The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument is Sound - 2

Thanks to Pro for the opportunity to discuss the clash between abstract reasoning from everyday experience with the seemingly impossible realities exposed by modern physics. The Principle of Sufficient Reason Pro summarized the KCA by quoting Reichenbach, "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." That's exactly how an argument from incredulity is constructed: We don't know of it, and cannot imagine it, therefore it cannot be." We have the direct statement of Hawking, a renowned cosmologist, that it can be imagined. Hawking says that in fact "the universe created itself." The mechanism by which the universe created itself is far outside our everyday experience, upon which Pro critically relies. It involves a space having ten physical dimensions and, in Hawking's formulation, two time dimensions. In case we missed it, Pro repeats the point in his summary: "Necessary, natural first causes are impossible due to their inability to create themselves as confined by the laws of physics." So we have Hawking, and virtually every physicist in the field of cosmology, saying that natural laws do in fact permit self-creation, while Pro and others who affirm the LCA claim they know way more about what natural law permits. Pro argues that "All evidence gathered by our sense perception seems to support the universal and undeniable affirmation of this principle." He calls upon incredulity. I do not understand why Pro thinks the negative argument is more powerful, or in fact any different from the positive argument. The negative argument is that if something does not happen, there must be a causal explanation as to why it does not happen. But if an event A can occur without explanation, then A not happening can also occur without explanation. How does Pro know that in every sequence of events there must be a first cause? I asked Pro directly in R2, and he responded by quoting Hawking, but we know Hawking believes the universe created itself. The whole LCA is based upon the necessity of god to escape the causal chain. Pro misunderstood Hawking, and I previously explained the nature of his misunderstanding. Pro correctly quotes Hawking as saying the universe has existed for a finite time. I quoted Hawking to that as well. Hawking says that our universe began with the Big Bang, however, "begins" in Hawking's concept only refers to one of the dimensions of time. In R3 I gave Hawking's analogy to how something can be finite but not have a beginning. The analogy was to the spherical earth. If a person did not know the earth was round, they might look at maps and conclude that everything has a boundary. A person might wax philosophical and argue that either the earth is infinite in extent or has boundaries. The philosophical flat earther could proceed to arguing that it couldn't be infinite, so it must, of logical necessity, have boundaries. Revealing that the earth is round resolves the problem by explaining why the choice was false. The earth is finite, yet the surface has no edges. Pro simply reasserts his premise that uncaused events cannot occur. He incorrectly claimed that my only argument was to cite quantum fluctuation. No, my argument began with the general observation was that physics has established as fact many things that seem impossible. It seems like a logic impossibility that an object cannot exceed the speed of light, but it turns out that the logic that argues it impossible is wrong. I noted that if new universes are spontaneously created every trillion years or in other dimensions, we wouldn't be aware of it. It is possible that quantum fluctuations have a hidden cause, but the important point is that scientists fully accept that they might be spontaneous. Thus the idea that uncaused events are logical impossible is false; we have an example in which events could be uncaused without creating any contradiction or inconsistency in our observation of the world. I also gave the example of new vacuum energy apparently being created spontaneously from truly “nothing,” not even a quantum field. Again, perhaps there is an unknown cause, but it is possible that there is not, and scientists accept that possibility. Pro argues that a pre-condition is assumed, even if not a cause. Preconditions occur in time, and if time is finite there is no place before time. How does the LCA claim to prove a personal god? Pro began by asserting the ontological argument, saying "It is in the very nature of God that he essentially possess all compossible perfections. Necessary existence is in itself a perfection, and thus God must possess it. That is to say that the very nature of God necessarily explains his existence." When I challenged the ontological argument, he backed off of that and asserted that the God being proved had no attribute other than being a fist cause. The LCA argues that since all the things we see are contingent, there must be one thing that is not contingent. The argument is that all natural laws are contingent, then there must be a god acting without contingency. I asked why the one non-contingent thing ought to be called a “god” or more particularly a “personal god.” The LCA can be construed to prove that there one non-contingent natural law. Pro's only response was repeating the argument from incredulity, that natural laws must have contingency. Scientists don't believe that, but putting that part of the argument aside, where did the “personal” part of the proof come from? Pro did not explain. The LCA is claimed to prove not just any god, but a personal god. I pointed out that the best the LCA could do is prove a god indistinguishable from a non-contingent natural law. Perhaps the answer is unknowable to usPro concedes that perhaps the answer to the creation of the universe is unknowable. Pro says, “Either the debate is unresolvable, or we treat it as a thought experiment and accept that answers are knowable - the purpose of a debate.” No, in a debate the instigator and proponent has the burden to prove the resolution is true. If it is impossible to prove true, then Pro loses the debate. In a jury trial, if the prosecutor cannot prove guilt, then he loses. The explanations offered by cosmologists for the creation of the universe are way beyond the bounds of human experience. If they can be understood at all, it is only by analogy with things we can experience. Perhaps it cannot be understood at all. I did not argue that general things were unknowable, but rather that the problem of the existence of the universe might be beyond human understanding. I cited the problem of subjective consciousness as possibly being beyond our understanding. Many things are knowable, but perhaps conceiving ten physical dimensions, two time dimensions, and who-knows-what-else is beyond humble humans. Pro's conceding the possibility that the resolution is unprovable concedes the debate. Meeting the burden of proof requires positive proof. Conduct In R3, Pro accused me of lying. He said, “Do not let Roy lie...” with the clear implication. That violates the site rule against insulting another member, and is a conduct violation in the debate. Pro can say I argued wrongly, but I didn't lie and Pro is responsible for saying I did. The Debate Pro offered no proof that everything that exists is contingent. It's a pure argument from incredulity. Scientists do not accept it as necessary. Pro did not prove why the god he claims to be proved has any aspect of being a “personal god.” If proved, the god could as well has been called the one non-contingent natural event. Pro accepts the possibility that the resolution is unprovable. Therefore he cannot claim to have met the burden of proof.