Leibnizian Cosmological Argument

[Ward]

Hi..

I've encountered an example of a Leibnizian Cosmological Argument here.

It basically goes:

P1. Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence; either in the necessity of its nature, or, by an external cause.
P2. If the universe has an explanation for its existence, that explanation is God.
P3. The universe exists
P4. The universe has an explanation for its existence
5. Therefore, the explanation for the universe is God.

Notice how the first premise contains an 'Either' - meaning things can have an external or internal cause, as illogical as that seems.

Is there a good refutation around? I've not had much luck.

[Darth Wong]

P1. Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence; either in the necessity of its nature, or, by an external cause.
P2. If the universe has an explanation for its existence, that explanation is God.
P3. The universe exists
P4. The universe has an explanation for its existence
P5. Therefore, the explanation for the universe is God.

Several rebuttals:

P1 is false. There is no logical reason why something must require a reason to exist at all, as opposed to behaving in a certain way. We have many explanations for the reason the matter in your body is structured the way it is, but that doesn't mean you need an explanation for the fact that this matter exists at all.

P1 leads to an infinite regression. If this premise is accepted, then God also requires an explanation for his existence. If one takes "the necessity of its nature" as a way out for God, then it also works for the universe.

P2 is also false. God is not an explanation. An explanation helps people understand something; would you understand any more about the universe after hearing the name "God" then you did before? God is just a name, not an explanation.

P3 is factual, P4 is redundant, and P5 is a logical deduction once you accept the idiotic premises P1 and P2.

This argument is downright amateurish. Most religious apologist bullshitters at least try to dress up their non sequiturs.

[Knife]

Indeed, nothing inherent in the logic chain prevents word substitution like:


P1. Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence; either in the necessity of its nature, or, by an external cause.
P2. If the universe has an explanation for its existence, that explanation is Man.
P3. The universe exists
P4. The universe has an explanation for its existence
P5. Therefore, the explanation for the universe is God.

[Ward]

This is really useful stuff. Thanks guys.

Additionally the original source of the arguments has posted a link. I've not read it carefully yet - I'm off on a build with my Dad at the moment.

Bonding with mutual swearing sessions

[Darth Wong]

This is really useful stuff. Thanks guys.

Additionally the original source of the arguments has posted a link. I've not read it carefully yet - I'm off on a build with my Dad at the moment.

Bonding with mutual swearing sessions

I love the site author's idiotic justification for P1, where he says it's self-evident and uses the example of a ball lying in the forest. The existence of that hunk of matter is not the part that requires explanation; its shape and form are what require explanation. He also claims that cosmology is the study of the existence of the universe: also wrong, and for the same reason.

The guy's arguments are all shot through with this same error: he fails to distinguish between existence and form. So he says that in the primordial beginnings of the universe there were no stars or galaxies, so we have to explain the existence of all the particles in these stars or galaxies (he even goes on to talk about subatomic particles). This argument is idiotic, because the mass/energy of these stars and galaxies did exist, even in the primordial past. The existence of that matter does not require explanation: it is the shape and form that it coalesced into which requires explanation. As I said, he does not seem to understand the distinction between form and existence: he is using two different meanings of the word "exist" interchangeably, in order to obfuscate.

And of course, like most religious apologists, he obviously has no idea what the word "scientific" means. I'm tired of religious fucktards claiming that science is being "unscientific". They have no clue what it means to be scientific. 100% of our scientific observations are consistent with the hypothesis that the amount of mass/energy in the universe is constant; why would any "scientific" mindset lead to the conclusion that at one time, none of it existed, hence it had to be brought into being by someone else?

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

You can also point out that premise 2 is just an unsupported assertion. How can he just say "then God is the cause?" and then conclude in 5 that God exists. That seems awfully pointless to me. You can say anything, like Chi Crystal.

What prior did he use to prove that the explanation for the universe must be what he says it is, if it exists?

[Darth Wong]

You can also point out that premise 2 is just an unsupported assertion. How can he just say "then God is the cause?" and then conclude in 5 that God exists. That seems awfully pointless to me. You can say anything, like Chi Crystal.

