[captain11]

There is no begged question here. But it is necessary to ponder the question: If EVERYTHING that exists is contingent on something else, would there be ANYTHING?

Dead-on perfect, Arthur, and of course the answer is no. This was precisely the point I made in this post, where I described infinite void as the ultimate equilibrium, with no reason to change, ever (save God).

[jennyp]

There is no begged question here. But it is necessary to ponder the question: If EVERYTHING that exists is contingent on something else, would there be ANYTHING?

Dead-on perfect, Arthur, and of course the answer is no. This was precisely the point I made in this post, where I described infinite void as the ultimate equilibrium, with no reason to change, ever (save God).

There are two (well, three; no, four) problems with this line of reasoning:

1. If everything is contingent, then there can be no transition from nothing to something. But if there was always "something", then there's no problem.
2. Contingency is a concept that depends on the existence of time. But the Big Bang model says that time itself began at the Big Bang. Exactly like how "North-ness" begins at the South Pole, and "before" that point there simply is no more "South-ness" available to be found: Keep walking straight and you start going North again.
3. On a quantum level, the universe - even the void of space - is foamy. Subatomic particles poof into & out of existence everywhere, constantly. From what (little) I understand of this, these particles' appearance & disappearance don't seem to be contingent on anything.
4. Even if there was some kind of First Cause, there is no reason to think It must be a person of some kind.