Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stranger,

Well, given the track record of claims along the lines of "science will never explain X", it's not all that unreasonable as an expectation - nobody is claiming that it's a certainty. Basically, there are only three options:

•   We will never fully explain the mind and consciousness.
•   Science will one day provide a tested theory of the mind and consciousness.
•   Some as yet undreamed of new methodology will be discovered that can robustly test ideas that goes beyond science and logic, and that will provide an explanation.
I wouldn't hold your breath for the third of those...

Just to add that Vlad’s “Scientism? Definitely because the expectation is science WILL crack the problem...” is one of the favourite straw men on which he then hangs a series of wrong arguments (scientism, philosophical materialism etc). He depends on the false description of his interlocutors claiming certainty, inevitability etc when I (and to my knowledge everyone else here) do no such thing – pretty much the opposite of that in fact.

That’s why the last time he tried it and I asked whether he’d ever encountered anyone here actually saying any such thing he just ignored the question – he always does, presumably so he can keep his straw man upright.       

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Although your 'rendering' of it was particularly daft, I've yet to read a version of it that doesn't have problems.

Why? I mean, human understanding would suggest that the hierarchy of explanations has to 'bottom out' somewhere, by the idea of a 'necessary entity', something that, for some reason, couldn't not exist, seems incoherent in itself. What possible sort of thing would cause a contradiction if it didn't exist?

It seems to be another case of taking an unknown and trying to fill the gap with something that will lead you to the conclusion you want, while conveniently ignoring that it raises at least as many questions as it's supposed to answer.

Yet the connection to any of the religious ideas about 'god' are always conveniently brushed aside or the attempts at making them work are ridiculous to the point of hilarity.

Except it simply doesn't. What is the sufficient reason? Unless you can explain exactly how it is even possible for the non-existence of something to cause a logical contradiction, you have no such reason.

So what do you think it is that the universe, that is the whole four-dimensional space-time object (as described by general relativity), is supposed to be contingent on?

Fair point so lets examine the universe as you present it. First of all you describe it as an object a thing. A unity. Why have you done this, why is it a unity rather than a collection of things or a collection of parts if you like?

Secondly why is this space time object like it is and not like something else?

why is this thing not static rather than dynamic?

Of course the answers to these questions are all that on which the universe is contingent.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Stranger,

Just to add that Vlad’s “Scientism? Definitely because the expectation is science WILL crack the problem...” is one of the favourite straw men on which he then hangs a series of wrong arguments (scientism, philosophical materialism etc). He depends on the false description of his interlocutors claiming certainty, inevitability etc when I (and to my knowledge everyone else here) do no such thing – pretty much the opposite of that in fact.

That’s why the last time he tried it and I asked whether he’d ever encountered anyone here actually saying any such thing he just ignored the question – he always does, presumably so he can keep his straw man upright.     

Hillside where there is a gap in knowledge we can say it's God although your go to accusation of God of the gaps is not often committed.
Or we can say it is not as yet solved by science, your favourite........or we could say the solution may not be scientific. Never seen you appeal to the divine or the non scientific solution.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Of course the answers to these questions are all that on which the universe is contingent.

Very funny.

As you seem to have missed it perhaps you'd like to share now the logical path that led you to that entirely unqualified "of course"?

[Dicky Underpants]

I don't know whether there is freedom of choice but then neither do you but in terms of a conscious self which is what I think a soul is......
What I think cannot be ''determined'' in the reductionist materialist sense is the choice to follow God or reject him since God is not physical and this may extend to aspects in which God has a massive stake like morality, also not adequately described by science.

"Conscious self" is what you think the soul is? I thought Christians and most religionists thought it was a lot more than that - a sort of "superconscious self" which is continually nudging Christians to make the right moral choices, or indeed any decisions at all.

I'm much happier trying to deal with what constitutes a self, but gor blimey guv, that's hard enough. But at least it's closer to home. Arguments about accepting or rejecting God are more than one step removed. As the arguments and people's own experience here have shown, you have to have some sense of what you are rejecting or accepting.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Hillside where there is a gap in knowledge we can say it's God although your go to accusation of God of the gaps is not often committed.

First, that has nothing at all to do with my post about your straw manning to which you think you were replying.