What prior did he use to prove that the explanation for the universe must be what he says it is, if it exists?

I prefer pointing out (as I did earlier) that God is not an "explanation" at all. That usually throws them for a loop; they're expecting you to accept that God is an explanation, and argue that there are other alternate explanations. They aren't expecting you to deny that God qualifies as an explanation at all.

[Gil Hamilton]

More over, form doesn't tend to be so shocking when you understand the physics of things. These people seem to always stop halfway when it comes to something of complex form or regularity, like they assume if it is astoundingly complex or regular, it can't be natural. You'd think from their argument that they'd crap their pants if they saw a soap bubble floating in the air, because such a bubble (if it is of the appropriate size) does a really good approximation of a perfect sphere. However, often when you get to the heart of things, the core concepts of the system are shockingly simple. Complexity has a way of falling out of simple rules; a principle that can be even be studied to death with a good fractal geometry class.

My issue I take with his argument is that he accuses "atheists" of pulling the "universe doesn't need an explanation" card, in a clear straw man. Last I checked, cosmologists (whom he seems to be confusing athiests with) DO have a good inkling about where the universe came from, to granted all the details are not known as of this time. THEN he turns around and applies the same standard to God that he accused atheists of doing and being dishonest. That always shoot these sorts of "Proofs of the Existence of God" in the foot, because they do the very same "Taxicab Fallacy" as this clown was accusing atheists of, they just get out of the cab when it arrives at God and declare HIM to be the uncaused cause, without any reason to do so. When you are hanging your hat on a causal argument for EVERYTHING, you cannot do that!

There is the end of it. I don't even know why people TRY logical proofs of God. It seems like every time they cough up a clunky proof and patch holes in it by saying that God isn't obligated to be logical in nature. Well, here's a hint, if God transcends logic, <i>you can't use logic to arrive at God</i>. Besides, why bother, most people with religion hang their hat on faith anyway. If they honestly have faith, why bother with a logical proof? I suppose such people want to make their religion look rational and intelligent, but it seems to me trying one of those silly proofs is a REALLY poor way to demonstrate your rationality and intelligence.

[Alyrium Denryle]

P1. Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence; either in the necessity of its nature, or, by an external cause.

In addition to what Mike has said on the matter....
P1 is not necessarily true. For two reasons. First what mike said on the matter. Though to expand. When you talk about the "reason why something exists" you can either think of it in terms of a causal chain, or you can think of it in terms of purpose or telos. Telos is not required, and indeed this definition of the term begs the question. It does this because it is not a first principle upon which it is reasonable to start a syllogism of this type. One first has to prove that purpose exists, which is a very tricky proposition that I dont think anyone has ever even attempted let alone succeeded at. It is simply assumed. Falsely.

Then there is the causality issue. This only holds true when the notion of causality is coherent. In most everyday applications it holds true. We can think in terms of one event, or sets of events causing others. However these causal webs are a time function. In a state of being where time does not exist, notions of causation become meaningless. To put it another way. To ask the question of what was there before the universe is meaningless does not make any sense because time itself cannot exist without the universe existing. Equally asking what caused the universe is equally meaningless.

P2. If the universe has an explanation for its existence, that explanation is God.

Nice assumption. A false one though. If the existence of the universe was externally caused that explanation need not been a deity. Unless you define all such explanations as being God, in which case God becomes a meaningless metaphore.

P3. The universe exists

Yes... though Descartes would disagree...

P4. The universe has an explanation for its existence

Same argument. Indeed his argument is circular.

[Darth Wong]

Look at the last sentence on that linked article:

What a great argument!

Christian apologists are all about cheerleading. I don't think they seriously expect their arguments to be subjected to real criticism; they're for the benefit of other Christians, not critics. That's why they come up with arguments that have such obvious holes in them, and then just paper over them as if you won't notice. They know that their target audience won't notice or care.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Ghetto edit:

When I refer to to The Universe I mean existence. Eventually, their argument often goes, you have to stop somewhere at a point when nothing existed and an unmoved mover is needed. At this point they invoke God, and it is at that point if such a point were to exist, that the question of causation becomes meaningless

[Singular Intellect]

Well, here's a hint, if God transcends logic, <i>you can't use logic to arrive at God</i>.

