Arguments for God's Existence from Contingency

[The Grand Nudger]

It won't -matter- if you have "support for premise 2"..which, frankly, you do not.  Assuming for the sake of conversation that you did, and that this proposition wasn;t fundamentally useless in a conditional statement in it's own right...you would -still- need to find a different way to formulate the argument..as it would still assume it's own conclusion, asserting what it intends to demonstrate.

2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
4. The universe has an explanation of its existence.
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God. (from 2 and 4)

Nothing short of an explanation for the universe explictly referencing god -could- suffice as "support for premise 2" - and forgive me for suggesting that you're simply not up to the task. All your work would still be ahead of you if you could jump that monumental hurdle..because you would then need to demonstrate that your explanation for the universe was true........and if, in this alternate reality, you managed that in the manner that you must simply to justify the premise, then the conclusion of 5 would be redundant.

[Neo-Scholastic]

So basically, your argument boils down to demonstrating that the universe is contingent.

I don't see the problem since that is basically what the demonstration is all about. The alternative is to consider the existence of the physical universe a brute fact, but even that does not explain how it continues to exist and change. It also does not explain the principles governing and limiting how it changes nor the nature of those principles. Again the alternative is take these principles as brute facts also.

The question in my mind is how far down into the fundamental nature of reality can people go before reaching an absolute limit? I think atheisticly minded philosophers stop short. I don't take either the physical universe or the laws by which it is governed as brute facts. At the very least, it sure seems that things could have been otherwise and that alone gives warrant to speculating on why it isn't, i.e. not accepting either as brute facts.

[Whateverist]

What is wrong with saying the universe is contingent at every moment upon its prior states and we just don't know how far back those go, nor whether they extend beyond the range of what we locally call the big bang.

[SteveII]

What is wrong with saying the universe is contingent at every moment upon its prior states and we just don't know how far back those go, nor whether they extend beyond the range of what we locally call the big bang.

Your just pushing the problem back a step each time. You can't have an infinite regress, so it has to stop somewhere. For the sake of argument, "the universe" is used to hold the place of some point in the past.

[LostLocke]

You can't have an infinite regress, so it has to stop somewhere.

A positive claim. You need to back this up.
PS, backing it up with "logic" doesn't automatically make it so. You need something demonstrable to show that this is truly the case in reality, and not just an idea or opinion.

[RoadRunner79]

You can't have an infinite regress, so it has to stop somewhere.

A positive claim. You need to back this up.
PS, backing it up with "logic" doesn't automatically make it so. You need something demonstrable to show that this is truly the case in reality, and not just an idea or opinion.

Why do so many atheists seek to exclude reason so often?

[Neo-Scholastic]

A positive claim. You need to back this up.
PS, backing it up with "logic" doesn't automatically make it so. You need something demonstrable to show that this is truly the case in reality, and not just an idea or opinion.

Why do so many atheists seek to exclude reason so often?

...and only when it is convenient to do so.

[SteveII]

You can't have an infinite regress, so it has to stop somewhere.

A positive claim. You need to back this up.
PS, backing it up with "logic" doesn't automatically make it so. You need something demonstrable to show that this is truly the case in reality, and not just an idea or opinion.

No, a metaphysical truth. 

First, you cannot have an actual infinite number of things. No such thing. Events are things. 
Second, there could always have been one more event in the way distant past and we would never have arrived at today. 

You don't get to exclude the use of logic when discussing a metaphysical concept (by definition). Asking for a demonstration there there cannot be a actual infinite is very strange--because there is no example anywhere of an actual infinite number of real things...so...look around?

[Cyberman]

Aristotle also put forth the idea of spontaneous generation, the 'fact' that living creatures spring fully formed from inanimate matter - as in maggots from rotting meat - which remained uncontested for two millenia largely because he was Aristotle and therefore an authority.

Standing on the shoulders of giants is a tenable position and opens up unparalleled vistas only when said giants are concordant with reality. Even they need to show their work, like everyone else. Otherwise they're simply another source of opinions.

[Amarok]

1. An infinite regress is still an assertion . Let alone the assertion it must end . 

2. Why must it ever have begun ? Let alone need an infinite past . 

Theists are just guessing about states they can't know .