NEO-LEIBNIZIAN COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
OBJECTIONS TO PREMISE PREMISE 1
This post discusses objections to premise one. There is no need to repeat the reasoning (just see the main post on the NLCA).
So let's immediately look at common objections against premise 1:
THE WRPSR ONLY MAKES SENSE FOR EMPIRICAL KNOWLEDGE
Simply because everything in the physical world has an explanation, does not mean that the physical world as a whole has an explanation. The problem with this objection is that the restricted principle of sufficient reason is not a principle of merely the physical world. It is used also in all of the formal sciences, like mathematics and statistics.
THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT LOGICALLY CANNOT BE EXPLAINED; THEREFORE THE WRPSR IS FALSE
It is logically impossible explain why things that are actually false are true, since that is a logical contradiction. For example, one cannot explain that 2+2=5, because it isn't. There are quite a number of philosophers who discredit the principle of sufficient reason because of this. I agree. However, as any reader who has paid attention can readily point out, this argument does not use the principle of sufficient reason (PSR), it uses the Weak and Restricted principle of sufficient reason (WRPSR). The WRPSR states that only things that possibly have explanations, are expected to have explanations. Thus, 2+2=5 is not covered by the WRPSR, because an explanation is not possible.
I understand where this objection is coming from. For, the PSR was used by the original Leibnizian Cosmological argument (LCA). But, obviously, this argument is not the LCA. This is the Neo-Leibnizian Cosmological Argument (NLCA), and uses the WRPSR.
RADIOACTIVE DECAY HAS NO REASON
Radioactive Decay does not have an explanation. Therefore the premise is false. This objection is quite ridiculous. We do not know the explanation behind radioactive decay, that does not mean there isn’t any. In fact, arguing that radioactive decay happens without any explanation is an immediate stopper to all of science: Why investigate anything if one does not know the reason? The logic used here is “if the reason of an event is unknown, there is no reason”. But this is ridiculous. When Newton saw the apple falling, did he say “I do not know the reason of this event, therefore the apple falls without a reason”?? Of course not! On the contrary, he tried to EXPLAIN the event. And this explanation formulated the famous “Newton’s Laws”, which Newton wrote in his book the Principia Mathematica, the most important piece of scientific literature in the history of modern science.
THE QUANTUM VACCUUM OBJECTION
One popular objection to this comes from physics - or rather: the popularization of a misinterpretation of physics. The objection is that quantum-physics has shown that virtual particles could come into being in a quantum vacuum. This objection assumes that a quantum vacuum equals “nothing”. This is what popularizers say to uneducated people, but not what physicists say. On the contrary, according to contemporary professors of physics, a vacuum is FAR from nothing; it is not “no-thing”. A quantum vacuum, even a pure quantum vacuum ("pure" in the sense that it is completely devoid of "regular" particles) is a real physical object that contains a violent sea of fluctuating energy and has a true physical structure. Moreover, a vacuum can have actual pressure. In fact, the properties of protons, neutrons and electrons are not determined by protons, neutrons and electrons themselves, but by their interaction with vacuum.
Keep in mind that nothing is absence. It is no-thing. But, considering what has just been stated, a quantum vaccuum, no matter how pure it is, it is OBVIOUSLY not nothing.
Prof Lawrence Krauss, an extremely anti-theistic atheist physicist, even admits in his popular (and ironically titled) book "A Universe from nothing" that a vacuum is not nothing.
Prof Alexander Vilenkin, an agnostic cosmologist, also makes it clear that a vacuum is devoid from regular particles, but it is in no way "nothing" (see for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7I3uM-kMPI). It has pressure, energy, and even different energy states.
William Lane Craig (yes, a Christian), a philosopher of cosmology (PhD), researched whether it is even logically and quantum physically possible for something to come out of nothing. He concluded this is both physically as well as pure logically impossible. Moreover, he submits that the word "nothing" cannot responsibly be applied to a quantum vacuum. To do so is neither responsible in the terminology of physics, nor in the philosophy of science ("The ultimate question of origins: God and the beginning of the Universe", Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol. 269 - 270, Number 1 - 4, pages 723 - 740).
Now, another assumption this objection makes is that virtual particles come into being without a reason. But this assumption is just an ungrounded statement. The explanation is simply not known. Simply because the explanation is unknown, does not mean there is no explanation at all. In fact, arguing in such a manner goes against the most basic and most basic principle in the history of science: Out of nothing, nothing comes.
THE "BRUTE FACT WITHOUT NECESSITY" OBJECTION
Some people consider the existence of the Universe, or perhaps the existence of anything remotely physical, to be a brute fact. This can mean 3 things: The universe exists as a necessity, the universe exists inexplicably, or we simply will never know why the universe exists.
Consider first that the universe exists as a necessity. For the universe to be a necessity, it has to be (on the whole) unchanging, as well as impossible not to exist. But there is nothing impossible about the universe not existing. If someone claims that the universe's non-existence to be impossible, that person has the burden of proof. As far as I am aware, no one has come up with a good argument to show that it is impossible for the universe not to exist.
Consider secondly that the universe exists inexplicably. This is an enormously un-scientific statement. If one states that the universe exists inexplicably, what stops us from explaining any fact in the world of being inexplicable true? If one accepts inexplicable brute facts, yet without proof that these facts are necessities, I could also claim that a certain probability distribution function has certain parameters, just inexplicably, without having to give any mathematical proof whatsoever. Or, I could say that certain ecological processes are what they are just inexplicably, without making any further empirical inquiries. In fact, any explanation for facts in science, be it formal or empirical science, can be replaced by saying that they are just "inexplicably" true. If, however, one claims that only the universe's existence is a brute fact, than one is guilty of special pleading, which is a fallacy.
Consider finally that we will simply never know why the universe exists. This can be refuted quite easily: This argument, the Neo-Leibnizian Cosmological Argument, is an explanation for why the universe exists. So clearly, it is possible to know why the universe exists. It seems to me that it is not the argument itself that is problematic to the giver of the objection, but rather the problems is perhaps that the argument concludes GOD exists. But in that case, one is simply stating, though implicitly, that one denies argument a-priori. This is irrational The NLCA is a deductive argument; if the premises are true, and they follow the chain of logic, then the conclusion cannot be denied rationally.