Leibniz’s cosmological arguments debatesthat the individual things, or the entire collection of series of things, needssome explanation for its existence.
This is known as the Principle of SufficientReason. The basic idea behind the principle can be described with an example onhow we could take any feature of the world and just accept the way it isbecause there must be some sort of explanation behind it. Leibniz’s concludesthat the most applicable explanation for the creation of the cosmos is with theexistence of a necessary being whose non-existence is an impossibility and thenecessary being is referred to the existence of God. However, the Cosmologicalargument is more than that, it argues from some grand cosmological feature whichcould not even in principle have a material or efficient cause which could bediscovered by science. One of the most famous problems that isfaced by the cosmological argument is the TaxicabProblem.
The name of this problem is originated from a quip of Schopenhauerwhere he states that the Principle of Sufficient Reason is like a taxicabbecause once used, it is sent away. A famous formulation is ‘If God is thecause of the universe, what is the cause of God?’ (Pruss, 2006). A typical explanation would argue that the case of the First Causewould not be affected because the Principle of Sufficient Reason is applied. Furthermore,since the first cause of the cosmological arguments is based on the existenceof a necessary being and The Principle of Sufficient Reasons as defendedapplies only to contingent states of affairs, the problem of applying thePrinciple of Sufficient Reasons to the existence of the necessary being doesnot arise. And even if one defended the Principle of Sufficient Reasons explainedby the necessity of its existence, or that there is a sound ontologicalargument which we simply have not been smart enough to find yet.
The Gap Problem has yetto see as much progress in finding the logic of the cosmological argumentbecause it is merely sociological. The typical philosophical atheist oragnostic not only doesn’t believe in God, but also doesn’t believe in anecessarily existing first cause while the standard philosophers whoaccepts a necessarily existing first cause is also a theist. Therefore, sincethere is a lack of audience on arguments that the necessary existing firstcause is God, it makes much more sense to clarify on the argument of the FirstCause, and then only proceed with the argument that there is such necessarybeing such as God. Probably the most important part of the GapProblem is the question whether the first cause is an agent. After all,if the First Causes remained being all non-agentive necessarily existing constituentsthat arbitrarily spits out islands universes (the big bang theory), then theconclusion of the cosmological argument would be incompatible with theism.Other than that, there is thequestion of the other attributes that God has been traditionally been describedto be omniscience, omnipotence, transcendence and, crucially, perfectgoodness.
At the same time, it is quite rational for a defender of thecosmological argument to stop deriving the attributes of the First Cause atsome point, and say that the other attributes are to be accepted by acombination of faith and data from other arguments for the existence ofGod. In any case, are is the Christian cosmological arguer who claims tobe able to show that the First Cause is a Trinity, and indeed Catholic theologianssuch as Thomas Aquinas may say this is good, since that God is a Trinity is amatter of faith. Nor does the inability to show by reasoned argumentsthat the First Cause has some attribute provide much of an argument against the claim that the FirstCause has that attribute.
There are two universal methodologies for connecting the gap between the FirstCause and God which is through inductive arguments and metaphysical arguments. Inductive arguments may claim that supposing that the First Cause demonstratessome attribute is the best explanation of some feature of the First Cause’seffects, and in doing so the arguments may reinterpret the considerations ofdesign arguments. On the other hand, metaphysical arguments emphasize that aFirst Cause must have some special metaphysical feature, such as being simpleor being pure actuality, from which a number of other attributes follows.Therefore, with The Gap Problem trying to prove that the First Cause’s activitymust in some way explain everything contingent. There is anobvious response to this which overruled this objection.
Leibniz’s argument doesnot say that everything needs an explanation, but only that all contingentthings needs an explanation. So the principle of sufficient reason does notimply that God needs an explanation, since God is a necessary being.Conclusively, the Cosmological arguments are ableto overcome the Taxicab problem and The Gap Problem by applying Principle ofSufficient Reason.
This ultimate conclusion of the universe and existenceinescapably leads to the existence of God. If an internally consistent model of God canbe made, meaning a being that is omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence: Godnot only must exist, he already does and always has for anything that can befully comprehended and defined through information is totally equivalent toanything that we know to exist. Now, what causes a model to be processedcompared to one that can simply exist? The answer is something capable ofcomprehending that process and running the math through each step. We see thisin computers all the time.
The human mind is also capable of comprehendingmathematical processes and finding the conclusions, but we are incapable ofrunning a continual process that can continue forever but a computer could ifit could stay on forever. We and everything around us is a mathematical process(a model of information) currently being processed and this is how we areexperiencing time, otherwise we and every moment of our existence would simplyjust exist with unrealized potential. What is processing us and everythingaround us? God of course. What’s processing God, himself.
Truth and informationdoesn’t need a computer to exist, they simply do and any potential anythingexists in every moment of time in one, including God.