Second, no – where there is a gap in knowledge we cannot say it's God – all we can say is that there’s a gap in knowledge. If you want to fill the gap with “God” you have all your work ahead of you still to justify that claim on its own terms.

Third, “your go to accusation of God of the gaps is not often committed” is incoherent. Yet again: what are you even trying to say here (ironically, immediately after you tried a god of the gaps argument)?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Very funny.

As you seem to have missed it perhaps you'd like to share now the logical path that led you to that entirely unqualified "of course"?

As you seem to have missed it you haven't already refuted without seeing it. it ha ha ha.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

As you seem to have missed it you haven't already refuted without seeing it. it ha ha ha.

So you don't have an argument to justify your claim then.

Thought so.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

"Conscious self" is what you think the soul is? I thought Christians and most religionists thought it was a lot more than that - a sort of "superconscious self" which is continually nudging Christians to make the right moral choices, or indeed any decisions at all.

What a bizarre homoncularisation

I'm much happier trying to deal with what constitutes a self, but gor blimey guv, that's hard enough. But at least it's closer to home. Arguments about accepting or rejecting God are more than one step removed. As the arguments and people's own experience here have shown, you have to have some sense of what you are rejecting or accepting.

You what?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

So you don't have an argument to justify your claim then.

Thought so.

The arguments have been put in front of you repeatedly. If something could have been other than what it was then something was instrumental in causing it to be the way it is. The object is then contingent on that and is therefore, er, contingent.

[Stranger]

Vlad,

I note that you ignored most of what I said, and just focussed on the universe, which was almost a footnote. Ho hum.

First of all you describe it as an object a thing. A unity. Why have you done this, why is it a unity rather than a collection of things or a collection of parts if you like?

Because it is a thing. I didn't say anything about it being a 'unity' whatever you mean by that. You can of course, break it down into parts but it's not like you could remove them from the whole and they would still make sense by themselves. For example, the 'background' of space-time, depends on the things it contains (specifically, the mass and energy of those things) and the things it contains could not exist without the space-time.

Secondly why is this space time object like it is and not like something else?

Don't know. Why is your god like it is and not like something else?

why is this thing not static rather than dynamic?

I assume you meant to say "static rather than dynamic", rather than "not static rather than dynamic". The whole space-time is 'static' because dynamics are just the relationships between objects that exist along timelike directions through the space-time. The space-time itself contains all time and is not itself embedded in a time dimension (at least there is no necessity for it to be, no evidence to suggest that it might be, and it would be far from clear what it would actually mean if it was), so cannot change.

Of course the answers to these questions are all that on which the universe is contingent.

So, if I ask you a load of similar questions about your god, like the one I did ask - why is it like it is and not like something else? - but I could ask a whole lot more, then your god would also end up being contingent too....

[Stranger]

The arguments have been put in front of you repeatedly. If something could have been other than what it was then something was instrumental in causing it to be the way it is. The object is then contingent on that and is therefore, er, contingent.

So where is the argument that there is anything at all that could not of been different to what it is without causing a contradiction? How would we even know?

Anything at all that you posit as a candidate for a necessary entity, that has any properties at all, could, at least as far as we could possibly tell, have had different properties, so if you want a god to fit the definition, it would have to have no properties. It couldn't be good, just, purposeful, or ever think anything or make any plans, it couldn't answer prayers, it couldn't save anybody from anything, it couldn't consider some things sinful, it certainly couldn't have any sort of personal relationship with humans, and so on, and so on....

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

I note that you ignored most of what I said, and just focussed on the universe, which was almost a footnote. Ho hum.

Because it is a thing. I didn't say anything about it being a 'unity' whatever you mean by that. You can of course, break it down into parts but it's not like you could remove them from the whole and they would still make sense by themselves. For example, the 'background' of space-time, depends on the things it contains (specifically, the mass and energy of those things) and the things it contains could not exist without the space-time.

Don't know. Why is your god like it is and not like something else?

Because it is what it is and that's dependent on itself. A physical object as you describe could have been something else.....or not at all.

I assume you meant to say "static rather than dynamic", rather than "not static rather than dynamic".

Oh sorry but you have to remember a theist on here has to respond to multiple atheists.

