The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument Is Sound

I will be considering each premise one-by-one. To present an outline of my argument, here are the LCA premises my opponent uses: 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. Premise 1To begin taking down this premise, not everything requires an inherent cause to its existence. Quantum fluctuations are an example of this. During this, a particle and antiparticle exist for a very short time (even shorter than Planck time), and then annihilate with a great release of energy. Because the time of the fluctuation's existence is even shorter than Planck time, it does not technically violate any physical laws because of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. At this, we arrive at a very remarkable conclusion that the quantum vacuum is the source of all potentiality. [1]This theory isn't as far-fetched as it seems. For example, protons and neutrons, two classes of baryons, particles consisting of three quarks, have a lot of unaccounted-for volume because the mass of those three quarks only adds up to about 1% of the apparent weight of a proton or neutron. "Theory says it is created by the force that binds quarks together, called the strong nuclear force. .. The energy of these vacuum fluctuations has to be included in the total mass of the proton and neutron. .. For now, Dürr's calculation shows that QCD describes quark-based particles accurately, and tells us that most of our mass comes from virtual quarks and gluons fizzing away in the quantum vacuum. "[2]Now that we understand quantum fluctuations and the inherent potentiality in a quantum vacuum, now let's see how this applies to the universe's creation itself. Because space itself was created as the universe expanded, at the instant of creation, there was a singularity - a "point" of infinite density and temperature that held everything the universe now contains, including matter and energy. Because it is an infinite, it is physically impossible to observe, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist (I'll get to more on that later). The black hole is the modern analog to this: "A black hole is a place in space where gravity pulls so much that even light can not escape. The gravity is so strong because matter has been squeezed into a tiny space. " What prevents us from seeing inside is the "event horizon", or the point in space where the space becomes black. This solves two problems - because the force can even pull light in, one time stops, and two, observation is prevented. So essentially, there was no time before the singularity (more on that later as well). [3]Inside this black hole, quantum fluctuations from energy, which was a net zero (matter is positive energy while that huge gravitational force was negative energy, both of which made the total energy sum to zero), created the universe. The original time constraints are not there anymore because the total energy summed to zero: "[T]he laws of physics place no limit on the scale of vacuum fluctuations. The duration is of course subject to the restriction ΔEΔt = h, but this merely implies that our Universe has zero energy, which has already been made plausible. " The first universe epoch was the Planck era - unfortunately, we do not know much about it, but we do think this: "The Universe expands from the moment of the Big Bang, but until the Universe reaches the size of the Planck scale, there is no time or space. Time remains undefined, space is compactified. String theory maintains that the Universe had 10 dimensions during the Planck era, which collapses into 4 at the end of the Planck era (think of those extra 6 dimensions as being very, very small hyperspheres inbetween the space between elementary particles, 4 big dimensions and 6 little tiny ones). "[4][1] I won't go into much more detail (besides the two quotes below) because I think it's understood that the universe could be created without a cause, because although the Planck time marks the beginning of the universe, the convoluted nature of spacetime in this early phase, with numerous singularities and overlapping event horizons, makes it impossible for matter, photons, or even causality to exist. Matter arises at the end of the spacetime foam epoch as the result of strings, or loops in spacetime. The transformation is from ripping spacetime foam into black holes, which then transmute into elementary particles:"In general relativity, space-time can be empty of matter or radiation and still contain energy stored in its curvature. Uncaused, random quantum fluctuations in a flat, empty, featureless space-time can produce local regions with positive or negative curvature. This is called the "space-time foam" and the regions are called "bubbles of false vacuum. " Wherever the curvature is positive a bubble of false vacuum will, according to Einstein's equations, exponentially inflate. In 10^-42 seconds the bubble will expand to the size of a proton and the energy within will be sufficient to produce all the mass of the universe. The bubbles start out with no matter, radiation, or force fields and maximum entropy. They contain energy in their curvature, and so are a "false vacuum. " As they expand, the energy within increases exponentially. This does not violate energy conservation since the false vacuum has a negative pressure (believe me, this is all follows from the equations that Einstein wrote down in 1916) so the expanding bubble does work on itself. As the bubble universe expands, a kind of friction occurs in which energy is converted into particles. The temperature then drops and a series of spontaneous symmetry breaking processes occurs, as in a magnet cooled below the Curie point and a essentially random structure of the particles and forces appears. Inflation stops and we move into the more familiar big bang. The forces and particles that appear are more-or-less random, governed only by symmetry principles (like the conservation principles of energy and momentum) that are also not the product of design but exactly what one has in the absence of design. "[5]To sum the contents of this extremely complicated argument down: "The fact that the Universe exists should not be a surprise in the context of what we know about quantum physics. The uncertainty and unpredictability of the quantum world is manifested in the fact that whatever can happen, does happen (this is often called the principle of totalitarianism, that if a quantum mechanical process is not strictly forbidden, then it must occur). .. The same principles were probably in effect at the time of the Big Bang (although we can not test this hypothesis within our current framework of physics). But as such, the fluctuations in the quantum vacuum effectively guarantee that the Universe would come into existence. "[1]Premise 2Unless I want to use semantics on the meaning of "exists", I can't really refute this premise. The universe does exist. Premise 3Going back to the singularity mentioned earlier, if there was no time before the big bang itself, that implies that there couldn't have been anything that caused it. Without there being a time before the big bang, the notion of a cause is null. The main point I'm trying to make is that even assuming premise 1 is valid, premise is not. I'm not sure how my opponent wants to define "God", but using the common definition of a single, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent man above the universe, I contend that this is not necessary. My main objection here is why we should accept the idea of an intelligent creator instead of things like a ekpyrotic universe, retro-casuality or simultaneous generation. DDO user Magic8000 has this to say about pro's call for God: "Pro tries to prove the cause was God. However, he doesn’t do a good job in doing so. He never proved the cause is a sentient cause. Pro himself says the cause only must be something like God. The LCA [sic] we’re arguing is for a sentient creator. Pro has not fulfilled his burden of proof. "[6]Finally, going back to the impossibility of seeing the singularity in the event horizon, here is an argument against an omniscient, omnipotent God: P1: The God-concept designates an omniscient and omnipresent – all-observing – being (i. e. its knowledge effectively observes all phenomena). P2: Observation collapses quantum superpositions. P3: An all-observing being would automatically collapse all quantum superpositions. (from 2)P4: We observe that not all quantum superpositions are collapsed. C: Therefore, God cannot exist. (from 1, 3 and 4)God can't exist because of the nature of quantum mechanics. Sources[1]: . http://abyss.uoregon.edu...[2]: . http://www.newscientist.com...[3]: . http://www.nasa.gov...[4]: Tryon, Edward P. 1973. "Is the universe a vacuum fluctuation? " Nature 246: 396-397. [5]: . http://www.colorado.edu...[6]: . http://www.debate.org...