Evidence for God from Science

I've been looking into philosophy a bit, but getting confused about the use of the terms 'possibly' and 'possible world'. One argument I read recently went from saying something 'possibly' had a non-contingent cause to more or less taking it as a given. And I'm not really sure what 'possible world' means. Are there special definitions for those terms in philosophy?

There is possible and there is probable.
pos·si·ble
/ˈpäsəb(ə)l/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
1.
able to be done; within the power or capacity of someone or something.
"surely it's not possible for a man to live so long?"
synonyms: feasible, able to be done, practicable, viable, within the bounds/realms of possibility, attainable, achievable, realizable, within reach, workable, manageable; More
noun
1.
a person or thing that has the potential to become or do something, especially a potential candidate for a job or membership on a team.


prob·a·ble
/ˈpräbəb(ə)l/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
1.
likely to be the case or to happen.
"it is probable that the economic situation will deteriorate further"
synonyms: likely, most likely, odds-on, expected, to be expected, anticipated, predictable, foreseeable, ten to one, presumed, potential, credible, quite possible, possible, feasible; More
nounBRITISH
1.
a person who is likely to become or do something, especially one who is likely to be chosen for a team.
"Merson and Wright are probables"

Something doesn't need to be likely to be possible BUT it must be likely to be probable.

EX:
Until a black swan was seen, it would be correct to say that the existence of a black swan was not probable.
You couldn't say it was impossible UNLESS you could be everywhere and see everything and KNOW it was impossible OR if the existence of a black swan was a logical contradiction- like a square circle for example.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2019 10:03 am Something doesn't need to be likely to be possible BUT it must be likely to be probable.

Thanks - those definitions were what I thought, but I was having trouble understanding this contingency argument. It's from a Christian YouTuber who's into philosophy:-

1. Necessarily, every set of contingent concrete objects possibly has an explanation for why it, rather than some other set of objects, exists.

2. L possibly has an explanation for why it, rather than some other set of objects, exists.

3. No contingent object in the actual world could explain L.

4. If no contingent object in the actual world could explain L and '2' is true, L is possibly explained by a necessary being or group of necessary beings (N).

5. If L is possibly explained by N, N exists.

6. If N exists, God exists.

7. God exists.

So how does number 5 follow, that if L is only possibly explained by N, N exists? L possibly has another explanation so N doesn't necessarily exist. I can kind of follow the argument now - maybe there are just too many 'possibly's in it

So the question is, how does one know that whatever original things were contingent ones, as opposed to having been eternal ones / or part of an eternal chain, per what some would insist? As that is their supposed solution to negate God necessary for what exists. But then you are back to the question as to whether such first eternal thing(s) "just happened" to A) be unfathomably intelligent (as intelligence cannot evolve) and B) just happened to exist with precisely the right attributes and capabilities, to create, design and organize a massively complex universe - and I would say the likelihood of A and B eternally existing with such characteristics and capabilities is zero!