Leibnizian Cosmological Argument

[MindForgedManacle]

What do y'all thing of this apologetic argument? I'm about to go to sleep so I'm a bit unfocused right now, but I remember something about his defense of why the explanation for the universe's existence necessarily having to be a 'necessary being' being shaky and/or nonsensical when I watched the video a few hours back.

[Jackalope]

In short, the argument commits the fallacies of composition and equivocation in much the same way that the Kalam argument does. Though admittedly, someone that doesn't spot the fallacies there won't see them here either.

[max-greece]

Hilariously I am getting the message that the video does not exist, but I am familiar with the concept so:

Point 1:

Inherent in the argument is that there are 2 types of entity which is usually defined as necessary and contingent. Necessary things have to exist whilst contingent things may or may not exist. The argument is that the universe is contingent whilst the creator of the universe is necessary.

Here, for me, is the flaw in the argument. Whilst the universe may be contingent initially it becomes necessary as soon as the question is asked.

In other words - the universe must exist for the the questioner to exist and the question to be consequently raised.

Point 2:

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

This is a quantum leap on many levels to even count:

Our universe may be embedded in another universe and that in another and so on. The primary cause of the highest level of universe could indeed be God but we could be many times removed from God. Religious people don't like this argument as that makes the theist God ever more unlikely - even if it does create a deist God.

Something from nothing. I have covered this many times on the forum. See Professor Krauss' theories. In essense nothingness is unstable in Quantum Physics.

Which God?

Why does the creator have to be a force for good?

etc etc.

[Tartarus Sauce]

I clicked here because I thought the title was "Lesbian Cosmological Argument."

Needless to say, I am massively disappointed.

[Captain Colostomy]

I clicked here because I thought the title was "Lesbian Cosmological Argument."

Needless to say, I am massively disappointed.

Search 'Two Girls, One Cup' for the lesbian version. Be forewarned, though, like most cosmological arguments, the premise is shit.

[LastPoet]

Search 'Two Girls, One Cup' for the lesbian version. Be forewarned, though, like most cosmological arguments, the premise is shit.

Friendly advice, what you will see, cannot be unseen.

[Angrboda]

404.


I don't understand why people make such a fuss about that video.

[MindForgedManacle]

I clicked here because I thought the title was "Lesbian Cosmological Argument."

Needless to say, I am massively disappointed.

Hah, there's an argument I could get behind. :p