1. Any contingent fact about the world must have an explanation.
2. It is a contingent fact that there are contingent things.
3. The fact that there are contingent things must have an explanation. (1,2)
4. The fact that there are contingent things can’t be explained by any contingent things.
5. The fact that there are contingent things must be explained by something whose existence is not contingent. (3,4)
C. There is a necessary being. (5)
>C. There is a necessary being. (5)
No
There is a necessary "something" not necessarily a being
4 and 5 are leaps of faith
Go away.
That's an arbitrary point.
You can call it a "thing," a "being," a "variable," a "factor," an "entity," etc. It doesn't matter what you call it. The fact of the matter is that that necessary non-contingent thing, whatever you choose to call it, is unlike any other thing in the cosmos.
You may as well stop trying to be a special little snow-flake and just call that thing "God" like the rest of the world.
Okay, then you're calling potentially some arbitrary, abstract, state of being which necessarily gives rise to universes, a "being"
It's not an arbitrary point - you're trying to anthropomorphize it to support your theistic viewpoint when really there is no reason to believe in that
Also you're ascribing causal logic to a "before" the Big Bang, and the Big Bang created time so
>2. It is a contingent fact that there are contingent things.
This is unjustified. It's only contingent if you assume the fundamental properties of the universe were chosen some way. So this is begging the question. It is far simpler to assume that the fundamental properties of the universe are necessary, rather than assuming a necessary being to choose them.
>The fact of the matter is that that necessary non-contingent thing, whatever you choose to call it, is unlike any other thing in the cosmos.
The cosmos is unlike anything in the cosmos.
wtf I believe in God now
Why is 4 true?