One of my favorite responses to that theme is to then just ignore logic and 'prove' god doesn't exist by whatever means seems the most amusing at the time. When your opponent gets confused, you just point out "Hey, logic doesn't apply, I'm going by your rules."

[Rye]

There's a further problem in that there's no justification whatsoever for referring to an origin event as a god, except through appeals to tradition. Let's say, for sake of argument, it was proven through some awesome, incontrovertible evidence that this universe is the result of a preexisting causal chain that extends beyond what we previously understood to be the universe, now what?

The mental tumbleweed rolls by and nobody can make a logical link from "universe as we know it was caused by preceding conditions" to "universe is caused by an intelligent entity that spends his time creating universes, though there's no known reason behind his motivations, his intelligence or ability to create universes except by me just supposing them just now." There hasn't been one thing in all of history that has been attributed to gods that has actually turned out to be so upon closer investigation, and there's no reason to assume this trend would stop if we found some proto-universe domain where causality was still in effect.

[Kanastrous]

100% of our scientific observations are consistent with the hypothesis that the amount of mass/energy in the universe is constant; why would any "scientific" mindset lead to the conclusion that at one time, none of it existed, hence it had to be brought into being by someone else?

I'm probably missing something real basic, but isn't there a 'brought into being' mechanism at work, in the Big Bang theory? Pre Big Bang, no matter or energy, at least in their present forms...correct?

Or is the point that post Big Bang, mass/energy remained constant?

[Darth Wong]

100% of our scientific observations are consistent with the hypothesis that the amount of mass/energy in the universe is constant; why would any "scientific" mindset lead to the conclusion that at one time, none of it existed, hence it had to be brought into being by someone else?

I'm probably missing something real basic, but isn't there a 'brought into being' mechanism at work, in the Big Bang theory? Pre Big Bang, no matter or energy, at least in their present forms...correct?

Why would you assume that? You have something that starts rapidly expanding; why would you assume that before it started rapidly expanding, it didn't exist?

[Kanastrous]

My education on the subject is pretty limited.

My understanding is that the starting conditions were no-space, no-mass, no-energy, there was a rapid inflation of energy and space, followed by a slower expansion and formation of matter.

If that very basic understanding is correct, doesn't that require a starting state in which nothing (no matter, no energy, and no space, anyway) existed?

[Pablo Sanchez]

I'm probably missing something real basic, but isn't there a 'brought into being' mechanism at work, in the Big Bang theory? Pre Big Bang, no matter or energy, at least in their present forms...correct?

Obviously they didn't exist in their present form, to the same extent that the Sun was at one point a cloud of somewhat diffuse stellar gases. As people were talking about above, the form of matter and energy changes according to the natural principles that we call the laws of physics.

Prior to the Big Bang, all matter and energy in the universe was in a different form (a single point of infinite density) but it nevertheless existed.

[Kanastrous]

Prior to the Big Bang, all matter and energy in the universe was in a different form (a single point of infinite density) but it nevertheless existed.

Okay. It just existed in a state not amenable to description by our present physics. Is that closer to correct?

[Patrick Degan]

It's very funny. God transcends logic and must be taken on faith. Then they try to prove their faith logically. The classic example of thinking you can have your cake and eat it as well.

[Superboy]

Prior to the Big Bang, all matter and energy in the universe was in a different form (a single point of infinite density) but it nevertheless existed.

This is very rarely understood and is actually the basis for a lot of stupid christian arguments. They believe that big bang theory states that there was nothing, and then BANG, there was the universe. This seems as supernatural as claiming God did it, so they figure science is all about faith too.

[Ward]

And 'nothing' is an unfounded claim about things prior to the Big Bang.

Nope. I have never, do not and will not ever claim to know anything about the affairs "before" the Big Bang. It is logically and semantically incoherent to even suggest it, since there would not have been any frame of reference to determine what time would be. In other words, to say "before time" or "before the Big Bang" simply does not make sense, since there was no "before" time. Time did not exist. Time suddenly came into existence as part of the state of affairs we commonly call the beginning of the universe, when time as a dimensional quality separated from other fundamental dimensions (like spatial dimensions).

