Vlad,
If you want to say God must have had an external creator then that just is another boon for external creation.
I don’t know what goes on in the mind of a troll so I can’t even guess at what you get from this kind of straw manning. What was
actually said of course was that no such thing – what was
actually said was that if you want to posit an “external creator” to answer questions about the universe like, “did it begin?”, “how did it begin?”, “does “begin” even mean anything as space-time itself began with the universe?” etc then you have to ask the same questions of a supposed creator. And if the answer is “don’t know” you may as well say the same of the universe and have done with it. Fletcher’s tunnel remember?
It certainly wouldn't be for atheism.
Probably wouldn’t be if anyone had actually said that, though only if this supposed creator was a god of some kind though.
Contingency arguments don't just posit an inexplicable they state that things are either explained by another agency or the explanation is within itself. If your theory lacks contingency and necessity it isn't fully addressing the basic question.
Yes they do posit an inexplicable – that’s exactly what they do. They just replace one inexplicable with another one. If you’re seriously suggesting otherwise, explain “god”.
If the universe contains the necessary entity where and what is it? At the end of the day we focus on what the necessary thing must be like. We know it isn't contingent on the laws of physics or nature.....
We know absolutely no such thing. At best – at very best – we can say something like, “it’s hard to explain given the current state of knowledge about the “laws of physics or nature”, though we have already some plausible hypotheses that may or may not to turn out to be correct”. Not knowing enough about the physical world no more justifies “god” for you than it justified “Thor” for Norsemen.
Given all that then it becomes irrelevant as to whether the necessary is in or out of the universe.
Given that “all that” is utter drivel, no it doesn’t.
So, you have a plausible hypothesis but it doesn't need justified? Your taking the piss now.
Wow! When you’re in full straw man mode you really don’t hold back do you. Of course hypotheses need to be justified if they aren’t to remain just hypotheses. The point though is that there are competing hypotheses that are plausible based on current knowledge, but that have not or cannot be tested. What you can’t then do if you think “God” is the real answer is dismiss them out of hand – the burden of proof is on the person who says that they’re all wrong to
demonstrate that they’re all wrong. And even if someone could do that, still there’d be no argument for god thereby because there’s no telling whether a more compelling hypothesis might not arrive tomorrow.
Oh, and “god” isn’t even a hypotheses at all by the way because it lacks everything needed for it to be a hypothesis – coherence, falsifiability at least in principle etc. That’s why competing hypotheses for the big questions about the universe are in principle at least either right or wrong – they’re truth
apt, whereas “god” is firmly in “not even wrong” territory because it’s just white noise.
No doubt you’ll stick to your MO of ignoring or straw manning everything that’s just been said to you, but there it is nonetheless.