The cosmological argument from contingency is sound

Circular Loops: Here my opponent introduces new restrictions on what it means to be contingent. Note the original argument say this: "Every contingent fact has an explanation. " And my opponent later adds: "Since a contingent fact cannot explain itself. .. " These are the only requirements and definitions provided for contingent facts: they have explanations; those explanations are outside of itself. Now take my proposed circular set: "A explains B, which explains A. " Or, in other words: "A has an explanation in B, which has an explanation in A" All the facts in question have an explanation and none of the facts explain themselves. Based on what has been provided up to this point, such a circular set is not in violation of any rules. Now, my opponent states that: "But A cannot explain and be explained by B since if that were so than A would be contingent and non-contingent upon B. " But this introduces a new implicit rule: "If A explains B, then A cannot be contingent upon B. " Where is this rule stated in anything so far? Nowhere. Contingency, as presented, only addresses the explanation of a fact. It does not address what the fact itself explains. Infinite Sets: The proposed set does not call into question the explanation of A. The infinite set being discussed was explicitly one without finite beginning or end: "Lastly, we have an infinitely long series of contingent facts; a series with no beginning. Again, I see no objection to this. " Now, certainly, what I presented has a beginning, but that is a limitation of the Representation of said set. "A" was merely an arbitrary starting point of the subset of the infinite series that was presented on screen. However, it is easy enough to have simply said: "A is explained by B, which is explained by C, which is explained by D. .. ." If we can go infinitely in one direction, as my opponent concedes, then why not the other? Theory of Everything: My opponent falsely accuses me of saying that a "theory explaining all contingent facts must in itself be a scientific explanation. " I never said that. What I did say was that a "theory explaining all contingent facts" can be a scientific explanation, in that this is not explicitly ruled out and the scientific explanation for all contingent facts would be found in the scientific Theory of Everything, an identified goal of scientists. My opponent fails to address this point and simply reasserts that a necessary fact cannot be scientific, ignoring the fact that such a thing is exactly what scientists are looking for. Scientific vs. Agential Explanations: "Scientific laws and explanations must be contingent" is not a premise in the presented argument, and is not accepted. Furthermore, my opponent doesn't address my actual criticism here: that merely because agential explanations are not currently scientific explanations, that doesn't mean they necessarily can't be scientific explanations. Definition of the Universe My opponent has offered a paradox: "If it could be shown that any entity or phenomenon in the universe could not possibly have not been (that it is necessary as opposed to contingent) then my definition would not hold weight. " But if my opponent defines the universe as: "The universe can be described as the summation of contingent facts in existence. " This is an impossible task and the point of my contention. How can I show that the universe contains necessary facts when you have explicitly defined the universe as to only contain contingent facts? Your request indicates that you could potentially accept the universe containing necessary facts. But that's my point! If you accept the mere possibility of the universe containing a contingent fact, if such could be demonstrated, then you haven't ruled out the possibility. And so long as the possibility exists, it is premature to automatically say that any necessary fact would be god, instead of the universe! Summary:1. Based upon the definition and rules of contingent facts originally introduced, neither circular nor infinite series of contingent facts are disallowed. Furthermore, my opponent at least explicitly allows for series of contingent facts that are infinite in one direction.2. The scientific Theory of Everything is a real goal of many scientists and seeks to explain all contingent facts. That scientists themselves, who must necessarily adhere to logic, do not reject the quest on logical grounds indicates that there is some potential for a scientific explanation for all contingent facts.3. The exclusion of agential explanations as necessarily being not scientific is based only on the current inability of science to explain agential behavior. To say that a current lacking of science is necessarily a fundamental area that will always be outside the realm of science is assumptive. That is, agential explanations also being scientific explanations is not ruled out by a mere limitation of current scientific knowledge.4. The universe. If the request by my opponent is genuine, then it would seem that he contends at leas the possibility that some necessary fact could be contained within the universe. If so, then we needn't rush to slap the label God on anything at all. I know that some of the areas discussed are drastically outside the realm of our common perceptions of the world. Circular and Infinite series of facts? The universe being necessary? These concepts rail against our intuition our - for lack of a better word - common sense. However, we must be careful when we judge even the world by such things, let along logical arguments. We know, as well as we can know anything, that the world, let alone the universe, does not conform to our preconceptions, preconceptions which exist as are, not because they hit upon the truth, but merely because the process of evolution has selected them as being beneficial to our survival. Our world operates in a linear, finite manner. The only things we are actually exposed to are contingent things. Ergo, our understanding revolves around and expects such things and we have a natural distates in accepting anything that does not conform to these macroscopic, physical, everyday conceptions. So, in judging this debate, which deals with the intangible and the universal, I ask the voters to not allow these things to cloud their judgement.