The Principle of Contingent Causation: The Impossibility of Infinite Regress.

[Bucky Ball]

Modern Science 100% confirms the Philosophical Truth established by learned Philosophers long ago. I will quote Alexander Vilenkin and then shake off the dust: "THE OBSTRUCTION may be found in the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin (BGV) theorem.8 Loosely speaking, our theorem states that if the universe is, on average, expanding, then its history cannot be indefinitely continued into the past ... No matter how small the probability of collapse, the universe could not have existed for an infinite amount of time before the onset of inflation." https://inference-review.com/article/the...e-universe

Again, the BGV theorem doesn't say that any universe must have a beginning. There is a condition to keep in mind here for the BGV to apply. The universe must, on average, be expanding.

So even if this observable universe is expanding and thus has a beginning (per the theorem), there could be a "higher-level" universe out there that exists but is not expanding and which doesn't have a beginning.

And the article you share here is Vilenkin's view on what universes are possible/plausible, not just what the BGV theorem states. So he is going beyond what the theorem itself says. Vilenkin is not the sole authority on this matter though. Alan Guth, one of the two other founders of the theorem, disagrees with Vilenkin and thinks it is possible for there to be a universe that is eternal. The BGV theorem itself doesn't make a statement about who between them is correct.

Also IN THIS THREAD I've already proven him wrong. "Modern Science" proves no such thing. 

"Theoretical cosmologist Sean M. Carroll argues that the theorem only applies to classical spacetime, and may not hold under consideration of a complete theory of quantum gravity. He added that Alan Guth, one of the co-authors of the theorem, disagrees with Vilenkin and believes that the universe had no beginning."
 

Turns out Vilenkin doesn't either. See below. Craig LIED about the theorem and what it implied.
"At 49:00, (in their debate) Dr. Carroll explains why Craig's argument misrepresents the BGV theorem." ... Dr. Sean Carroll (Cal Tech) schools WLC why his shit is so wrong, in their debate.

"The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem has been used by William Lane Craig to argue that the universe itself had to have a beginning.
We saw that cosmologists I contacted, including Vilenkin, Carroll, and Aguirre, all of whom have published works on the subject, agreed that no such conclusion is warranted."
... Stenger, Victor J. The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe is not Designed for Us. Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2011. p. 145

[GrandizerII]

Again, the BGV theorem doesn't say that any universe must have a beginning. There is a condition to keep in mind here for the BGV to apply. The universe must, on average, be expanding.

So even if this observable universe is expanding and thus has a beginning (per the theorem), there could be a "higher-level" universe out there that exists but is not expanding and which doesn't have a beginning.

And the article you share here is Vilenkin's view on what universes are possible/plausible, not just what the BGV theorem states. So he is going beyond what the theorem itself says. Vilenkin is not the sole authority on this matter though. Alan Guth, one of the two other founders of the theorem, disagrees with Vilenkin and thinks it is possible for there to be a universe that is eternal. The BGV theorem itself doesn't make a statement about who between them is correct.

Also IN THIS THREAD I've already proven him wrong. "Modern Science" proves no such thing. 

"Theoretical cosmologist Sean M. Carroll argues that the theorem only applies to classical spacetime, and may not hold under consideration of a complete theory of quantum gravity. He added that Alan Guth, one of the co-authors of the theorem, disagrees with Vilenkin and believes that the universe had no beginning."
 

Turns out Vilenkin doesn't either. See below. Craig LIED about the theorem and what it implied.
"At 49:00, (in their debate) Dr. Carroll explains why Craig's argument misrepresents the BGV theorem." ... Dr. Sean Carroll (Cal Tech) schools WLC why his shit is so wrong, in their debate.

"The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem has been used by William Lane Craig to argue that the universe itself had to have a beginning.
We saw that cosmologists I contacted, including Vilenkin, Carroll, and Aguirre, all of whom have published works on the subject, agreed that no such conclusion is warranted."
... Stenger, Victor J. The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe is not Designed for Us. Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2011. p. 145

The article Nishant linked to makes it clear Vilenkin didn't consider the universe being eternal to be plausible, though. I think Stenger was just saying that Vilenkin didn't believe the BGV theorem itself warranted that the universe had to have a beginning, but it doesn't mean Vilenkin thought the universe being eternal was plausible.

[LinuxGal]

3. Therefore, not every Being in existence is a contingent being.

4. Specifically, the First Being in Existence exists Non-Contingently. 

And this some men call the Universe.

[LinuxGal]

Is there anything that must exist in order for quantum foam to exist? 

