MIG's Tournament Round 2: The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument

1. Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.1.1 Incredulity. This premise is derived by induction from everyday experience with ordinary objects that we sense. Based upon our everyday experience we might also conclude that there is no upper limit to the speed at which objects can travel or that space itself cannot be curved. Those claims were proved wrong by Einstein's theories, and Einstein has been proved correct. Scientists now observe objects whose existence is apparently uncaused. “A quantum fluctuation is the temporary appearance of energetic particles out of nothing, ...” [ http://en.wikipedia.org...] One may argue that the “cause” was the existence of quantum field, but that doesn't explain where or when they appear, or even what appeared. It is a statement about circumstances, not an explanation for their existence. Physicists do not accept the premise that nothing can pop into existence. 1.2 Bounds of explanation. There is also the possibility that existence of the universe is beyond human ability to explain. Compared to the universe, mathematics is a tidy world of defined premises and certain conclusions. In mathematics, Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem proves that in any mathematical system there are things that are true that cannot be proved. [http://en.wikipedia.org...] Gödel's theorem only applies to mathematics, but it raises the possibility that a parallel exists for explanations of the physical world. The curvature of space and the speed of light as an absolute limit are only explained by mathematical representations and analogies to things we sense. It is possible that the existence of the universe is beyond our ability to "explain" in any way that is meaningful to use. Using God as an explanation is not an explanation at all in terms of human of ordinary understanding. God is infinitely more complex than the universe, and immune to all physical laws and constrains. So God as an explanation does not more than substitute one unexplained thing, existence, for another thing even less fathomable, God. Exempting God from explanation does not remedy the situation. We could just as well give the exemption to the universe directly. 2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God. 2a. God is undefined. Pro has not defined God in any meaningful way, so the premise is meaningless. Pro quoted the definition of God by A.W. Pink, but when I suggested that is what was to proved, Pro retreated. Suppose I define God as omnipotence, omniscient, and good, and who also answers prayers and makes heat flow from hot to cold. Then I'll say that for this debate I will only prove the part about heat flow. I establish that the Second Law of thermodynamics is verified. Have I then proved the existence of God? Of course not, I have cited a physical law as an attribute of God and then claimed the Law equates to God. Pro suggests he is proving that a “personal God.” What exactly are the attributes of a personal God? 2b. The universe created itself. The first premise of the LCA asserted that things may exist of their own nature. Renowned cosmologist Stephen Hawking argues that the universe exists of it's own nature. "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. … "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going." http://www.guardian.co.uk... Hawking may be correct or not, but what is clear is that one world's greatest cosmologists does not accept the argument that the universe must have been created externally. 2c. Ontological Argument. Pro's argument in favor of premise 1 is essentially the long-refuted ontological argument, that since God embodies all perfection He must necessarily exist. The error is that existence is not an attribute relevant to perfection. Defining something to exist does not make it exist. To justify the PSR, pro first cites induction based upon our sensory experience. We know that's wrong from the examples of “inconceivable” laws of nature, like the speed of light being absolute. He then argues that if none of the alternative explanations of something are true, we must accept what is left that provides an explanation. In fact we need not accept any explanation and leave the phenomenon unexplained. The Buddha counseled, in effect, “It is unwise to consider whether or not God exists.” Scientists systematically refuse to force explanations. The may propose theories, but there is no obligation to accept any theory until it is proved. 3. The universe is an existing thing 3a. Equivocation. Consider: a. For every thing there is a season; b. The universe is a thing; c. Therefore the universe has a season. The reason that this argument fails is equivocation of the word “thing.” The universe is not the type of thing to which (a) applies. There is an equivocation in the LCA as well. In the premise (3), the universe is really taken to mean “existence.” There is case to be made that the observable universe comprising a large collection of matter and energy is a thing. However, some theories of modern cosmology claim that the universe we observe is a four-dimensional part of higher dimensional entity called a multiverse. We might define the universe as not just what we can sense but as the larger multiverse. That says the universe is “all that exists.” that then asserts that the universe equates to existence, and existence is not a thing in the same sense that objects are things. The premise could be restated as “Existence is like any other object.” It's not. 3b. Induction. Let's suppose the universe or multiverse is a "thing" that is an object. The question remains whether it is an object like all the others from which the claimed premises arise. Clearly the object which contains all other objects has a unique status in one respect. There is no proof that induction applied to explanation the parts applies to the whole Pro asserts that there is no explanation of the universe from non-contingent causes. That's false. Hawking provides an explanation. Hawking's explanation is not proved, but it nonetheless exists and it has not been disproved. Denial of Hawking is an argument from incredulity. “Based upon my experience, I can't believe it.” We don't have experience with universe creation or with many proved phenomena of cosmology. 3. Therefore the explanation of the universe is God. I will define a being named Burt. Burt is (a) not omnipotent, omniscient, or good, (b) having no concern about humanity, and c existing outside of time and being able to create the universe. The LCA can now be restated to prove the existence of Burt. If one argues that despite his shortcomings Burt might be God, then we can add properties to Burt until everyone agrees he is not a god, so long as the universe-making property is maintained. I shouldn't forget to add that existence is one of Burt's properties. It is so integral to Burt that Burtness cannot be conceived without it. For the record, I do not believe in Burt. Nonetheless, I see no way to disprove that Burt did what is claim. I challenge Pro to disprove my claims about Burt, based solely upon the preceding premises. In summary, Pro's case is an argument from incredulity. It depends completely upon not being able to imagine things other than supposed. We are well past that in cosmology, where much of what is proved is so far beyond ordinary experience t is "incredible."The resolution is negated.