The whole space-time is 'static' because dynamics are just the relationships between objects that exist along timelike

ha ha ha

directions through the space-time. The space-time itself contains all time and is not itself embedded in a time dimension (at least there is no necessity for it to be, no evidence to suggest that it might be, and it would be far from clear what it would actually mean if it was), so cannot change.

The question is still why this and not something else.

So, if I ask you a load of similar questions about your god, like the one I did ask - why is it like it is and not like something else? - but I could ask a whole lot more, then your god would also end up being contingent too....

No because there would have to be sufficient reason for why the universe is the way it is and that would be the necessary entity......which we then call God.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The arguments have been put in front of you repeatedly. If something could have been other than what it was then something was instrumental in causing it to be the way it is. The object is then contingent on that and is therefore, er, contingent.

Because you struggle so much to construct coherent sentences, let alone cogent arguments it’s often difficult to work out what it is that you are trying to say. That’s why I suggested to you long ago that you try reading what you’ve typed before posting it, apparently to no avail.

In any case though, the bare bones of the argument from contingency have been tried here before and have been thoroughly rebutted – essentially by identifying the fallacies on which it depends: fallacy of composition, shifting of the burden of proof, special pleading, non sequiturs (see your post above for a good example) etc.

Essentially when you have questions about the universe to which you think the answers aren’t sufficient (and there are many such) you cannot use the knowledge gap to jemmy in “god” and not expect exactly the same questions to relocate to that god. Your response (“it’s magic innit”) is the point at which you’ve checked out of rational conversation, whether or not you know it.       

[Stranger]

ha ha ha

Not a surprise that you don't understand space-time. I know this mathematics is a little difficult, but the basic concept shouldn't really be that hard. What is it that you're struggling with, exactly?

A physical object as you describe could have been something else.....or not at all.
...
No because there would have to be sufficient reason for why the universe is the way it is and that would be the necessary entity......which we then call God.

So just a rather pathetic, not to mention comical, case of special pleading, basically: "but god's magic, innit?"

PS You really need to use preview and sort out your quote boxes.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Because you struggle so much to construct coherent sentences, let alone cogent arguments it’s often difficult to work out what it is that you are trying to say. That’s why I suggested to you long ago that you try reading what you’ve typed before posting it, apparently to no avail.

In any case though, the bare bones of the argument from contingency have been tried here before and have been thoroughly rebutted – essentially by identifying the fallacies on which it depends: fallacy of composition, shifting of the burden of proof, special pleading, non sequiturs (see your post above for a good example) etc.

Essentially when you have questions about the universe to which you think the answers aren’t sufficient (and there are many such) you cannot use the knowledge gap to jemmy in “god” and not expect exactly the same questions to relocate to that god. Your response (“it’s magic innit”) is the point at which you’ve checked out of rational conversation, whether or not you know it.       

If you are suggesting that the universe is composed then a composed universe cannot be the necessary entity because it is dependent on it's parts.......which is precisely what you are suggesting everytime you accuse me of the fallacy of composition don't worry though because Stranger suggests a strange static universe in which motion occurs. As I said before there is no reason to Jemmy into the cosmos the thing on which it all depends anyway.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

If you are suggesting that the universe is composed then a composed universe cannot be the necessary entity because it is dependent on it's parts.......which is precisely what you are suggesting everytime you accuse me of the fallacy of composition don't worry though because Stranger suggests a strange static universe in which motion occurs. As I said before there is no reason to Jemmy into the cosmos the thing on which it all depends on anyway.

You don’t understand the fallacy of composition (ironically since it’s one of the various fallacies on which you rely) but in any case I’m not suggesting anything – I don’t need to. I’m just telling you that if you think the absence of answers about the universe opens the door to “God”, you can’t then just special plead your way out of the same questions about that god (no matter how much you may think “it’s magic innit” gets you off that hook).

Try to understand this.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You don’t understand the fallacy of composition (ironically since it’s one of the various fallacies on which you rely) but in any case I’m not suggesting anything – I don’t need to. I’m just telling you that if you think the absence of answers about the universe opens the door to “God”, you can’t then just special plead your way out of the same questions about that god (no matter how much you may think “it’s magic innit” gets you off that hook).

Try to understand this.     

Underlining the composite nature of the universe while arguing it's necessity was philosophical and logical folly Hillside and yet you went and did it.

