The Contingency Argument
The contingency argument in theism is a philosophical argument for the existence of God based on the idea that everything in the universe is either contingent (dependent on something else for its existence) or necessary (exists independently and cannot fail to exist). It’s often framed as part of cosmological arguments for God’s existence.
Here’s a breakdown of the argument and how atheists typically counter it:
The Contingency Argument (Simplified)
-
Premise 1: Contingent Things Exist
Everything we observe (people, planets, stars, etc.) could, in principle, not exist. These things are contingent because their existence depends on other factors. -
Premise 2: A Chain of Contingent Things Cannot Be Infinite
There cannot be an infinite regress of causes or dependencies (a chain of “this exists because of that” stretching forever) because such a chain would lack a sufficient explanation for why anything exists at all. -
Premise 3: There Must Be a Necessary Being
To stop this infinite regress and explain why anything exists, there must be a “necessary being” whose existence is not contingent on anything else. This necessary being is often identified as God. -
Conclusion: God Exists
A necessary being (God) explains the existence of the universe.
Atheist Counterarguments
Atheists challenge the contingency argument in various ways, focusing on its assumptions and logical steps:
1. Challenging the Infinite Regress Claim
- Argument: Why can’t there be an infinite regress of contingent things? Some atheists argue that an infinite regress doesn’t require a “first cause” and can exist without contradiction.
- Example: Just as numbers extend infinitely, why can’t causes?
2. “Necessary Being” is a Big Leap
- Argument: Even if a necessary being exists, why assume it is God (let alone a specific God)? Why not the universe itself as the “necessary thing” that always existed and caused itself?
- Example: Philosophers like Spinoza equated “God” with “nature” or the universe.
3. Quantum Physics and Contingency
- Argument: Quantum mechanics suggests events can happen without apparent causes (e.g., particles appearing in a vacuum). This undermines the claim that everything must have an external explanation or cause.
4. The Fallacy of Composition
- Argument: Just because every part of the universe is contingent doesn’t mean the universe as a whole is contingent. This could be a fallacy of composition (assuming what’s true of parts must be true of the whole).
5. No Need for Ultimate Explanation
- Argument: Atheists may reject the idea that the universe needs an ultimate explanation. They argue that “brute facts” (things that simply exist without explanation) could suffice.
6. Alternative Philosophical Models
- Argument: Atheists often explore alternative metaphysical frameworks, like naturalism, which don’t require positing a necessary being. These frameworks explain existence through natural laws and observable phenomena.
- From Alex: If first cause is necessary (x) and is always true, and cannot, not be true, then whatever it creates must meet this criteria to (x=y). A necessary thing cannot create a contingent thing.