasoning. My whole point is if I were to grant you an external cause of the universe, what reasoning could you offer me that it has to be a conscious being instead of a “something”, or a force? This reasoning has not been provided by pro and was just asserted. You cannot logically jump from "external cause" to "conscious being" without reasoning. Regardless of what my opponent says, it's a non sequitur. Re-cap 1) If I were to grant The overview of modality and The Principle of Sufficient Reason, it would only be for the parts of the universe, not the whole. Therefore is a fallacy of composition. 2) Pro asserts a being when a force may be more reasonable. Premise 2 Now my opponent tries to argue against a material first cause, however I'm not arguing for a first cause (or even one that have to be made for material). I’m not even saying there is a cause, I’m just saying that even if we granted it, it would not logically follow to a conscious being. If someone wants to ask "what caused the cause" that's a different debate, I will only defend the proposition that if our universe had a cause, it was more likely due to what is explained by Physics than God. "Consider this, a completely material cause is the first cause. This cause, known as N1, or the first natural cause, sparked the creation of the entire universe." Straw man. Who said anything about a first cause? It's very possible that what ever caused the universe (if anything) wasn't the very first cause. "an infinite number of contingent beings cannot explain their own existence" Why beings? I'm confused to my opponent's reasoning why he invokes beings and not non intelligent things or forces which is most likely the case? Also infinity may not be able to exist in our version of time, but maybe another. "natural beings require space to exist within and are temporal" Either my opponent is willfully ignorant or intellectually dishonest, because this is inferring supernatural beings without reasoning or evidence. "Also by definition, natural beings are composed of matter. How can that which is composed of matter also account for the creation of matter" Actually, M-Theory rejects the idea of a singularity as many cosmologists do. Matter didn’t begin to exist at The Big Bang under this model, also the membranes are composed of energy. Basically, premise two is completely baseless for one reason: If you granted a timeless, spaceless, all powerful cause of the universe (which I don’t, but for the sake of argument) this still wouldn’t indicate God. God is defined as an intelligence, a conscious being, who is capable of rational thought and empathy, however there could be a timeless, spaceless, all powerful field of energy which exists due to it’s own nature which can convert it’s energy to different types of universes outside of time, and therefore would not be bound to the problem of an actual infinity within time. Now, I don’t believe this to be true, I’m simply illustrating that my opponent has done nothing to present a case for anything conscious or thinking (which is what God is defined as). Now I’m going to provide a quote to briefly describe M-Theory,I don’t quite fully understand it but that is beside the point. “Proposed is a modification of gravity in M-Theory that couldsuccessfully combine relativity and quantum mechanics by means of amembrane (brane) theory of gravity. The force of gravity would be produced bythe curvature of our brane by the vibrations of individual strings ofmatter in the three gravity dimensions of M-Theory. Gravity’s weaknesswould be due to the size of our membrane relative to the Planck lengthof an individual string...This theory allows for a direct methodof energy transfer from membrane collision to individual virtual stringspresent within the brane at the instant of the collision. This explains thecreation of our universe without a singularity while keeping physics intactthroughout the big splash.” [2] Now, M-Theory explains how everything in the universe came to be, it explains dark energy, gravity, matter, the whole show. It leaked from another dimension because of two membranes colliding, and this is backed up by perfect mathematics, and scientific logic based on evidence. There may be no testable predictions yet, but it certainly is the "lesser of two evils" when choosing a logical cause (if one is required) of the universe. Logic behind the three premised argument for M-Theory over God For example, when the police find a murder suspect, the “who” obviously is the basis. However, if there is no “how” or involved then there is no conviction of the suspect. Regardless, even if the “how” is known and the “who” isn’t, we still know exactly what type of murder took place. “Why” doesn’t help us understand as much about a situation as the “how”. Also, people used to think Zeus willed lightning bolts into existence, now we know the complex science explaining them. People still think God willed the universe into existence....I may be as wrong as anybody else could, but I believe I have made a reasonable case for M-Theory. In closing I apologize if this debate is sloppy on my behalf, however all I need to do is show that two hurdles stand for my opponent. Unless my opponent can: 1.Show that the principle of cause and effect comes from something other than parts within the universe, to avoid the possibility that Premise 1 of the The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument is guilty of the Fallacy of Composition. 2. Demonstrate that a God explanation provides a better understanding as to how matter, energy, gravity ect. Got into our universe than M-Theory (because the “how” must be established by the theist’s side).Then I believe I fulfilled my burden. Sources [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.branebrain.com...