You're doing it again. Making claims about the nature of the Universe at or before the Big Bang. The Big Bang theory states that there was a rapid expansion. It does not state that prior there was nothing. General relativity is probably where you're getting this from. But GR is just a model which breaks down at the extremes in a manner very similar to how classic mechanics breaks down on planetary and quantum scales. GR is simply a model which has a fixed range of applicability. Going outside this range does not imply that energy, matter and spatiotemporal dimensions cease - the model simply stops being a reliable guide. And finally, we do not actually know if the contortion of the laws of physics actually goes to breaking point - the model is limited to after the Planck Epoch.

Of course, you're going to argue this point very strenously - much of your bad logic plays rely upon time starting at this point. Ironically, you seem to trust science more here on this newish theory than elsewhere, like evolution which is nearly three times older and vastly more supported. I thought you followed good science? Evidentially you do not; you follow good science so long as it does not steal credit away from your God.

Faith is a poor method of acquiring knowledge.

I'm going to reply with the above. Am I commiting any silly mistakes?

[Ward]

And 'nothing' is an unfounded claim about things prior to the Big Bang.

Nope. I have never, do not and will not ever claim to know anything about the affairs "before" the Big Bang. It is logically and semantically incoherent to even suggest it, since there would not have been any frame of reference to determine what time would be. In other words, to say "before time" or "before the Big Bang" simply does not make sense, since there was no "before" time. Time did not exist. Time suddenly came into existence as part of the state of affairs we commonly call the beginning of the universe, when time as a dimensional quality separated from other fundamental dimensions (like spatial dimensions).

You're doing it again. Making claims about the nature of the Universe at or before the Big Bang. The Big Bang theory states that there was a rapid expansion. It does not state that prior there was nothing. General relativity is probably where you're getting this from. But GR is just a model which breaks down at the extremes in a manner very similar to how classic mechanics breaks down on planetary and quantum scales. GR is simply a model which has a fixed range of applicability. Going outside this range does not imply that energy, matter and spatiotemporal dimensions cease - the model simply stops being a reliable guide. And finally, we do not actually know if the contortion of the laws of physics actually goes to breaking point - the model is limited to after the Planck Epoch.

Of course, you're going to argue this point very strenously - much of your bad logic plays rely upon time starting at this point. Ironically, you seem to trust science more here on this newish theory than elsewhere, like evolution which is nearly three times older and vastly more supported. I thought you followed good science? Evidentially you do not; you follow good science so long as it does not steal credit away from your God.

Faith is a poor method of acquiring knowledge.

++Damn, you can't edit. Sorry for reposting, but it makes it clearer++

I'm going to reply with the above. Am I commiting any silly mistakes?

[Ward]

Might as well post the rest of my upcoming reply:

Oh, and you may want to google the term "Argument From Contingency" and see what you find. Additionally, I think you will find even your own arguments soundly refuted HERE

Links are a boring way to debate.

And 'nothing' is an unfounded claim about things prior to the Big Bang.

Nope. I have never, do not and will not ever claim to know anything about the affairs "before" the Big Bang. It is logically and semantically incoherent to even suggest it, since there would not have been any frame of reference to determine what time would be. In other words, to say "before time" or "before the Big Bang" simply does not make sense, since there was no "before" time. Time did not exist. Time suddenly came into existence as part of the state of affairs we commonly call the beginning of the universe, when time as a dimensional quality separated from other fundamental dimensions (like spatial dimensions).

You're doing it again. Making claims about the nature of the Universe at or before the Big Bang. The Big Bang theory states that there was a rapid expansion. It does not state that prior there was nothing - how could nothing then rapidly expand? General relativity is probably where you're getting this from. But GR is just a model which breaks down at the extremes in a manner very similar to how classic mechanics breaks down on planetary and quantum scales. GR is simply a model which has a fixed range of applicability. Going outside this range does not imply that energy, matter and spatiotemporal dimensions cease - the model simply stops being a reliable guide. And finally, we do not actually know if the contortion of the laws of physics actually goes to breaking point - the model is limited to after the Planck Epoch.

