Arguments for God's Existence from Contingency

[SteveII]

Premise 2.  Unsound, and assumes the conclusion.  How could that not jump out at you?

I don't think either of those charges is true.

For reference: 
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

Would you have a problem with "If atheism is true, the universe has no explanation of its existence?" Premise 2 simply states that very same conclusion in a logically equivalent way (the opposite). Neither logically equivalent statement assumes the conclusion because the premise is just laying out the either/or -- prefaced with "If". 

Additionally, it is easy to also reason that if something created the universe, it was a necessarily existing, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and personal cause. There are very few things that answer to all those attributes.  Where did this list come from? They are simply the things necessary to either stop an infinite regress or are attributes that describe what must have preceded those things that began to exist when the universe began to exist (or a combination of both).

---

Here is this very argument being dissected 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyath...ntingency/



If the OP is allowed to use a website so am i .

I thought of Matt D.'s breakdown as soon as I saw this thread title.

If either of you want's to summarize or pull out a point or two, I will respond. I am not going to have a discussion with a youtube video.