The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument Is Sound

Defendingan External Cause and the PSR My opponent has presented a modal fatalism of the PSR. The problem is, are the premises true, such as 11, 14, and 13. Premise 11 for example needs some justfication. 11 and 12 violate a libertarian free will.(The BlackWell Companion to Natural Theology, Craig, and JP Moreland) My opponent wants to argue that Gravity explains ourexistence hear on earth instead of God. However, does gravity logically explainour existence as human beings? Does it explain objective moral values andduties? Does it explain our meaning and purpose and destiny? No. Those arephilosophical questions that require a transcendent, immaterial, timeless,metaphysically, absolute, moral supreme, eternal, personal being to exist.Gravity is none of these things. Also Gravity is not “nothing”, but it issomething in of itself. But Con assumes that God directly observesParticles. How does con know that God has to directly observe particles if heis omniscient? In fact, as I showed above in my earlier arguments. Schrodinger’sEquation shows that matter becomes particles or waves when observed. They aren’teliminated, but change forms. Defenseof the BVG Theorem The BGV theorem saysthat if the universe is on average expanding along a given world-line, thisworld-line cannot be infinite to the past. [3]What my opponent has posted is not the definition of the BGVTheorem. What Con is referring to is theprocess for which models expand within a universe. My opponent can evade thetheorem by postulating that the universe was contracting prior to some time. .. . This sounds as if there is nothing wrong with having contraction prior toexpansion. But the problem is that a contracting universe is highly unstable.Small perturbations would cause it to develop all sorts of messy singularities,so it would never make it to the expanding phase. (A. Vilenkin to V. Stenger,cited by [5] My opponent argues here that the Ekpyrotic meets theBGV theorem’s “new physics.” While that is true that the Ekpyrotic Universeapplies to the BGV Theorem, it however goes against the BGV theorem, whichactually shows that the Universe must have had a beginning. I will argue whydown here below. My opponent must argue for a mathematical solution to theEkpyrotic Universe. The mathematical solution that Con could argue is calledthe De Sitter Solution. The De Sitter Solution, describes a universe thatdeflates(Contracts) exponentially from t = -infinity, until at some point atwhich it reaches minimum size, and then inflates exponentially for allsubsequent time. However the problemwith the De Sitter Solution, is that it evades the BGV-Theorem, which onlyapplies to expanding Universes. However, a Universe that contracts for infinitetime or t = - infinity is extremely un-realistic (un-physical). In such aUniverse, it would be extremely hard to account for the very low entropy thatexisted in our bubble at the time of our Big Bang. This goes back to the SecondLaw of Thermodynamics, and the argument against perpetual motion machines.) Insummary, the eternal inflation scenario, my opponent has to say that theUniverse began some finite time ago, or he has to say that it contracted forinfinite time before starting to inflate(this makes “unphysical”). And, as Iargued earlier, the eternal inflation itself must require a beginning. This isagreed upon by most cosmologists. (J. B.Stump, Alan G. Padgett, The Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity). As I showed before in round 3, a mechanism had to beinvented to produce the desired behavior or effect, in order for the EkyporoticUniverse to happen. Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turock incorporate this mechanisminto the Ekpyrotic Universe theory. They, therefore, manipulated the EkyporoticUniverse theory in order for it to work. Con then uses Occam’s Razor , a principle that saysthat when you have two competing theories that make exactly the samepredictions alone to determine, the simplest one is the better. However, justbecause something is “simple”, doesn’t necessarily mean that it is thereforealways “true”. Facts cannot be deduced from Occam's Razor alone. It can separate two theories that make thesame predictions, but it does not rule out other theories that might make adifferent prediction. Why should we acceptsomething that is purely ad-hoc? Conclusion: As we can see the LCAis sound because it avoids an infinite regress. The Ekyprotic, SimultaneousCausation, and Spontaneous Generation,fail to explain how our universe can come into existence because of theirmathematical errors. I want to thank Con for this debate, and I hope he has hada Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! Sources: [1]http://math.ucr.edu... [2] [3]http://www.reasonablefaith.org... [4](J. B. Stump, Alan G. Padgett, The Blackwell Companion to Science andChristianity). [5] http://arizonaatheist.blogspot.com...