Of course, you're going to argue this point very strenously - much of your bad logic plays rely upon time starting at this point. Ironically, you seem to trust science more here on this newish theory than elsewhere, like evolution which is nearly three times older and vastly more supported. I thought you followed good science? Evidentially you do not; you follow good science so long as it does not steal credit away from your God.

Again, why can't the Universe be uncaused?

Because it is contingent. All contingent event/objects are caused. Again, if you differ, then I'm sure we would all be interested to know what natural event/object is known to be necessary and not contingent.

It seems to me that this whole idea of contingent and non-contingent is illogical. In order for anything to affect anything else, it must change, and thus must be contingent. Thus non-contingent things don't "exist" at all. Since if they affect nothing else, how can their existance possibly be argued? This whole argument is to me simply a rewording of the first cause argument and trying to get beyound the infinity of what caused the first cause or where did it come from. Contingency falls into the same logical trap and leaves the same question still begging.

And before I forget, garydenness mentioned that in order to prove all aspects of P1, you need to prove P5, the conclusion. Good luck with that!

Ha! Actually, #5 is the conclusion, while those starting with "P" are the premises. So plz, understand the construction of the argument first.

I understand the form well enough that you've inserted an unsupported assertion A.K.A. "God" in P2 and the conclusion which can logically be replaced by anything to 'prove' they exist. E.g., replace God with Giant Invisible Fire Breathing Gnat, etc.

How is it that you are able to state that God is uncaused and that nothing else is? Wishful thinking? Special pleading again and again

Nope. It would be special pleading if I stated that it is the "Christian" God, or the "Muslim God" or the "Greek gods"...But I simply say "God", as defined as an extradimensional, powerful, intelligent, purposeful and creative being who is unconstrained by matter, energy, space and time. Now, I can state that God is uncaused, because it is a logical necessity. All matter, all energy, all space and time had a beginning. Anything that has a beginning is contingent, not necessary. It follows then, that the universe had a beginning by an external cause. That cause then, must be unconstrained by time, since even time had a beginning. It follows logically, that the cause of the universe is timeless. This alone is not sufficient to make an inference that it is true, but I think it is more than enough to rule out the less plausible hypotheses that ad hoc, make believe naturalistic scenarios postulate.

Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to everything while taking one special thing to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption. That's you. Uncanny methinks.

Here's a hint, if God transcends logic, you can't use logic to arrive at God. If God is uncaused, I can postulate that the Universe is uncaused using the same 'undeniable' arguments.

And every characteristic of God you've posted is a unsupported assertion.

The last bit needs work...

Thanks for the feedback and the constructive ideas.

[Surlethe]

Here's an illustrative analogy that might help you get the point across regarding the "prior to the start of time" bullshit: "prior to the Big Bang" makes about as much sense as "north of the North Pole".

[Wyrm]

I noticed this tidbit that you might want to work into your argument.

Any reasonable interpretation of that premise will include God when we say 'Everything that exists'. What caused God? If God is claimed to be uncaused, eternal, extradimensional, or some how not bound by the common cause-effect thinking, then the first premise is contradicted so long as the set of 'Everything that exists' includes God.

Not if God exists by the necessity of His nature. If that is the case, and it is a necessary truth that it is the case, then God is exempted from the "everything".

Bantay here not only resorts to special pleading, but also to begging the question, another fallacy: he says that God's existence is necessary by his nature. The thing is... the necessity of his existence is the very thing Leibniz's argument is trying to establish — the argument is supposed to show that the universe needs explanation and that explanation is God, therefore God is necessity by his very nature.

You're only allowed to make this kind of conclusion is if assuming the negation leads to a contradiction. But assuming that God is not necessary by his very nature does not lead to a contradiction, but (assuming you accept P1) to an infinite regress. Although an infinite regress is in most cases a sign of an absurdity, it is not the same thing as a contradiction.