Calling the proposal of a necessary entity special pleading is tantamount to saying everything is contingent and that is just absurd.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Underlining the composite nature of the universe while arguing it's necessity was philosophical and logical folly Hillside and yet you went and did it.

No I didn’t. What I actually did was to explain to you (albeit it seems without success) that the apparently deterministic nature of the observable universe does not imply that the universe itself was therefore necessarily caused by something else. It’s a simple enough point I’d have thought, so I don’t know why you keep screwing it up.

Calling the proposal of a necessary entity special pleading is tantamount to saying everything is contingent and that is just absurd.

Try reading what you type before you post it so as to give yourself some chance at least of coherence. I’ve no idea what you’re trying to say here (again), but the point you keep dodging remains: if you think the absence of answers about the universe opens the door to “God”, you can’t then just special plead your way out of the same questions about that god (no matter how much you may think “it’s magic innit” gets you off that hook).

Again: try to understand this.       

[Stranger]

Vlad, I notice that, as usual, you are being highly selective in what you reply to and just totally ignore the points that point out the blatant contradictions in your own position, for example, you said:

If something could have been other than what it was then something was instrumental in causing it to be the way it is. The object is then contingent on that and is therefore, er, contingent.

to which I replied:

So where is the argument that there is anything at all that could not of been different to what it is without causing a contradiction? How would we even know?

Anything at all that you posit as a candidate for a necessary entity, that has any properties at all, could, at least as far as we could possibly tell, have had different properties, so if you want a god to fit the definition, it would have to have no properties. It couldn't be good, just, purposeful, or ever think anything or make any plans, it couldn't answer prayers, it couldn't save anybody from anything, it couldn't consider some things sinful, it certainly couldn't have any sort of personal relationship with humans, and so on, and so on....

and your reply was... oh, you just ignored it, despite it being a basic fundamental rebuttal of your entire point.

Moving on...

...Stranger suggests a strange static universe in which motion occurs.

This is basic relativity. I'm not suggesting anything at all 'strange' from a scientific point of view. Space-time is one geometry, there is no universal 'now', or, for that matter, any universal point it time (i.e. hyper-surface of simultaneity) at all. Both the exact direction of time through space-time, and the notion of simultaneity, are relative to a specific frame of reference. This is true, even in special relativity, for which even the mathematical detail is quite simple. Motion just corresponds to a kind of 'rotation' of the one frame of reference compared to another.

If you really need to be introduced to the basic idea, and if you're willing to pay some actual attention, I can try to explain further, but as long as you're just going to call basic, well evidenced, science 'strange', then there doesn't seem to be much point.

ETA: Just found this rather neat explanation (here) that might help:

"Past, present, and future are not universal eras of time. They are relative to your reference frame.

WW2 was in our past. We can't say it was in THE past, because for an observer far away in space and moving relative to earth, WW2 is happening now, in their present. Christmas 2030 is in our future. But for a far away observer moving in a different direction relative to earth, it is in their past."

Now can you see that the whole space-time is basically 'static'?

It doesn't actually take much mathematics to work out that if two people walk past each other on Earth (say, at a relative speed of just 4 mph), then the difference between what is happening simultaneously with the moment that they pass, relative to each one, differs by about five and a half days at the distance of the Andromeda galaxy (just using special relativity and their relative speed).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad, I notice that, as usual, you are being highly selective in what you reply to and just totally ignore the points that point out the blatant contradictions in your own position, for example, you said:

to which I replied:

and your reply was... oh, you just ignored it, despite it being a basic fundamental rebuttal of your entire point.

Moving on...

This is basic relativity. I'm not suggesting anything at all 'strange' from a scientific point of view. Space-time is one geometry, there is no universal 'now', or, for that matter, any universal point it time (i.e. hyper-surface of simultaneity) at all. Both the exact direction of time through space-time, and the notion of simultaneity, are relative to a specific frame of reference. This is true, even in special relativity, for which even the mathematical detail is quite simple. Motion just corresponds to a kind of 'rotation' of the one frame of reference compared to another.

If you really need to be introduced to the basic idea, and if you're willing to pay some actual attention, I can try to explain further, but as long as you're just going to call basic, well evidenced, science 'strange', then there doesn't seem to be much point.

ETA: Just found this rather neat explanation (here) that might help:

"Past, present, and future are not universal eras of time. They are relative to your reference frame.

