The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument is Sound - 2

Modal logic depends on generalization from limited experience There are two ways that something is necessarily true. One way is that it is true by definition. The other way is if it follows necessarily from a set of rules. There is some controversy over whether mathematics is true by definition or a consequence of logic, but the correspondence of mathematics to observed events in the real world is not guaranteed. No one doubts the utility of mathematics, but the mathematical formulation of complex problems is open to doubt as to whether the properties of the real world are correctly represented by the math. There is one other necessity. We know by personal observation that we exist. What that existence comprises is not know with certainty. We might be computer programs generating the illusions of what we see, but we know that something is happening. Modal logic starts with a false assumption that necessity and contingency can be applied to God and to the universe. We can imagine that an alternate universe might exist, but we don't know for sure. Perhaps our universe has some unique property that rules out alternatives. We doubt that is the case, but we don't know. The assertion that the universe is contingent is derived solely from our being able to imagine a different one. All the tests in the LCA are whether or not we can imagine something. Our imaginations are limited by our experience, which means all the arguments are arguments from incredulity. They assert that because we have never experienced an exception to some claim and cannot imagine one, then the claim must be true. God in the LCA The God in the LCA has none of the properties of a God other than the abilities to exist separate from time and to create something from nothing. That could be a natural law. Here is a proof: Nothing in nature happens except in accordance with natural law. The series of causes leading to our universe must have begun with a first cause. Therefore, there is a natural law that creates something from nothing. This proof is not valid because, just like the LCA, premise 1 and premise 2 are both arguments from incredulity. Premise (1) derives from being unable to imagine that real magic exists, and (2) assumes that time behaves as an linear sequence. Perhaps we cannot imagine that here are uncaused events, or that time starts and stops, or that time is finite and boundless, but that does not mean that such things are impossible. It only constrains when and how they happen so as to not be readily observable to us. There is nothing whatsoever in the LCA that requires the derived God to be “personal” unless the ontological argument is invoked. Pro says that the ontological argument is not invoked, so there fore the God it proves is indistinguishable from natural law. The resolution fails because it does not prove a God to exist, but rather only a natural law that Pro calls God. By comparison, define God as "a being who makes force equal to mass times acceleration.” That's Newton's law, which is observed to be true. Therefore God is proved to exist. The fault is that the proof is not of a God by any reasonable definition. How does Pro know that an event cannot occur without a cause?He doesn't know it. He offers no proof. He simply cannot imagine it otherwise. Scientists can imagine it, and they describe the circumstances under which it could happen consistent with the universe that we have observed. Pro claims that quantum fluctuation is not an example of something occurring without cause, because it occurs as a result of a pre-existing quantum field. That's not a valid criticism because the field does not cause the event. For example, suppose we watched a large tank of water and suddenly a fish appeared and then disappeared. Would we then say, “This is not an example of a spontaneous even because the water was the cause for the fish.” Quantum fluctuations are not predictable and are not in any sense caused by the field. The creation of a particle and anti-particle does not draw any energy from the field, the total mass and total energy of the space does not change. The quantum field is a mathematical artifice used to perform computations in quantum mechanics. The space is a vacuum. There is a theory that while a vacuum is empty space, it may be possible for the space itself not to exist. One theory is that the universe expands by creating more space, and that the new space created has vacuum energy. The vacuum energy exerts a gravitational field which is detected. The theory is that something, vacuum energy, is created from absolutely nothing. It is created as a property of the created space itself. [5. http://www.astro.ucla.edu...] Pro contends that quantum events might be caused by some hidden mechanism yet to be revealed. However, he is claiming that uncaused events are logically impossible. Clearly, quantum physicists believe is is quite possible that they are uncaused, and they work successfully under the assumption they are not caused. How does Pro know that in every sequence of events there must be a first cause?He doesn't know it. He offers no proof. He simply cannot imagine it otherwise. Scientists can imagine it and describe the circumstances under which it could happen consistent with the universe that we have observed. The model for supposing a first cause is that time holds an endless linear progression of events that embraces everything that exists except God. I cited Hawking as postulating that time is finite, but boundless. In some theories there are multiple universes, each existing as a bubble of time and space that begins and ends in a mulch-dimensional universe. Pro does not quote any quantum physicist or cosmologist who demands that everything have a cause, he only quotes philosophers who echo the claim, and they universally cited human experience as the basis for the claim. Pro does not apply the negative argument for the PSR to the existence of God and the universe. He quotes an example in which a person who asserts that if a dog did not bark, it must be for the lack of a reason. The argument is then that the person so asserting has accepted the PSR. So what? How does that apply the LCA? Specifically, when Hawking claims that time may be finite and unbounded, or that the universe may have created itself, how is he accepting the PSR? It's an outright and definitive rejection of the PSR by a scientist who worries a great deal about conflicting evidence. Perhaps the answer is unknowable to us Humans have a limited sensory apparatus and limited cognitive powers. When cosmologists like Hawking provide explanations, they do so by show that the mathematics implied by the theories they propose is consistent with the observed world. Insofar as we have an intuition for what Hawking et al are saying, it is by analogy. Hawking compares time to the surface of the earth being bounded but finite, but I doubt anyone can imagine time in that way. All we know is that the math is consistent with observation. The LCA fails because it assumes that everyday experience provides us with the ability to comprehend the reality of physics and cosmology. It doesn't. One of the assumptions of PSR is not only that everything has an explanation, but that everything has an explanation comprehensible to our limited minds. Scientist Steven Pinker studies the problem of subjective consciousness, which is how the mechanisms of the brain relate to our feeling of being conscious. He has speculated that the answer may be unknowable to us due to our limited cognitive abilities. How the universe came into existence is probably understandable, but we cannot say for sure. The LCA requires that it be understandable. Pro has the burden to prove that it is.