A good question but I might phrase it differently. What must be true in order for quantum foam to exist and have the properties it seems to have?

That the product of uncertainty in position and momentum (or in time and energy, or in orientation and angular momentum) must be greater than or equal to h bar over 2.

[GrandizerII]

3. Therefore, not every Being in existence is a contingent being.

4. Specifically, the First Being in Existence exists Non-Contingently. 

And this some men call the Universe.

Nishant's arguments were worded very badly, and he was mixing up two or three different arguments together in a chaotic sense.

That said, are you thinking of contingent as:

1. dependent for its existence on something else, or
   
2. not necessary (i.e., it could've not existed instead or it could've existed in a different way instead)?
   

If 2, then saying that the universe is not contingent is going to be a rather extreme view. This suggests you may be a necessitarian maybe?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessitarianism

[The Architect Of Fate]

And this some men call the Universe.

Nishant's arguments were worded very badly, and he was mixing up two or three different arguments together in a chaotic sense.

That said, are you thinking of contingent as:

1. dependent for its existence on something else, or
   
2. not necessary (i.e., it could've not existed instead or it could've existed in a different way instead)?
   

If 2, then saying that the universe is not contingent is going to be a rather extreme view. This suggests you may be a necessitarian maybe?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessitarianism

I gotta say i'm not a fan of definition 2 as something existing differently doesn't contradict necessity I also don't really buy being unnecessary as being equal to being contingent. Also i have to consider depending on what one means by the universe I even question definition 1.

[Bucky Ball]

3. Therefore, not every Being in existence is a contingent being.
4. Specifically, the First Being in Existence exists Non-Contingently. 

1. So you assert with no support. 
(The very least you could do is tell us which logic you employ to come to that conclusion, AND how exactly you know that logic applies here). 
In WL Craig's debate with Cosmologist Sean Carroll, Carroll asked that question, (which one would think that someone with a website called "Reasonable Faith") 
would have answers  for, as there are a number of logics, and some of them, while being perfectly internally correct, do not "obtain" in reality).  
2. "First" is a temporal concept. One of the "properties" of your god is that it is timeless, (and what "existence" is in a timeless environment we have no clue), therefore your "4" is meaningless. 

This is a site of largely non-believers. 
Coming here and asserting your beliefs is very bad judgement, and horrible PR for your religion. 
I personally know many believers, but none of them lack such basic understanding. 

Nishant's arguments were worded very badly, and he was mixing up two or three different arguments together in a chaotic sense.
That said, are you thinking of contingent as:

1. dependent for its existence on something else, or
   
2. not necessary (i.e., it could've not existed instead or it could've existed in a different way instead)?
   

If 2, then saying that the universe is not contingent is going to be a rather extreme view. This suggests you may be a necessitarian maybe?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessitarianism

The concept of anything "necessary" with respect to any god, means the god is subject to the laws of Reality, and automatically excludes that deity from any 
consideration. A Reality in which the (supposed) creator of Reality is subject to anything ("necessary") demonstrates the creator is not the maker of a larger Reality, which obviously it didn't create. The question always comes back to a version of this : always the gods have properties. That's not possible if they create the very reality they are, and find themselves in. The question remains, "Where did Reality come from" ? It's like "Windows". Except there's always another higher folder to open.  
There is no coherent answer to this, which is why "Igtheism" is a good position. Atheism is unnecessary, until there is a coherent definition of a god, 
there is no reason to take a position with respect to "gods". "Apositionarianism". I made that up.

Theism is nothing but anthropomorphic projection.

[Angrboda]

[LinuxGal]

And this some men call the Universe.

Nishant's arguments were worded very badly, and he was mixing up two or three different arguments together in a chaotic sense.

That said, are you thinking of contingent as:

1. dependent for its existence on something else, or
   
2. not necessary (i.e., it could've not existed instead or it could've existed in a different way instead)?
   

If 2, then saying that the universe is not contingent is going to be a rather extreme view. This suggests you may be a necessitarian maybe?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessitarianism

If believers can assert the creator of the universe is a necessary being whose existence we are to take as a brute fact to satisfy certain metaphysical worries, then I can also assert that the universe itself is necessary and to be taken as a brute fact, with the advantage (to the delight of the shade of William of Ockham) of making a creator redundant. I can support this by pointing out that we don't know how to create or destroy energy, only change its form.  This makes the total quantity of energy necessary even as the guise it takes on (matter, motion, light) is malleable.

[FrustratedFool]

It all seems absurd to me whichever way you slice it. A brute fact God or a brute fact universe are both 'crazy' to me.