I'm not opposed to suggestions. Out of curiosity, suppose someone asked you why an initial (or origin, as you put it), contingent state of affairs obtained instead of another state of affairs that could've obtained. Maybe you could use the state of affairs of God choosing to create X. Presumably that state of affairs obtained contingently (I.e., God choosing not to create X could've obtained, or whatever). What would you say settled the matter? When I say chance settled the matter, I'm pretty much saying that the matter got settled but it's not as if there is something that made it settle one way or another, it just did settle one way over the other. I'm at a loss for what else I could say other than chance.

Maybe you'd suggest that I need not mention chance because everything I associate with chance is perfectly accounted for by my having already said it obtained contingently, but that's where I distinguish that a contingent outcome could be immediately settled by something we could point to, yet ultimately settled by chance. To further illustrate, take God's choice to create:

Someone might point to God choosing to create the universe as the reason why the universe exists. In other words, God choosing to create the earth settled the matter of whether or not the earth was created. So, even though the earth being created obtained contingently, it wasn't by chance in the immediate sense, but in virtue of being contingent, it will have been by chance in the ultimate sense. So I think my mentioning chance is not without warrant. In fact, you and MU initially countered my claim of chance by pointing to another contingent event.

Sorry that was a bit long winded, but maybe you have a better way to articulate what I'm trying to convey.

Out of curiosity, suppose someone asked you why an initial (or origin, as you put it), contingent state of affairs obtained instead of another state of affairs that could've obtained. Maybe you could use the state of affairs of God choosing to create X. Presumably that state of affairs obtained contingently (I.e., God choosing not to create X could've obtained, or whatever). What would you say settled the matter? When I say chance settled the matter, I'm pretty much saying that the matter got settled but it's not as if there is something that made it settle one way or another, it just did settle one way over the other. I'm at a loss for what else I could say other than chance. — Brayarb

The origin point in a causal chain doesn't have a cause, so God couldn't choose it. That point is incomprehensible. The alternative is that there is no starting point and the chain is infinite (potentially, not actually).

Someone might point to God choosing to create the universe as the reason why the universe exists. In other words, God choosing to create the earth settled the matter of whether or not the earth was created. So, even though the earth being created obtained contingently, it wasn't by chance in the immediate sense, but in virtue of being contingent, it will have been by chance in the ultimate sense. — Brayarb

You're heavily prone to deterministic thinking. The saying associated with Schopenhauer is that 'You can't want what you want.' In other words, as you're suggesting, all choices ride on a deterministic foundation.

I didn't mean to suggest that the origin point in a causal chain has a cause. I'm perfectly happy to work with an uncaused cause. What I'm trying to do is give you an example of a state of affairs that obtained contingently, to ask you why it obtained instead of another that could have, and for you to not appeal to another contingent state of affairs to contrastively explain it obtaining. I thought God's choosing to create X would be a good candidate for this because it is presumably contingent and I wouldn't expect you to appeal to another contingent state of affairs to contrastively explain it. Perhaps my use of the word "origin" threw you off. Anyway, again, simply why did God choosing to create X obtain instead of fail to obtain?

I can appreciate determinism and indeterminism and routinely think in terms of the latter.

Anyway, again, simply why did God choosing to create X obtain instead of fail to obtain? — Brayarb

Because God had the power to do it and there was nothing to stop him?

While that is fine and true, that could still be the case and yet God choosing to create X could've failed to obtain. It contingently obtained, so I wouldn't expect a contrastive, entailing-type of explanation from you, but that's how I know and why I say it was chancy. It's not necessarily a bad thing, it just is.

God choosing to create X could've failed to obtain. It contingently obtained, — Brayarb

Is this part of the scenario you were constructing or a conclusion you're arguing to?

It's just a scenario I was constructing. I'm sure there are some metaphysical necessitarians that wouldn't agree with it.

Because God is supposed to have the property of omnipotence, he usually gets what he wants. So if God wants x, there's a 100% chance of x. :)

Maybe redo the scenario without an omnipotent creator. Like me, for instance. I created x. I could have failed to create x. Does x exist by chance? Why wouldn't that scenario work for your purposes?

That's true, but God's wanting X would be contingent, if it could fail to obtain. I wasn't implying that God's choice could fail to obtain because he's impotent. It could fail to obtain just because it is contingent. That is, it is just analytically true that a state of affairs that obtained contingently could've failed to obtain.

I could use your creating something, but God will work, as long as there is contingency involved.

It could fail to obtain just because it is contingent. That is, it is just analytically true that a state of affairs that obtained contingently could've failed to obtain. — Brayarb

It's analytically true that an omnipotent God can't fail. So are you starting with a contradiction?

Again, I'm not talking about impotence. When I say fail, I'm not saying that God is trying to do something and failing. I'm merely saying that if God is wanting X, then he's necessarily failing to not want X. It's not because God can't not want X (he can, if his wanting X is contingent), he's just failing to (I.e., he's just not wanting X).

Following the scenario, the fact that x is actual proves God did want it. We can imagine that he might have wanted something else. You're saying this entails a capacity for multiple outcomes (which you're calling "chance.") Is that right?

If God wanting X contingently obtained, then yes, he could've not wanted X. So, yes, there are two possible outcomes. Contingency entails at least two possible outcomes. Chance, as I'm using the term, is an explanation of why one possibility obtained over another when there's not some contingent, contrastive explanation that entails that one of the possibilities obtained over the other(s).

What this means is that answering why one possibility obtains over another will always bottom out, so to speak, at chance. That's why I say that states of affairs that obtain contingently ultimately obtain by chance.

Humor me for a moment. Say I am the creator we're considering. I created x. I could have created y. Did x ultimately obtain by chance?

Yes, as long as X existing is contingent, then x existing ultimately obtained by chance.

OK. :)