Cosmological Criticism: Part 3

This is part of a sequence on Cosmological argument.

The 2nd premise of Modal Cosmological argument is an argument from Contingency. It states that the Universe is contingent.

Fallacy of Composition: Even if we agree that all parts of the Universe is contingent, that doesn't mean Universe as a whole is contingent. It's possible for the necessary universe to be composed entirely of contingent parts.

Counter argument: If the Universe is non-contingent, then Universe either necessarily exist or impossible to exist. But the Universe exists. Which means Universe necessarily exists.

Which means it's impossible for the Universe not to exist. To say that Universe's existence is necessary is to say that its non-existence is impossible. If we can produce a logical contradiction then this impossibility will be easily recognized. For example: a square-circle is impossible because it's self-contradictory.

Considering the Universe to be the whole of existence, the analytic truth^[1a] is: [Nothing] doesn't have the property of existence. It's impossible for [Nothing] to exist. Therefore, there must necessarily exist something. Therefore it's impossible for something (universe) not to exist. Therefore Universe necessarily exist.

Universe is not contingent.