WW2 was in our past. We can't say it was in THE past, because for an observer far away in space and moving relative to earth, WW2 is happening now, in their present. Christmas 2030 is in our future. But for a far away observer moving in a different direction relative to earth, it is in their past."

Now can you see that the whole space-time is basically 'static'?

The  issue is something has to be the reason for why the universe is the way the universe is. Now I believe other universes have been modelled and so there must be a reason why it is this universe and not others and that reason has to be intrinsic for the universe to be necessary.

Which brings us back to the question what, then is it that is necessary about the universe? That entity cannot be something contingent. Your so called rebuttal therefore is nothing of the sort.

The rest of your description of the universe seems therefore non sequitur to the matter  in hand.

You claim that the necessary entity has no properties or attributes? That isn't true. It is sovereign i.e. it is independent of anything else for it's existence. It is independent in what it actualises, it would not be subject to chance or laws of nature or probability, nor would it be determined except by itself. So if your rebuttal depended on the necessary entity having no properties or attributes, that rebuttal is rebutted.

As a matter of interest what warrant did you call upon for the ''no property'' assertion?

[Stranger]

The  issue is something has to be the reason for why the universe is the way the universe is. Now I believe other universes have been modelled and so there must be a reason why it is this universe and not others and that reason has to be intrinsic for the universe to be necessary.

It's also trivially easy to 'model' (imagine) different gods, so there is no difference in this respect between some god and this universe.

Which brings us back to the question what, then is it that is necessary about the universe? That entity cannot be something contingent. Your so called rebuttal therefore is nothing of the sort.

Drivel. You have provided no more of a reason why your god can be necessary than I have for why the universe might just as well be. It is trivially easy to imagine both being different.

The rest of your description of the universe seems therefore non sequitur to the matter  in hand.

It was relevant to your description of the notion of a static space-time that includes motion as 'strange'. It wasn't intended as anything more than that. Do try to follow what part of my posts refer to what parts of yours. I'm even going to the trouble of making it clear by separating your posts into sections and responding to each one separately, which you apparently can't be arsed to do yourself.

You claim that the necessary entity has no properties or attributes? That isn't true. It is sovereign i.e. it is independent of anything else for it's existence.

More drivel. Sovereign implies power to act, which immediately implies that its actions could have been different, and therefore fails your own test for necessity.

It is independent in what it actualises, it would not be subject to chance or laws of nature or probability, nor would it be determined except by itself.

The self-contradiction just goes on and on, if it actualises one thing, then it obviously could have actualised something different, so yet again failing your own criteria for a necessary entity.

As a matter of interest what warrant did you call upon for the ''no property'' assertion?

Yet again, it is based on your own claim:

If something could have been other than what it was then something was instrumental in causing it to be the way it is. The object is then contingent on that and is therefore, er, contingent.

As soon as something has any properties, then we can easily imagine those properties being different. Even if, for some reason, they actually couldn't have been different, how could we possibly tell? So your claim that your god's properties (as I pointed out above) could not have been different, but the universe's could have been, is nothing but special pleading.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's also trivially easy to 'model' (imagine) different gods, so there is no difference in this respect between some god and this universe.

But we cannot have a god that isn't the necessary entity and the necessary entity has certain attributes by dint of what it is. We then, as the argument from contingency goes, give that necessary entity the appellation ''God.''

Drivel. You have provided no more of a reason why your god can be necessary than I have for why the universe might just as well be. It is trivially easy to imagine both being different.

The necessary entity is not the universe. Surely to goodness you've picked up that much. If the universe is composite then it is contingent, if we can ask the question why the universe is like this and not that and the answer is not intrinsic to the universe then it is contingent. What we know of the necessary entity is that it is what it is because of reasons internal to itself, because if it were how it is due to external reasons then those would be the necessary.

Sovereign implies power to act, which immediately implies that its actions could have been different, and therefore fails your own test for necessity.

But that isn't my test for necessity. It acts independently or in other words, sovereignly. It exists sovereignly and independently. There has though to be a sufficient reason for why we have this universe and not another which we can easily model and that reason exists and acts independently of the universe.

Again, if you are saying that an entity rife with contingency has the aspect of necessity about it 1) you have to say what that is and 2) accept that as the necessary entity it has all the unavoidable attributes of it in other words it must meet the criteria.

