God is so quiet

[SteveII]

---

Here is my take on the question you are proposing.  You want to arrive at the result that the universe is contingent.  There are multiple paths toward that end, and I think it would be instructive to examine some of them.  The first such path is to argue that the universe is contingent by way of analogy with objects existing within the universe.  Unfortunately that path is open to numerous objections which render it of little use in greater arguments.  So I think that is all that needs to be said about that.

Another path is to assume that the universe is necessary, and then in a reductio ad absurdum demonstrate that this leads to a contradiction, either logically or a contradiction with known properties of the universe (e.g. Craig's attempt to show that there was a "time" when the universe did not exist via the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem).  This approach has both advantages and disadvantages, but since this doesn't appear to be the path you've taken, I will simply leave it at that.

A third path is to simply assume the universe is contingent without justification.  As a matter of definition, it is the very meaning of the term contingent that the entity in question does not exist in all possible worlds.  When people argue ala possible worlds with respect to God, they typically assume as a matter of definition that God is necessary unless doing so results in a contradiction.  If one applies the same principle to the universe, there does not appear to be any inherent contradiction with assuming that the universe is necessary, if one is going solely by the arguments about possible worlds you've presented here.  Rather than having demonstrated that the universe is contingent, you've simply expressed the proposition that the universe is contingent using the semantics of possible worlds.  You assume the universe is contingent, to derive the result that the universe doesn't necessarily exist in all possible worlds, to turn around and use that as justification that the universe is contingent.  But "not necessarily existing in all possible worlds" is the definition of contingency, so to all appearances, you have simply assumed that the universe is contingent, then used a discussion of possible worlds to camouflage that assumption.

If indeed you are simply assuming the contingency of the universe without justification, as I've suggested here, I have no problem entertaining the notion ex hypothesi as in, "if the universe is contingent, then X, Y, and Z follows," however given the arguments I suspect you are likely to make, such a move won't profitably suit your ends.  If one simply wishes to assert the proposition that the universe is contingent without justification, as I believe you have done, then that opens one's argument to the simple expedient of simply rejecting your assumption, equally without justification.  Regardless, if I'm correct here, your detour into the field of possible worlds does not substantively advance your claim that the universe is contingent, so any argument based upon the proposition will have to depend upon other arguments than this possible worlds business.

You would have seen the smoke coming out of my ears had you watched me read this.  Why do you guys have to be so god damned smerrrt!  😛

Jorm is probably the smartest person on these boards. It takes 3x the time to respond to her because she has zeroed in on the underlying issues and you have to be careful answering because she will spot any mistakes. Of course smart people can be wrong. Obviously!

I think my answer to her post will be at the beginning of a new thread. I want to take some time to set it up properly.