The Argument from Contingency is sound.

My argument argues that the Argument from Contingency is sound. An argument is sound if and only if the argument is valid and all of its premises are true. [1] Let's analyze the argument by premise: Premise 1: Every temporally contingent being possibly fails to exist at some time. This premise may be true. However, I argue that according to this premise, God is temporally contingent. It is possible for him to go out of existence because he's omnipotent. Omnipotence is defined as unlimited power. [2] Therefore, he's temporally contingent. Premise 2: If all things possibly fail to exist at some time then it is possible that all things fail to exist at some past time. This premise may be true. Yet, my opponent has to define "thing. " Otherwise, he's agreeing with me that God is temporally contingent since it's possible for God to not exist in he past. Premise 3: It is necessarily the case that possible truths are explicable. I ask my opponent to explain what is a "possible truth". If the existence of God is true, then there may be nothing wrong with saying that in a possible universe that it has an explanation even if our universe has no explanation of it. If virtual particles have no cause in our universe, should we assume that there might be in an alternate universe? It is possible that there is. However, without further evidence, there is no reason to believe that virtual particles have a cause. Are all possible truths explicable? How about the existence of God, logic, laws of reality, and the laws of mathematics? Premise 4: It is necessarily the case that something is explicable only if there was not a time when nothing existed. If an theist posit God as an explanation for the existence of the universe, it may or may not be sufficient. Consider the creation of the sound. What caused it? The man slipping on the banana peel. What caused the banana peel to be there? Another man threw it there. Why was he there and why did he threw it? The list goes on and on. Therefore, a complete explanation is unnecessary. My opponent points out that explanations are made in terms of already-existent things. Since they are already existent, they cannot begin to exist or go out of existence. Otherwise, the explanation is useless and meaningless. Therefore, the laws of reality might be temporally necessary. Virtual particles might begin to exist from nothing. The universe might begin to exist from nothing. [4] This would render the complete explanation impossible. Before the Big Bang, it might be a "time" in which nothing existed. Premise 5: Whatever is temporally necessary might be unlimited. This might be true. Axioms are temporally necessary. They cannot begin to exist or go out of existence. The list of axioms: Existence Exists, The Law of Identity, Consciousness, Law of Non-contradiction, and Law of excluded middle. They are not dependent on anything to be existed or valid. I do not know if you call them "unlimited. " Let's assume that logic is not temporally necessary and contingent on God. If God created logic, he could make the law of non-contradiction false. Therefore, the proposition and its negation were true at the same time. But that is ridiculous! How can God make it so that the United States is south of Canada and the United States also not south of Canada? Therefore, God cannot alter the laws of logic. [5] In fact, his existence relies on it. How can God exist yet not exist at the same time? The law of non-contradiction prevents him from not existing if he does exist. Thus, since God is dependent on logic, he is limited. The laws of mathematics is temporally necessary. Mathematical truths such as one plus one making two hold irrespective of the way that the world is. Even if the world was radically different, one plus one would still equal two. could not have failed to exist. Premise 6: Whatever might explain itself is unlimited. How do you explain these? : Existence Exists, The Law of Identity, Consciousness, Law of Non-contradiction, and Law of excluded middle. All of them can be only explained in terms of themselves. They depend on nothing else. Their existence can't be explained in terms of anything other than itself. The fact that one plus one equals two is also self-explanatory. I'm not sure if logic, laws of reality, and the laws of mathematics can be called "unlimited. " I would say they are not. Premise 7: Nothing *that* is unlimited can be explained by anything else. This is just the reverse of Premise 6. Premise 8: Everything *that* is unlimited is supreme. This premise is false. Logic, laws of reality, and the laws of mathematics are not supreme. Infinity in mathematics is not supreme. Since God is dependent on logic to exist and the fact that dependence can stop perfections, God is not perfect. Logic can be used to refute that there are perfections such as omniscience, omnibenevolence, and omnipotence. For Omniscience - This may mean that God can "know" things that are logically impossible to "know". Can God "know" that 1 1=3, even though that's false? Can God "know" that he does not exist? Can God "know" suffering? [6] For Omnibenevolence - Is God capable of doing evil? If not, to state that God is perfectly good simply means that God is only capable of doing what God is logically restricted to do. [7] For Omnipotence - Can God create a logical contradiction? Therefore, logic restricts all these perfections and makes God depended on logic. Premise 9: Something is temporally necessary if and only if it is not temporally contingent. This is true due to the law of the excluded middle. The law of the excluded middle states that either the proposition is true or its negation is. The laws of mathematics and the axioms of logic are temporally necessary since they are not temporally contingent. IN CONCLUSION: The Argument of Contingency shows that logic, laws of reality, and the laws of mathematics are temporally necessary. It does not show how God is temporally necessary or how temporally necessary things are unlimited, and consequently, supreme. Since Premise 8 is false, this argument is not sound. Sources: [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] . http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com... [4] . http://www.infidels.org... [5] . http://www.infidels.org... [6] . http://atheism.about.com... [7] . http://atheism.about.com...