The cosmological argument from contingency is sound

Circular LoopsI'm not sure I made myself clear on this point. I concede that a contingent fact cannot explain itself. For example, if we label a contingent fact "A" then I accept that "A" cannot explain "A.""A", however, can explain "B." "B", being a contingent fact, can't explain itself, but why can't it explain "A"?Each fact individually is a contingent fact: it is contingent upon another fact for its existence. But yet, there is no need to invoke a necessary fact to explain either.This seems paradoxical, but it is not. Consider the theory of general relativity. General relativity is a mathematical model. Within this model, time loops are permitted. Now, many scientists reject the possibility based on the fact that such loops can lead to paradoxes. However, it is not necessary that time loops result in a paradox which has let to other scientists to accept the mathematical possibility of such loops, inasmuch as they avoid paradox: that is, they are consistent. In fact, causal loops are what scientists propose in order to fix alleged paradoxes involving time travel.Rather than merely waxing scientific here, it is important to note that math and science are subordinate to logic. If something is logically impossible, then it is mathematically and scientific impossible as well. If such causal loops were logically impossible, then it seems foolish that scientists would devote serious effort into considering their possibility.Now, it may be the case that such loops can't exist, either scientifically or mathematically, but they've yet to be conclusively ruled out by science or math and, thus, ruled out by logic, despite what our preconceptions about nature tell us.What does this have to do with contingent loops? Well time loops would allow for the self-containing series of contingent facts just described. Consider: A billiard ball knocks another billiard ball through a wormhole. After passing through the wormhole, it travels through space for a period of time, until coming across another billiard ball (actually itself from before it entered the wormhole) strikes it, and knocks it into the wormhole, thus completing the loop. Each event is contingent upon another, forming a loop.Infinite Series:I don't recall ever denying that contingent facts need explanations. Rather than contradicting this, an infinite series necessarily provides for this: "A explains B which explains C which explains D which explains E..." all of which are contingent facts going infinitely in either direction. Why is this forbidden?Theory of EverythingMy opponent says he is arguing for a Theory of Everything. This directly contradicts his own words:"[S]cientific explanations would rightly be called contingent and so not fitting in with the established nature of the necessary explanation."The Theory of Everything to which I'm referring to, the "The Holy Grail of science" is a scientific explanation. Or would be, should it ever be found. Whatever my opponent is looking for, it is outside the realm of science and, thus, not the Theory of Everything.Agential Explanations:My opponent proves my point while at the same time missing it:"Neither of these sciences (nor any other) deals with the baser characteristic of mere being and so my opponent's objection if misplaced. Also, since scientific explanations have proven to be inapplicable to the ultimate explanation of this contingent set (owing to their own contingency after all); the only option available is that of an agent."Now consider this in light of my objection:"While it [agential explanations] may be outside the realm now, in that we cannot yet explain it with existing models, it is presumptuous to say that it is necessarily outside the realm of science."And that is exactly what my opponent is doing, which is an interesting violation of his own words. He contends that science is contingent. This is true in the sense that our scientific knowledge is contingent. So if we agree on this point, then it seems irrational to then treat it as complete with regards to categorizing something as necessarily scientific.What we know and consider to be scientific is ever changing as our knowledge of the universe increases. To say that something can't be scientific simply because it cannot currently be explained or predicted with science as it is, is presumptive.The Universe as a Necessary explanation: My opponent says: "The universe can be described as the summation of contingent facts in existence."This is merely a cherry-picked definition in order to support the conclusion. There are many definitions for the universe but, more importantly, the definition, at least from a scientific stand point, can - and will - change depending on what we know about the universe to begin with. While "the summation of contingent facts in existence" is certainly a viable definition now, since all we know to exist are contingent facts, to assert that this must always and forever be the definition regardless of what we discover tomorrow - such that, instead of altering our definition of the universe we must invent a new term or now call it god - is unwarranted.Summary:1. Infinite series and self-referential loops do not violate the necessity of contingent facts to have explanations outside themselves, nor do they require necessary facts to explain any of the contingent facts contained within.2. The inability of science to currently explain what appear to be agential explanations does not logically lead to the conclusion that such explanations are necessarily outside the realm of science.3. The universe is not an acceptable candidate for any necessary fact based purely on our current knowledge and conception of it. However, our understanding of the universe is necessarily dependent on our knowledge which is always changing. It cannot be denied that some future discovery may cause us to redefine the universe as to explicitly be not contingent.