>>23932
>in order to explain existence, we must come to a being which contains within itself the reason for its own existence
Yeah, that's the main point we're arguing about. You think there is a special case, when the cause can dwell within its reason (God), when I think the reason must always be out of the result. Frankly, I can't prove one of these. Maybe you just pick one and see where it leads you.

>Doesn't this bring us back to the argument of contingency?
Tough question.