Illustrating the burden of proof - pay me!

[Neo-Scholastic]

And an atheist critic will say, that inserting the contingent/non-contingent qualifier up front allows the theist to conclude that there is at least one non-contingent cause. Maybe. What is the alterative? Everything is contingent on everyting else in a circular reference? Or nothing at all is contingent? Those who object to that distinction seem not to object to the notion that some things supervene on an ultimate physical ground that is fundamental. Sound the same conceptually.

What I’m mostly interested in is the rational justification for the proposition that physical reality itself must be contingent, and for what reasons a God’s existence has to be necessary where reality itself cannot be.

The simple answer is that physical models of reality appear to be accidental and arbitrary which suggests the various forces and constants could be otherwise. So why not?