The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument Is Sound

[4] Rebuttal to Premise 1: Sub-atomic particles don’t pop into existence randomly. They are contained in a fluctuation of energy contained in a vacuum. If the Universe came about like a sub-atomic particle, then it didn’t come from nothing but form some pre-existing substance, which came from something else or is necessary of itself. In order to avoid an infinite Regress, the chain must end in a necessary being which is God. It sounds like Con is arguing for the Weak Anthropic Principle here. An argument by philosopher John Leslie that from the probability of our current situation, we can argue plausibly for an intentional creation. The quote below is Francis Collins re-telling the story. "In this parable, an individual faces a firing squad, and fifty expert marksmen aim their tifles to carry out the deed. The order is given, the shots ring out, and yet somehow all the bullets miss and the condemned individual walks away unscathed." "How could such a remarkable event be explained? Leslie suggests that there are two possible alternatives ... In the first place, there may have been thousands of executions being carried out in that same day, and even the best marksman will occasionally miss. So the odds just happen to be in favor of this one individual, and all fifty of the marksmen fail to hit the target. The other option is that something more directed is going on, and the apparent poor aim of the fifty experts was actually intentional. Which seems more plausible?" The WAP still leaves us empty-handed since it does not provide the explanation for the Universes existence. This is a sort of a nonchalant shrug of the shoulder from Con. Con needs to show how a life-prohibiting universe, is incompatible with the laws of physics, and many Leading Physicists know and accept that a life prohibiting universe is compatible with the laws of physics. [1][2][3][5]Rebuttal to Premise 3: Con assumes that if there was no time before the big bang, than there couldn’t have been anything that caused it. However, time does not cause time that is a self-contradiction. That is why I argued that a timeless, immaterial, uncaused, metaphysically necessary being(God) must be the reason for time to exist. Con does not give any justification whatsoever to show that assuming God is “invalid”. Why is assuming a timeless, immaterial, un-caused and metaphysically being not necessary? I think it prevents an infinite regress of materialism, which then leads to a self-contradiction. Con wants to know why we can’t argue from an ekpyrtotic Universe, retro-causality, or simultaneous generation. I will answer down below the three premises as to why this can’t happen. 1) The Ekpyrotic Cyclic model of Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turock will avoid the beginning of the universe. The Ekpyrotic Cyclic model is precisely one of those higher dimensional “brane” cosmogonies covered by the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem. Therefore, it cannot be past eternal. Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turock, tend to argue for a “relaxation mechanism”. They incorporate these into the Ekpyrotic cyclic model, which then slowly decreases the value of the cosmological constant over time while taking the notice of contributions to the vacuum density, over all energy scales. The way this type of mechanism works, is that it allows the relaxation of time to grow exponentially as the vacuum density decreases, generating asymptotic behaviors in which every volume of space spends the majority of time at a state when the cosmological constant is small and positive-just like today. This is a sort-of ad-hoc approach, since a mechanism had to be invented to produce the desired behavior, and then declared to be a virtue of the model simply because a way was found to make it work.(Robert J. Spitzer, New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics ...) 2) Simultaneous Generation or Simultaneous Causation- Why can't the cause and effect exist at the same time in an asymmetric dependency relation? For example, a heavy chandelier hanging on a chain from the ceiling. The ceiling and chain hold up the chandelier; the chandelier and chain don't support the ceiling. Imagine C and E are the cause and the effect. If C were to vanish before the time at which E is produced, would E nevertheless come into being? Surely not But if time is continuous, then no matter how close to E's appearance C's disappearance takes place, there will always be an interval of time between C's disappearance and E's appearance. But then why or how E came into being when it does seems utterly mysterious, for there is no cause at that moment to produce it. 3) Con quotes from the user Magic8000’s debate with someone else. However, that person is not me. http://www.debate.org...... . In fact I never argued that there must be something like God in order for the universe to exist. If something is like God, then what Con is describing is God. As I showed in my opening argument God by definition is the greatest conceivable being possible. That means he must be omnipresent, omniscience, omnipotent, and metaphysically necessary etc. In order for the universe to exist. How can any substance or force act to create a universe without being these things? So I think P2 of my argument which says “The Universe has an explanation, and that explanation Con argues that quantum mechanics disproves the existence of God; however, he never provides any Justification for P2 of his argument which says that “Observation collapses superpositions”. Con also does not justify P3 of his argument which says that “An all-observing being would automatically collapse all quantum superpositions are collapsed.” In fact P4 of his argument which says that “We observe that not all quantum superpositions are collapsed contradicts P2. If we observe that not all quantum superpositions are collapsed, then it logically follows that P4 does not disprove the existence of God since God can observe certain superpositions without them being collapsed. Schrodinger’s Equation showed that the very act of observing caused the wave function collapse, and create the existence of matter, in two forms Particles or Waves. So I don't think we should assume any reason at all to think that particles are completely Annihilated, but they are just created into different forms. Sources: [1]http://www.reasonablefaith.org...... [2]http://www.reasonablefaith.org...... [3]https://www.youtube.com...; [4] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...... [5] .(Robert J. Spitzer, New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics ...)