1. Whatever exists has an explanation for its existence, either through a cause or by its own necessity
So I've been debating on the cosmological arguments for the existence of God with an opponent/friend of mine. We've recently hit a roadblock that neither of us can move away from. I have presented her with the typical 'Premise 1' of the cosmological argument (specifically, Leibniz's):Quote1. Whatever exists has an explanation for its existence, either through a cause or by its own necessityWhilst debating 'Reality' (despite this entire debate actually being a debate on cosmology), my debate opponent does not accept my logical lines of argument or even citations are enough to accurately prove the nature of reality as we know it. She is claiming that she may or may not be hallucinating (be in a simulation or unknown other experience), therefore, there is a chance that she is not experiencing reality in its true form. She postulates that reality outside of her consciousness is probably ultimately unknowable, and that therefore, Leibniz's first premise is unknowable since existence itself is unknowable. Another example is me pointing out to her that an object in her room exists, to which she replied "But how do I know it does?" - it's from this debate tactic she employs that I find myself struggling to move on in the debate, befuddled by her logic. Any others here experienced this or have advice on how we can both agree to the first premise of the cosmological argument?
Even if reality is something like a Grand simulation, and it could be, there has to be a simulator, a programmer. Everything (reality, existance, the cosmos) requires a first cause, an explanation.