Resolved: The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument is Sound

I will first defend the LCA and then proceed to my opponent's case. As a request, I ask my opponent to organize all of his arguments against each premise under the premise itself rather than in 2 or 3 separate areas for the sake of both my own and the reader's comprehension.Premise 1An Overview of ModalityMy opponent simply asserts that determinism solves for my argument. Determinism, as my opponent states, argues that every effect that is occurred necessarily occurs because of previous physical states. Determinism would claim that, for example, I do not think, rather neurotransmitters send chemicals to my brain that cause certain thoughts to occur. My opponent advocates an incompatibilist determinism that stands opposed to free will. I ask however, that my opponent first proves that determinism is a sound theory before asserting that it solves for my arguments. Once my opponent provides support for determinism I will engage it as a contention to be debated.The Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR)Again I request that my opponent properly prprove determinism true before using it to blindly assert that my arguments are false."God is also a necessary being, a being that logically could not have failed to exist. It is in the very nature of God that he essentially possess all compossible perfections" The above is a bare assertion. That which can be asserted without evidence and reasoning, can be dismissed without evidence and reasoning. My opponent claims that my defense of God as a necessary being is a bare assertion. This seems to be a rather shallow response to me, and quite misguided at that. It is in the nature of God that he is a perfect being, for if he were not then he would not be God. The argument as my opponent interprets it states that God must exist because he is a necessarily perfect being. However, the claim I am positing is that if God exists, or at least the God of Christian Theology that I am defending, then he be a perfect being and his nature would necessarily explain his existence. This argument does not prove the existence of God, but provides evidence for why he exists if he does. My evidence for God existing comes from the inability of an infinite series of contingent beings to explain their own existence, and the logical requirement of a necessary being serving as the first cause. This however is argued in Premise 2.My opponent, in the second part of his rebuttal argues that external causes are impossible. What is meant by an external cause is something other than the contingent being itself. I exist due to the external cause of birth from my mother. I did not cause this birth, the birth is not a necessary part of my nature that entails my existence, but a contingent event that explains my existence. He goes on to assert that we exist necessarily due to our atoms. I ask you to refer back to my overview of modality. My opponent commits the fallacy of redefinition in that atoms are a prerequisite to our existence, but we don't necessarily existence in terms of modal logic. Necessary existence is that when cannot be logically denied. For atoms to entail my necessary existence as a human being, then the occurrence of atoms in the natural world would necessarily entail that I exist. By this logic humans should be sprouting off of the atoms found in rocks and trees. This is a truly absurd proposition.My opponent's next refutation is that of the plastic cup. Sure, the plastic cup may be a rearrangement of atomic particles, but that arrangement was contingent on the creator's design. The existence of atomic particles, again, does not necessarily entail the existence of plastic cups. By the same logic presented in the previous argument, cups would pop into existence off of rocks and trees and out of the nitrogen atoms in the sky. My opponent simply resorts to the fallacy of redefinition with the words "necessary" and "existence." Don't be fooled by linguistics.Premise 2"the necessary being cannot provide a natural explanation for [the universe], for we know of no natural, non-contingent causes and laws or principles from which the existence of the universe follows. What is required is a personal explanation in terms of the intentional acts of some eternal supernatural being." My opponent claims that I am committing the God of the gaps fallacy. I suppose we have yet another misunderstanding. My argument is not that God must exist because we do not currently have evidence of natural, non-contingent causes but rather that the idea of natural non-contingent causes is irrational. Consider this, a completely material cause is the first cause. This cause, known as N1, or the first natural cause, sparked the creation of the entire universe. N1 is a necessary being because as previously explained, an infinite number of contingent beings cannot explain their own existence. N1 is the reason the spacio-temporal world as we know it was created. It is the reason matter came into existence. But how is this possible? How can N1 create space and time? By definition, natural beings require space to exist within and are temporal. Also by definition, natural beings are composed of matter. How can that which is composed of matter also account for the creation of matter? On the other hand, suppose P1 is a necessary, personal being and serves as the first cause. Now we can logically explain the creation of space, time, and matter because a personal being may posses the qualities of being eternal, and may transcend the physical. It's will allows for the creation of that which it is not, the physical world. You see, I am not committing the God of the gaps fallacy in defaulting to God as the first cause due to a lack of scientific knowledge, but because as demonstrated a necessary, natural being that is also the first cause is logically contradictory. Due to the inability for it to be anything but God, God himself must be the answer. This answers back my opponent's non-sequitar argument as well. Granted premise 1, the universe must have an explanation. As I've explained through my overview of modality (which is not definitely a part of premise 1, but rather an easy way to ease into it without leaving the audience behind) the universe exists contingently. My opponent claims that I have not proved that the universe could not exist by the necessity of it's own nature but my example of N1 clearly shows the absurdity of that claim. In the previous round I also acknowledged that you and I may not have existed if our respective parents did not meet. In the same way the universe may not have developed the way it did nor that it had to exist at all. My example of N1 and P1 shows that logically, God is the only non-contradictory explanation of the universe. My opponent's next argument is that the first cause does not necessarily have to be eternal nor supernatural, are proposes M-Theory. I will arrive at this towards the end of the round. Premise 3 This premise is uncontested. The universe is clearly an existent thing. Premise 4 The conclusion follows if the premises hold true. I've reasonably supported the contested first and second premises of the LCA and my opponent has yet to provide adequate refutation. Thus the LCA is sound. M-Theory My opponent provides a logical argument in which you would prefer M-Theory to the LCA, yet fails to explain what M-Theory claims. My response is the same made to determinism. My opponent must not only explain his theories, but prove them to be true before they can be held as legitimate rebuttals to my arguments.