MIG's Tournament Round 2: The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument

The Definition of GodMy opponent seems to object to my definition of God. I clearly stated in Round 1 that while my citation of A.W. Pink provides a preliminary understanding of God's attributes and that I believe those attributes to necessarily follow from the truth of the LCA, the LCA itself (the argument I am defending) only seeks to prove the existence of God as a personal, necessary first cause. I clarified this yet again in the second round. If I prove the existence of a personal, necessary first cause, I win the debate. Even if there was ambiguity in the definition of God, which there isn't, Roy is fully aware that this is my 6th time defending the LCA. In the 5 previous debates my definition of God has been consistent with the definition used in this debate. It's as simple as that.Roy asks for the attributes of such a God. As God is personal, he has a mind. As he is necessary, he could not have failed to exist. As he is the first cause, he is the cause of all contingent beings.Premise 1An Overview of ModalityThis is Roy's "3b. Induction."Roy essentially claims that I prove that the universe is contingent by utilizing the fallacy of composition. It is important to note that the fallacy of composition is an informal fallacy. Indeed, while the fallacy of composition may adequately refute some lines of reasoning, there must be an explanation as to why that reasoning is fallacious. For example, to claim that a wall made entirely of bricks is a brick wall is not in the least bit fallacious, although the conclusion was deduced through the same logic that would be refuted under the fallacy of composition. To reject the conclusion would be absurd and thus the refutation must be rejected in this case. In the same way, the universe's contingency may be explained through composition. Indeed, if the universe developed in a far different manner, would the nature of the universe's existence not have changed? If the nature of a being's existence may change, then we may conclude that it does not exist necessarily as necessary existence is derived from the nature of the being. We may also derive that the universe exists contingently without relying on composition. Let's look back at my overview of modality. Everything exists either contingently or by necessity of it's own nature. To have necessary existence, it must be logically impossible for that being not to have existed. It is not absurd to claim that the universe itself may not have existed. That proposition is perfectly valid. It is possible indeed that the universe as we know it may not have existed at all.The Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR)First, let's address his argument reference Einstein. The beliefs that Einstein proved wrong are just that, beliefs. The PSR is, quite to the contrary, a metaphysical law. Allow me to elaborate: What happens if we negate the belief that there is no upper limit to the speed at which objects can travel? We simply affirm an alternative belief that maintains the quality of being plausible. The same may be said when discussing the curvature of space. Now, let's look at what happens when we negate the PSR. Let's suppose that things happened without cause. Well this would justify a giant marshmellow the size of our galaxy simply "popping" into existence as it floats around space. Nothing caused it, it just happened. In fact, under this world view, there would be no reason why giant marshmellows don't pop into existence right now. This alternative is simply absurd and not plausible.Roy tries to dance around this by talking about "uncaused" quantum fluctuations. However, Roy concedes that the cause of quantum fluctuations are the quantum fields, but questions whether or not we can explain where, when, or what appeared. Indeed, science cannot provide us answers to these questions, but modality does not need to answer any of them, and by proxy neither does the LCA. What we need to know is why they appeared. They appeared because of the presence of quantum fields. Even if we cannot explain within the current limits of science how quantum fields cause these fluctuations, that does not deny our knowledge that they do in fact have a causal relation.Premise 2It seems that now we ought to discuss Hawking's theory. There are two vital flaws here. First, the justification is that there are laws such as gravity that could some how cause the universe to create itself from nothing. I would say that there are two problems here. A) Roy has yet to refute the PSR. He cannot assert that something may be created from nothing while neglecting a metaphysical law that contradicts such a statement. Ex nihilo nihil fit. B) In order for gravity to function, there must be some existing natural entity for gravity to interact with. Thus, thus universe could not have come into existence from nothing by means of gravity.Second, Hawking concedes that the cause of the universe is spontaneous creation. Now, let's again look at the PSR. Ex nihilo nihil fit, from nothing comes nothing. To say that the universe is created, one implies that something caused it. Indeed, this argument bites into my example of N1 and P1 which has gone unrefuted. The cause of the universe cannot be natural for it gives into logical incoherencies that have not been refuted by my opponent. I can assure you that Roy is going to argue that my focus on the word creation is just a semantic ploy in the next round. However, I would like to remind readers that this argument fits in quite well with modality. For something to be created, or being to exist, or any other alternative that denies the eternal state of the object, it must exist contingently. There must be a reason that it exists rather than not. In order for Roy to argue that the universe is uncaused, he must first diffuse my arguments that it exists contingently and then prove that it exists necessarily.Roy continues with the ontological argument. The ontological argument says God is a necessary being, thus God exists. The LCA says that the universe must have been created by a necessary being and the only necessary being that is logically coherent is God, thus God exists. You see, I have not defined God into existence as the ontological argument attempts to do, but I have eliminated all alternative options to God, and thus he must be the answer. But Roy already knows this, that's why he says we should reject all answers. However, this concedes to unnecessary skepticism.1. All possible explanations for the universe are included in the set: X, Y, Z.2. X and Y do not explain the universe.3. Thus, Z must be the explanation of the universe.It would be another story if X, Y, and Z did not include all possible explanations, but the fact that they do shows that by eliminating alternatives we find the indisputable explanation of the universe.Premise 3Equivocation occurs when one uses a word multiple times with different meanings. In premise 1 I talk about every existing thing. In premise 2 I mention the universe, which is an existing thing. In premise 3 I state that the universe is an existing thing. I don't see the problem. But wait, Roy wants to force equivocation. Let's discuss his argument. He wants to alter the definition of the universe as I have used it to include the multiverse and therefore define the universe as "all that exists." I see what the problem is! I do not define the universe as a set, but as a being. You see, his concept of the universe is an idea that contains all of reality. The LCA defines the universe as a being that exists within reality. Just as an infinitely large box may contain all other existing objects, the box is still an existing object and therefore still part of reality.The premise could not be restated as "Existence is like any other object." We are not talking about the idea of existence, but the reality of an existing being.ConclusionIf Burt is a personal, necessary first cause, then by the LCA's definition, he is God.