Illustrating the burden of proof - pay me!

[GrandizerII]

Even with a multiverse, you could still ponder whether it could've had more or less universes than whatever number of universes it contains. In the case of a multiverse with infinite number of universes, you could still ponder a different collection of infinite universes. I think if you want to go with the route of physical reality being metaphysically necessary, you'd have to go with a radical view of modality. For example, the ultimate multiverse, however it may manifest, in which all [metaphysical] possibilities are realized, no exception. That way, it seems not so compelling to ask the question "why this rather than that" because why have an incomplete multiverse instead of a complete one?


Well, we can imagine a universe in place of this with slightly different initial conditions leading to a slightly different universe from this one. If we can imagine such an alternative with relative ease, and we don't have persuasive reasons to think that such an alternative is metaphysically impossible, then ...? Seems easier to go with contingent in this case, rather than necessitarianism.

Anyway, no matter what approach one takes, you're still going to end up with something that's never going to be 100% satisfactory. This includes theistic views as well. Contingent or necessary, God or multiverse or sole universe, there is some brute fact we end up having to grapple with here.

But that some thing exists at all, in any form that is possible, seems to be necessary. What is the alternative? The existence of non-existence? Or, the existence of nothing?

With regards to the universe, it's not X vs non-X. It's also just as important to consider X vs. Y vs. Z vs. ...

Something is contingent if it could have been another way instead, not merely if it could not existed at all.

One doesn't need to accept the universe is contingent, of course, but we need to consider and anticipate what theists would counter with if one were to argue for the universe being non-contingent. Saying non-existence is impossible isn't a sufficient defense of the non-contingency of the universe.