The Fool will refute any argument for the existence of god.

Indeed the logic of a fool only appears within reason when hidden from the minds of the wise. A foolish mistake was made by the fool in failing to directly acknowledge any of the LCA's premises. I will begin this round by reminding the reader of several important facets of the LCA and then address my opponent's argument and provide comparative analysis.The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument (LCA) Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God. The universe is an existing thing. Therefore the explanation of the universe is God. Premise 1 An Overview of Modality I would only like to rehash two key definition. Contingent Existence - Existence that could have failed to exist, i.e. existence that is explained by an external cause. You and I exist contingently because our respective parents may not have met, or may have chosen not to have children. We could have, logically speaking, failed to exist. Necessary Existence - Existence that could not have failed to exist, i.e. existence that is explained by the necessity of its own nature. The laws of mathematics exist necessarily. It would seem perfectly plausible that if the world existed in the exact opposite manner then two and two would still make four. A perfect being, or God, exists necessarily because necessary existence is an essential perfection and thus would be possessed by a perfect being. Take not that God's status as a necessary being does not offer proof of his existence. Necessary existence merely functions to explain why God exists, if he does. The LCA offers evidence for God's existence by means of argument to the contrary, in which no other explanation for the existence of the universe is possible. Note that necessary existence is equivalent to the state of being eternal. Something that exists necessarily cannot be created or destroyed. The Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) My opponent and I agree to the PSR. It is important, however, to notice that my formulation of the PSR is slightly more elaborate. Both the Fool and I accept the principle of ex nihilo nihil fit, nothing comes from nothing. My formulation, however, goes on to explain how that is true. It holds that the existence of contingent beings is explained by external causes and the existence of necessary beings is explained by the necessity of their own nature. This is a logical extrapolation that may be derived from ex nihilo nihil fit. Premise 2 In the original presentation of the LCA I showed that the universe must exist contingently. I have also provided reasoning as to why the existence of contingent beings cannot be explained simply by other contingent beings, for those contingent beings would require explanations via other contingent beings ad infinitum. Therefore we may conclude that there must exist a necessary being that serves as the first cause which explains the existence of all contingent beings. I have just noticed that in the previous round I have limited my defense of God to proving the existence of a necessary being. As such, I could claim victory on the basis that the universe exists contingently; however, a victory by semantics was never my intent. Therefore I will expand my defense of God to Him existing as a necessary and personal being. That being said, my argument about N1 thoroughly elaborates on why a necessary and natural first cause is logically incoherent. Therefore, the only possible explanation of the universe is a necessary and personal first cause, God. Premise 3 The Fool necessarily accepts premise 3 as a presupposition to her argument. There is no contest here. Conclusion The conclusion of the LCA cannot be logically denied if its three premises stand. My opponent presumes the truth of the first and third premise, and as such can only offer refutation to the third premise while maintaining consistency with her position. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Logic of a Fool I would like to note that if my opponent continues without offering a direct rebuttal to the LCA and I at least attempt to refute her argument, then you have no reason not to believe the LCA while you have at least a minimal reason not to believe her argument and as such you should prefer my argument. Furthermore, if I prove that the LCA is compatible with my opponent's argument, then it has not been refuted and I will win this debate. Conclusion It seems important to note that the Fool's argument is not valid. There is no reason to hold the conclusion as true if the premises are true. Each premise proves an independent, unrelated fact. In order for my opponent to extrapolate that she has met all sufficient conditions to explain the universe, she must first identify those conditions. Premise 1 We both agree to the PSR. Premise 2 The law of non-contradiction does not hold that nothing which is or exists can be created or destroyed. My opponent derives this claim from the law of conservation of energy (LCE). The LCE, however, simply claims that energy cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system. However, we will note a very damning contradiction within the Fool's logic. The Fool accepts the PSR, so all that exists must have an explanation for its existence. Energy cannot have necessary existence because it could have failed to exist. If we note that there exists systems which are indeed open then it is perfectly plausible to claim that energy may be created and destroyed, and is therefore not eternal. Energy must then exist contingently. However, my opponent fails to admit that there is an explanation for the existence of energy. She simply postulates that energy just IS, what IS IS, because it IS. It goes without question that this argument is absurd and should be rejected as such. Now, even if we granted that the universe is an isolated system and thus the LCE applies to it, this by no means allows for the law of noncontradiction to explain that the universe itself could not be created or destroyed. The universe itself would be the system not the energy, and thus would be subject to creation and destruction. The universe remains contingent. Premise 3 Premise 3 holds that the universe is in constant flux. Thus, by definition my opponent concedes that the universe is not eternal and thereby is contingent. Furthermore, this premise proves nothing. My opponent states that things begin and cease to exist. There is no link whatsoever to the conclusion. In fact, this provides yet another contradiction in my opponent's argument. He states that what IS IS and could never not be. However, if it could never not be then it would never cease to be, and as such could not see its existence end. Premise 3 contradicts premise 1 and therefore if there were any link to the conclusion, it would be denied. Premise 4 Even if we granted that the change in stability of energy explains the big bang, it does not explain the existence of the energy. Premise 4 concedes that the universe exists contingently, yet my opponent only provides explanation via another contingent being. As shown through the second premise of the LCA, you cannot explain the existence of contingent beings simply by means of other contingent beings and there must be a necessary being that serves as the cause. You can refer back to the LCA's premise 2 for why this must be a necessary and personal being, God. Premise 5 Even if time is relative, it proves nothing. The LCA is compatible with an infinite universe because an infinite number of contingent beings would still require a necessary being to coherently explain their existence. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- More compatibility arguments will be presented in the next round.