Is There a Contingency Argument?

He doesn't explain it in a what I say, he doesn't give you a perfectly neat argument that he gives you. So let's suppose we did and we got to the end of stage one, which is extra naturalism. That again, that argument is physical things are dependent. They can't exist unless there's something that explains them. And he says, I'm not telling you what that is. He means from an atheist point of view. Now it's like, maybe there's more to it than our scientific mind thought,. Trying to reduce it to our understanding of physicality. Doesn't work because physicality doesn't explain itself.