Then you said: If I existed absolutely, then I would be utterly self-sufficient; I would be my own cause. Yet, as my parents can attest, I am certainly not my own cause. Therefore, I am contingent upon my parents, at least.
But, you are an existent not existence. The fact of existence (there is something) cannot itself be contingent, because whatever is named is that upon which it is contingent, must exist, and if anything exists, there is existence.
The concept existence does not require any particular existense, only some existense. A concept is materially valid if there is at least one actual particular of that concept. (e.g. The concept phoenix is considered mythical, but would become materially valid if even one actual phoenix were discovered.)
With regard to my statement, "Why something rather than nothing, that is the question? This is not a question, it is a kind of insanity," I admit it is more rhetorical than philosophical, but I believe it is good rhetoric. I suspect anyone who comes to the question, "Why something rather than nothing," all on their own, may be exhibiting a psychological pathology; but, for those who are introduced to this question by someone else, as is usually the case, "insanity" is not neceswsarily indicated in considering the question, unless one takes it seriously, and dwells on it long enough, in which case, their sanity becomes questionable.
Hank
The concept existence does not require any particular existense, only some existense.
This sentence throws me for another loop. Do you mean that existence as such--in some Platonic form--is impossible, for existence is always instantiated in a thing? As I understand Copleston, he would agree with this.
A concept is materially valid if there is at least one actual particular of that concept.(e.g. The concept phoenix is considered mythical, but would become materially valid if even one actual phoenix were discovered.)
Straightforward enough. A Phoenix is a potential creature, not yet instantiated in reality. So how does this relate to existence?
With regard to my statement, "Why something rather than nothing, that is the question? This is not a question, it is a kind of insanity," I admit it is more rhetorical than philosophical, but I believe it is good rhetoric.
Better rhetoric demonstrates.