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

[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).