Who says this?

"not atheism" = "theism"

Indeed....

It is required for the cosmological argument. It is what "contingency" means.

There is no reason to wonder "where we came from" if you don't have some sort of idea that it had to be from "somewhere."

I imagine that thousands of years ago, some 3-year old was pestering their dad with "why" questions.

Q: Why am I here?

A: Because I poked your mom.

Q: Why are you and mom here?

A: Because your grandparents poked each other. I really don't like thinking about that part too much because it is kind of gross.

Q: Why were they here?

A: Because your grandparents poked each other.

Q: Why were they here?

A: JFC, I've got to go to work!!! I don't f-ing know. Magic. Now stop asking questions or I'll kill you.

Q: <sobbing> I was just asking.

A: I'm just trying to turn you into a decent person who can poke someone in the future.

Q: Why?

A: Ummm. Hmmm. <pause> Daddy loves you very much, but if you ask a lot of questions, the magic I mentioned earlier will burn you forever.

Q: Really?

A: Ummmmm, yes. I love you and wouldn't like that to happen. I'd never do such a thing to you to make you stop asking annoying questions, but the magic gets seriously cranky about that sort of thing.

Q: I see now. Does the magic like other things?

A: <mutters underneath breath> **** me, this kid is killing me. I really have to get to work. <out loud> Sure, child-o-mine. He really likes it when you sit with your hands like this <does some hand gestures> as long as you don't talk out loud.

Q: Like this?!?

A: I wasn't looking, but sure kid. The trick is to be quiet about it. If you don't he will catch you on fire.

Look again.

I did. Twice.

If the universe can exist without being caused, the problem it purports to solve doesn't exist.

You stated we ignore premise 1 but you misstated 1.

[1] Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

Consciousness exists, what is its explanation?

Dear atheists (well, anyone that cares to answer really): do you think it is pessimistic or realistic to state that humans are basically not intellectually capable of answering/comprehending the "pre" singularity question. And unanswered, it is pointless using it as an argument either for or against the existence of a deity.

Answering is contingent on comprehending and I don't think answering is a question of intellectually capability rather epistemic accessibility. I think the models we have of the world that require some notion of pre existing the singularity suggests we can comprehend it.

What do you think they mean by "explanation"?

It means cause. Rocks don't explain themselves. They have no explanation within them.

No. Firstly, there are many different cosmological arguments. This one, the one from contingency, is addressing a different issue than what you addressed. Contingency isn't about infinite regresses vs having a beginning, it is about contrasting things existing necessarily vs existing contingently. In particular, it could be that the universe is an entity infinite in time with no beginning but a contingent, timeless entity nonetheless.

Contrast this with the kalam cosmological argument which is explicitly about things beginning.

Ah, ok.

So, "the world spins in relation to other things" (contingent on other things) or "the world is shaped like an oblate spheroid" (contingent on its own properties), right?!?

In that case, you can't even make a sensible argument. The age of the universe is an internal description, not a contingent description.

Close, but not quite. It is a very specific dichotomy that is being discussed: "existing necessarily vs existing contingently". That is, it is specifically about existing. Something like comparing "Earth necessarily exists as an oblate spheroid" vs "Earth exists as an oblate spheroid because of [insert appropriate cosmological explanation]".

What you did was a separate dichotomy, between descriptions that can be described intrinsically without further reference to other objects and things described relationally. As in, "you are to the left of me" or "the earth is spinning relative to the galaxy" is a relational description. But I wouldn't use the word "contingent" there, at least it is not contingency in the sense of the cosmological argument from contingency.

Can you expand a bit? e.g. how can you have epistemic accessibility of something you are incapable of understanding? Perhaps "intellectual"is the wrong word, I meant in the broadest possible sense of being able to understand (and obviously answering means correctly answering). Sorry if I'm being a bit slow today

So, they claim that the universe exists contingently and then say that it exists contingently on god?!?

