Leibniz's Contingency Argument, Part 2 || Omar Arellano

Last broadcast ay we talked about the first part of the contingency argument ni Leibniz. We presented the argument and showed the truthfulness of the first premise. We also briefly talked about establishing the second premise. We showed sa second premise na si God ang best explanation sa existence ng universe. Ito ay dahil between abstract objects, such as mathematical entities, and God ay si God ang best na nag account as an explanation sa universe, dahil aside from being spaceless, timeless, and immaterial, ay we could see that God is a concrete object that is unimaginably powerful, which means na He could truly make changes sa reality, and that He is personal, which means na He could decide to create. Ang abstract objects ay causally walang power and impersonal, which cannot decide. Today ay we will talk about the second part of the contingency argument. We will continue sa pag establish ng premise 2 ng argument, then proceed to show how to establish premise 3 in case we need to give good reasons for people who deny the existence of the universe.
Going back sa premise 2, which is “If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God” ay we could meet certain people who will say that the universe just exists necessarily. This is a radical admission. Ang comment nga ni William Lane Craig ay kahit ang atheist na philosopher of science na si Adolf Grunbaum ay indignant sa suggestion na yun ang view niya when Dr. Craig asked him. There will be some people who will say na instead of the universe, maybe ang matter itself that makes up the universe ang nag exist necessarily? Kaso this is problematic kasi we know that small particles like protons and neutrons are made up of quarks. May six types of quarks, which are up, down, charm, strange, top, and bottom. They can’t say na the ang matter in which elementary particles are composed of exists necessarily kasi they aren’t composed of anything. They are basic units of matter. So kung wala ang particular particle ay ang matter itself will not exist. Physicists would say din na the fundamental particles we have could’ve been different instead of the one that we have, and if that’s the case then we could’ve have a different universe. Dr. Craig gave an analogy like if your desk made of wood would instead be made of ice. If that happens, then an ice desk would’ve been a different desk and not the same desk. The same way that if we have different set of fundamental particles, ay even if it’s arranged identically sa universe natin ngayon ay we will still have a different universe. Even Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow would say na our universe ay isa sa 10500 na possible universes na maaaring mag come into existence. If the universe could’ve been different, then hindi ito nag exist by necessity. Now that we are able to establish Premise 2, let’s proceed sa third premise, which is “The universe exists”. If we meet a skeptic who doubts the existence of the external world, what do we do? Are we in the matrix? This is a first-order na skepticism. One solution na natutunan ko from Dr. Craig na puwede ko ibigay to this problem ay tinatawag na particularism. Advocates ng view na ito ay si G.E. Moore, Roderick Chisholm, and si Thomas Reid. Basically ay they will say that people can know specific na clear items for knowledge. Example nito ay we can affirm that we may seem to see a tree, or we can say na we know that 5+5 = 10, na kumain ako ng sinigang as lunch, atbp. And sinasabi rin ng particularists na we can know certain things without having to have a criteria kung paano natin nalaman ang mga bagay na iyon. We know many things kahit di natin fully na naiintindihan ang mga bagay bagay o kahit hindi natin kaya patunayan ang alam natin. Ang isang skeptic can object sa isang particularist in two ways: ang first one ay they will say na ang particularist ay nag beg ng question. Ang begging the question ay isang fallacy where the conclusion is assumed sa premises. So when the skeptic says this ay sinasabi niya na ina-assume ng particularist ang point in question, which is whether people have knowledge. Ang second one naman ay they will ask the particularist “how do you know?” Sa accusations na ito ay particularists could respond to this in four ways: First, if ang skeptic ay isang iterative skeptic, meaning ay hindi siya nag offer ng argument but merely asks in every assertion, “how did you know?” ay puwede hindi pansinin ito ng particularist dahil wala silang solid na position or argument. Pero if ang skepticism niya ay result ng isang argument ay puwede ipakita na one cannot reasonably doubt anything if you do not know some things. Ang isang global na unmitigated na skepticism ay hindi defensible na position kasi when they assert something ay they presuppose knowledge which they are trying to deny na possible. Second ay if skeptics will ask the question na “how do you know?” Particularists can simply refuse to play their game by saying na we can know certain things without being able to show or prove how we know it. Third, a particularist can say na just because logically possible na mali siya sa isang bagay ay hindi automatic na mali na siya agad in reality. So if hindi kaya ng skeptic to show good reasons kung bakit mali ang particularist ay hindi enough to merely say na logically possible na mali siya. Ang burden of proof ay nasa skeptic to show this.

Fourth, the particularist can show na he avoids the infinite regress sa usapan about knowledge and that they accord with the reality na people could really know some things contrary sa assertion ng skeptic. As a side comment, maliban sa arguments na binigay natin about particularism which we could use to demonstrate na we could know some things, like the existence of the universe, we can see common-sensically na the skeptic does not live consistently sa kanilang beliefs kasi in reality they live their lives as if they could really know some things. For this reason ay we could say na it’s the case that the universe or the external world does exist. Take note na in presenting an argument sa conversations ay hindi natin need i-establish or show lahat ng premises. We can just argue for the truthfulness of the premise if yung certain premise ay may objection from a person na kausap natin. Some of the premises kasi ay maaari na they will concede, like the third premise. So to review, let’s go back sa argument:

Premise 1: Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence.
Premise 2: If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
Premise 3: The universe exists.
Premise 4: The universe has an explanation for its existence.
Conclusion: Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God.

So based on the contingency argument, in light of what we have talked about. Since premise 1 and 3 is true, then it follows sa premise 4 na ang universe ay may explanation for its existence. And since premise 2 and 4 ay totoo ay it’s reasonable for us to conclude na ang explanation for the existence of the universe is God. And if you don’t prefer the term God, as Dr. Craig would argue, ay the best explanation is “the extremely powerful, uncaused, necessarily existing, non-contingent, non-physical, immaterial, eternal being, who created the universe and everything in it”.

Today, in this broadcast ay we were able to show that the best explanation sa existence ng universe ay si God by addressing the objection that the universe exists necessarily. Aside from that ay I gave one good reason to show skeptics that the universe or the external world ay indeed nag exist in case they meet actual people first-order skeptics. Next broadcast ay we will now talk about the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which is an argument that shows what is the best explanation for the beginning of the universe.