[Stranger]

But we cannot have a god that isn't the necessary entity and the necessary entity has certain attributes by dint of what it is. We then, as the argument from contingency goes, give that necessary entity the appellation ''God.''

This is just getting more ridiculous. The problem is that you're lacking the basic logic of how a 'necessary entity' is even a self-consistent idea in the first place. How is it possible for something to exist whose non-existence would be impossible? In other words what sort of thing would make its lack of existence cause some sort of logical contradiction?

Unless you have concrete answers to those questions, then the whole 'argument' is just a load of blind guesses and wishful thinking.

The necessary entity is not the universe. Surely to goodness you've picked up that much.

No. For the simple reason, that without answers to the questions above, I have no idea at all what a necessary entity would be like. Your baseless, unargued assertions don't count.

If the universe is composite then it is contingent...

Why? Especially if the parts cannot exist without the rest?

...if we can ask the question why the universe is like this and not that and the answer is not intrinsic to the universe then it is contingent.

As I was pointing out in the last post, we can easily see that any god you care to dream up, could certainly have been different (in fact we can find endless contradictory ideas of god amongst those who believe), and we only have your, again totally unsupported, assertions that you magic god-thingy has answers that are intrinsic and that the universe does not - how could you possibly know in either case?

What we know of the necessary entity is that it is what it is because of reasons internal to itself, because if it were how it is due to external reasons then those would be the necessary.

Just going round in circles here. Your only reasons for positing a necessary entity is basically to try to shoehorn a god into the concept. In reality, you cannot justify it logically. The idea of an entity whose non-existence would be a contradiction raises, at the very least, as many questions as it's supposed to answer, far more, for example, than just a brute fact. And you have been totally unable to make a connection from the idea of non-existence being contradictory to the attributes you desperately what it to have so you can say it's 'god' and for the word to mean anything like the other conceptions of 'god' from the religions.

I know you can just slap the label 'god' onto pretty much anything (and you have done) but you also need it to join up with your Christian ideas, so you're falling flat on your face, even more spectacularly than Feser did in his approach (which was just stand up comedy on that point).

But that isn't my test for necessity. It acts independently or in other words, sovereignly. It exists sovereignly and independently. There has though to be a sufficient reason for why we have this universe and not another which we can easily model and that reason exists and acts independently of the universe.

Special pleading again. You are just asserting the universe is contingent and could have been different, without saying how you know. For example, how do you know that the universe isn't 'acting' independently (being how it is because it's the only way it could have been), while some made up god is?

Again, if you are saying that an entity rife with contingency has the aspect of necessity about it 1) you have to say what that is and 2) accept that as the necessary entity it has all the unavoidable attributes of it in other words it must meet the criteria.

1) I've already pointed out, multiple times how the whole space-time does not appear to be contingent on anything. 2) You have provided no logical path from the basic concept of necessity (or even shown that it's a logical possibility at all, for that matter) to the attributes you assert that it has.

Summary: you have nothing but hand-waving, baseless assumptions, and unargued assertions, all transparently contrived to lead you to a conclusion that you like.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This is just getting more ridiculous. The problem is that you're lacking the basic logic of how a 'necessary entity' is even a self-consistent idea in the first place. How is it possible for something to exist whose non-existence would be impossible? In other words what sort of thing would make its lack of existence cause some sort of logical contradiction?

I think that has been answered for us. As an external reason must exist for why the universe is as it is and not as some other universe so a reason must exist for why there is something rather than nothing....as logically, a reason must exist as to why the necessary being must exist. Since we are at the end of the line( There can only be something or nothing ) and there isn't nothing, That has to be a necessary entity which necessarily exists and is it's own reason for why there isn't nothing.

The alternative is infinite regress which isn't a solution or contingency only argument which is effectively the same thing.

Unless you have concrete answers to those questions, then the whole 'argument' is just a load of blind guesses and wishful thinking.

'm sorry but infinite regress or contingency only or Brute fact are the blind guesses and wishful thinking.

No. For the simple reason, that without answers to the questions above, I have no idea at all what a necessary entity would be like. Your baseless, unargued assertions don't count.

The sovereignty, the uniqueness, the finality of the necessary being all come out of the argument from contingency so it isn't true that they are unargued.