(from elsewhere, my comments in italics)

(1) Everything that exists contingently has a reason for its existence. that is just defining contingent and using the word exist twice
(2) The universe exists contingently. claim that the universe has contingent existence
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a reason for its existence. ok, so if something meets the definition it meets the definition.
(4) If the universe has a reason for its existence then that reason is God.GIANT leap that discounts that the universe could be contingent on a hyper-dimensional rice crispy treat.
Therefore:
(5) God or any number of other things such as hyper-dimensional rice crispies exists.

So, in a nutshell if the universe exists contingently, and it exists contingently on God, then it exists contingently on God" appears to be the entire argument.

Of course, the word "reason" is messy. Generally, we use "because of" nowadays. The big issue is that it appears that everything exists contingent on other things existing and causing those contingent things to exist (parallel of cause and effect just without using the phrase cause and effect) which makes it just pushing things off to some ultimate non-contingent thing (parallel of first cause).

I see nothing to be gained by making a similarly unsound argument using the words contingent/reason instead of caused/first cause. The basic problem is exactly the same; nothing is solved by the exercise. You start out the argument with the premise that no thing exists without reason (cause), then posit that there is something that exists without reason (cause) to deal with it and ignore that you fixed the problem by creating a bigger one.

There are reasons why I make sentences and occasionally ask questions.

Incapable of determining.

I can understand that the carbon atom 243,856th diagonally down (starting on the upper left) of the piece of toilet paper I just wiped my butt with came from a specific tree. I can even think about trees, or imagine that it came from a specific tree that I saw in a picture of a forest Borneo. That doesn't mean that I can determine which tree that carbon atom came from or what exact date it went from being paired up with another carbon and an oxygen atom to being photosynthesized.

In physics, there are similar problems. We can't determine what happened before a certain point. We can make fun guesses though.

Indeed. This is WLC's response to a similar comment about the vacuousness of the conclusion (from the kalam version, at least) by Dawkings:

2) If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

Replace 'God' with 'X' or 'Aliens' or 'maximum complexity' or anything at all (even the flying spaghetti monster) and the argument will still make perfect sense. So why do people always insist on putting 'God' there instead of all the other countless possibilities?

In other words, the strength of the above argument is dependent on 'God' being left undefined or vaguely defined at best. Attempts to define 'God' will quickly erode the strength of the argument, because this process will demonstrate that inserting any other idea there, such as 'Aliens' is equally valid and probable.

Brian's already answered this. It's not that we aren't capable of comprehending but we aren't capable of determining. It's that the answer is currently inaccessible, and so we don't know which of our answers is correct.

Wouldn't a being that "existed" before the Universe that had the ability to create it, be considered God, or God-like?

I think the Aliens that you suggest as being a valid substitute for God would be God, as would the flying spaghetti monster.

I'm not saying the answer has to be God, but I think you're just saying that it doesn't have to be a God we are familiar with, by suggesting the cause had intent and awareness.

Wow. That is just horrible argumentation by WLC.

So, the argument is unsound on two counts. If, for the sake of argument, we ignore that it fails on the first count in order to focus on the second error, that means that we are stating that it doesn't fail on the first count?!?

Creating universes might be considered child's play for such beings (you're assuming that there's only one), the equivalent of us amazing an Amazonian tribe by showing them a movie on an ipad, or magically blowing something up. And you think that worship is the inevitable and acceptable reaction to this?

I think that we'd all be idiots if that were true. Both the people who fell to their knees in primitive wonder and awe to worship the 'gods', and the people who denied that such beings even existed. At least the non-believers didn't compound their error by inventing various stories and rituals and assigning arbitrary characteristics and intentions to something that might not even exist, and if it did, might be completely different, and indifferent anyway. Honestly I think you do better sticking to the biblical God story.

Is there a word for people who believe that there may be something but that something not be 'god', so not Theist, not Deist, something else?

My point is that that being would be a God, since "he" would share the characteristics that the title denotes. Whether or not it's child's play to such a being, doesn't take away that he is outside of the realm of the universe and has the power to create it. I'm not saying anything about having to worship him, or that he is anything like the God/Gods we are familiar with, only that you are trading one God for another. The Alien who created the Universe would be a God. If you don't like that title, you can call him something else I guess, "creator" or some such, but it's just semantics.

The universe could be the snot bubble of some unintelligent being that had no knowledge that it was about to sneeze.