The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument is Sound

I appreciate Magicr for allowing me to debate this topic with him. In this debate I will be using a type of Modal logic. The purpose of logic is to characterize the difference between valid and invalid arguments. Pro must take the task of making sure that the premises are sound. http://plato.stanford.edu... Formulation 1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or an external cause (Principle of Sufficient Reason).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). The founder of this argument, Gottfried Leibniz once said, "why is there something rather than nothing." Arguments such as these are the most basic fundamental question known to man, "Why do we exist." The final conclusion Leibniz had was that God is the conclusion. http://io9.com... In this debate I must show the premises in the argument are true and that therefore makes the conclusion also true. Unless Con wishes, I see no need to show that the universe actually does exist, we exist and so on, hopefully this premise can be conceded. Therefore, premise two is true. What I need to show is the universe needs a explanation for its existence and the best explanation for that existence is God. Premise one is supported by the Principle of sufficient Reason. Principle of sufficient Reason(PSR) The PSR is a principle that everything must have a reason for coming into existence. http://plato.stanford.edu... "There can be found no fact that is true or existent, or any true proposition..without there being a sufficient reason for its being so and not otherwise, although we cannot know these reasons in most cases." -Leibniz If Con says the PSR is false that leaves us with no explanation for the universe. Even if Con says the PSR is true we still have no explanation for the universe and that only leaves us with the explanation of God. We cannot just stop and say there is no explanation for the universe or why it got where it is. It is in our nature to look for explanations. When we look at nature we see all things have explanations for their existence. If we just avioded that and said it all just appears or happens, then science becomes useless. It does not seem rational to say things like the big bang theory are false or that things do not need explanations for their existence. It makes since that if we see everything in nature needing causes, then the universe should also need a cause. If one rejects the explanation simply because they do not like it, with no explanation at all, then that does not seem rational either. We should accept the PSR as true until Con shows us otherwise. Contingency To be Contingent is to be dependent on what may happen. To be dependent on some other event or circumstance, maybe unknown. There are two types of things: i) things that just exist necessarily and ii) things which exist contingently. Things which exist necessarily exist by a necessity of their own nature. Things like numbers and other mathematicals exist in this way. On the other side, contingent things are caused to exist because something else has produced them. The choice we are left with is either something caused the universe(as we see happens with everything else) or the universe has always existed. We know of no contingent things that are infinite and the universe would be the exception to the rule. For this assumes that the universe is all there is and without it, there would be nothing. With a finite age of the universe it seems most likely that a cause outside the universe, created the universe. So, premise 1 is more plausibly true than false.http://www.reasonablefaith.org... The real question is, Is the universe finite or infinite? Finite universe I need to establish the universe as finite because if it isn't then it needs no explanation or cause. I propose that the Big-Bang signals a beginning for the universe. It appears the universe is about 43 billion light years accross. Astronomers have viewed the universe as infinite in all directions, but recent studies of the cosmic background radiation suggest that it's finite, but unbounded, the way the surface of a sphere is finite, but has no edge. http://www.kschroeder.com... Scientists believe that a collapse of our universe is unavoidable. All things that have a beginning have a end and like so, all things that end had a beginning. With whatever senario you partake the conclusion is satisfied by scientist that we have a finite universe. If our universe will collapse, then it is contingent. Therefore, we have good reason to think it began and there is a reason for it. In the case of contingent affairs, there is either an explanation for why that state of affairs obtains or else an explanation of why no explanation is needed. http://www.universetoday.com... The cause The sufficient reason for the universe cannot be an individual thing, nor a collection of things, nor in earlier states of the universe, even if these regress infinitely. Therefore, there must exist an being which is metaphysically necessary in its existence. It is the sufficient reason for its own existence as well as for the existence of every contingent thing. Natural first causes cannot create themselves because it is confined by the laws of physics. http://www.leaderu.com... The first cause would have to be some external cause, an external cause of all physical reality, and there are only two sorts of things we know of that could fit requirement: abstract objects (like numbers) and unembodied minds. But abstract objects can’t cause anything. So the only viable candidate for a nonphysical cause seems to be a unembodied mind. Thus we’re left with a transcendent personal cause of the universe. The possiblility that there is a transcendent personal cause of the physical universe would make atheism much less plausible. All things considered then, "If God does not exist, then the universe has no explanation of its existence" seems very likely true, which thus gives us very strong grounds for accepting premise 3. http://www.maverick-christian.org... Conclusion i. I established PSR ii. The universe exist iii. The universe's explanation is God and it is the most plausible. iv. Confirmed from iii v. The premises are true and the conclusion follows. The argument is not that God must exist but the idea of natural non-contingent causes are more confounding. God can logically explain the universe, time, and matter because God posseses the qualities transcending beyond the physical. The conclusion isn’t that God exist but there must be transcendent personnel cause of the physical universe makes any other explanation less likely. It does not matter if we do not like the conclusion, the argument if presented right is sound and Con must show it as not sound. If Con fails in showing one of the premises as unsound, then I win. I believe theism or Deism gives a more reasonable explanation for the universe, atheism does not.