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

[The Grand Nudger]

I think someone mentioned it earlier, but it may be the case that at least one universe is an intrinsic property of any reality.

Whatever there is, if there’s anything at all, would be the/a universe.

[GrandizerII]

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.

Believers tend to believe God (i.e., the God they believe in) can only be one way, or else it wouldn't be God. From an intuitive standpoint, it seems reasonable. For God to be God, it would have to be pretty unique and also very simple. So saying God is necessary (assuming it exists) seems to make sense.

As for the universe. If you believe that the universe can only be one way, then that's logically fine, but be aware that this probably means you hold to an extreme view on modality. Because it goes against intuition to say it is not possible that our planet could have been one mile closer or further away from the sun (for example).

[LinuxGal]

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.

As for the universe. If you believe that the universe can only be one way, then that's logically fine, but be aware that this probably means you hold to an extreme view on modality. Because it goes against intuition to say it is not possible that our planet could have been one mile closer or further away from the sun (for example).

Actually, every Fourth of July the planet spends the next six months drawing 3.1 million miles closer to the sun, and just after New Year's Day it starts crawling back out again. It is not possible for out planet to be very much different than this, simply because it wouldn't be "our" planet, in that case, would it?  This would be the planet of a different species adapted to those conditions.

[GrandizerII]

As for the universe. If you believe that the universe can only be one way, then that's logically fine, but be aware that this probably means you hold to an extreme view on modality. Because it goes against intuition to say it is not possible that our planet could have been one mile closer or further away from the sun (for example).

Actually, every Fourth of July the planet spends the next six months drawing 3.1 million miles closer to the sun, and just after New Year's Day it starts crawling back out again. It is not possible for out planet to be very much different than this, simply because it wouldn't be "our" planet, in that case, would it?  This would be the planet of a different species adapted to those conditions.

My fault for the incomplete wording. I meant at any point in time, whatever the actual position of the Earth is relative to the Sun, it could have been possible for that position to be different from what it actually is at that point in time.

Do you agree with the above?

You're right to suggest that at some point, counterfactuals reasonably cease to be close enough in resemblance to the actual thing under question, so that they should no longer be counted as counterfactuals. But putting that aside, if this universe could have been different in some way, even in a slightly different way, then it would be hard to make the argument for it being necessary, would it? If the universe, as it is actually, could have not existed, then you could still make the case for it being a brute fact, but it just wouldn't be a necessary brute fact (by definition).

[Fake Messiah]

My fault for the incomplete wording. I meant at any point in time, whatever the actual position of the Earth is relative to the Sun, it could have been possible for that position to be different from what it actually is at that point in time.

Do you agree with the above?

Not agreeable. It looks like you are making soundbites. What you are saying about Earth being in a different place is like saying that if I had the sock that is in my left leg on my right leg the universe would be different.

[GrandizerII]

My fault for the incomplete wording. I meant at any point in time, whatever the actual position of the Earth is relative to the Sun, it could have been possible for that position to be different from what it actually is at that point in time.

Do you agree with the above?

Not agreeable. It looks like you are making soundbites. What you are saying about Earth being in a different place is like saying that if I had the sock that is in my left leg on my right leg the universe would be different.

Um, yes, exactly. Different arrangements of particles => a different universe.

Pretty logical to me. But since you don't agree, walk me through your reasoning.

[Fake Messiah]

Not agreeable. It looks like you are making soundbites. What you are saying about Earth being in a different place is like saying that if I had the sock that is in my left leg on my right leg the universe would be different.

Um, yes, exactly. Different arrangements of particles => a different universe.

Pretty logical to me. But since you don't agree, walk me through your reasoning.

Your examples are too trivial and thus are your arguments.

[GrandizerII]

Um, yes, exactly. Different arrangements of particles => a different universe.

Pretty logical to me. But since you don't agree, walk me through your reasoning.

Your examples are too trivial and thus are your arguments.

If you say so. But the irony regarding your brief (and not exactly substantive) replies is not lost on me.

[Fake Messiah]

Your examples are too trivial and thus are your arguments.

If you say so. But the irony regarding your brief (and not exactly substantive) replies is not lost on me.

I did say before that it is nonsense (soundbites) and if you can not see it yourself then there is something else going on. Like, what exactly are you doing here? You claim to be an atheist and yet topic after topic you are trying to show us how theist arguments make sense. So if you think that theist arguments for the existence of god are not a failure then how are you an atheist? And if you think that they are a failure but are arguing the opposite, then you are just trolling.

[GrandizerII]

If you say so. But the irony regarding your brief (and not exactly substantive) replies is not lost on me.

I did say before that it is nonsense (soundbites) and if you can not see it yourself then there is something else going on. Like, what exactly are you doing here? You claim to be an atheist and yet topic after topic you are trying to show us how theist arguments make sense. So if you think that theist arguments for the existence of god are not a failure then how are you an atheist? And if you think that they are a failure but are arguing the opposite, then you are just trolling.

What I'm trying to get from you is how is it nonsense? You can't just resort to brief dismissals and ad hominem and think that invalidates whatever argument I may be making.

Also, are you ok? Is it a problem if I want to be as objective as I can get with these arguments, and try not to let my biases get the better of me? Maybe I don't think in terms of black or white when it comes to arguments for God, and maybe I see sometimes that people misunderstand some of these arguments, and I have this urge to want to elaborate on how they should be understood?

Maybe it's a you problem? Even recently, I have critiqued arguments for God made by theists, including in this thread. If I want to encourage atheists to steelman arguments for God, it doesn't mean therefore I think the arguments are sound or persuasive. I do believe that some of these arguments, when worded properly, can be logical, however (as long as you don't get into the realm of clear nonsense, of course).