In this article, we are going to discuss the contingency argument. This topic can be very philosophical and hard to understand, that´s why I am only going to talk about the very basic idea of the contingency argument.
I believe that we all can agree that we exist and the things around us exist. That is where the contingency argument makes a clear distinction between the existing things.
1. Possible Existence
There is possible existence. The features of possible existences are that they do not have to exist, they could exist in any other way and they are dependent on other things. Let´s take a blue shirt as an example. It could be any other color or form. It is also dependent on the materials that it was created from and the tailor, who is its creator.
2. Necessary Existence
Then there is necessary existence. It must be different from possible existence otherwise there would be no point in differentiating them. So in that case the necessary existence must not be dependent, it must exist and it must exist in a unique way that no other form would be possible.
The main argument of contingency
The main argument is that there can not be a world with only possible existences. We can not have a dependent thing that depends on another dependent thing that also depends on another thing and so on. This chain would be infinitely long. It requires a necessary existence that is outside of that chain to start this chain in the first place.
Example for contingency argument:
Let´s take an apple as an example. An apple, which is a possible existence can not exist without an apple tree. It has to come from a tree. The tree which is also a dependent thing can not exist without the soil, the rain, or the sun. These things also have other things that they rely on. We can trace this chain back to the top but where does it end? On top of these chains must be a necessary existence that started it all otherwise it would be infinitely long which is neither comprehensible nor logical.
So what is on top of these chains?
It must be unique.
There must be a necessary existence on top of these chains. This necessary existence must be uniquely one. Why is that? Because if there is more than one necessary existence, you can make the argument that this necessary existence can be arranged in multiple ways, which is an attribute of possible existence.
It must be eternal.
This necessary existence must also be eternal, which means that it has always existed. Because if at some point in the past or the future it did not exist, one could make the argument that it was not necessary back then, why should it be now?
It must be one.
This necessary existence can not have parts. Anything that consists of parts is dependent on these parts. It requires these parts to be complete and these parts might also make it possible for it to be arranged differently which is a feature of possible existence.
It must be a sustainer, not only a creator.
Does this necessary existence only play a role as a causing being that starts the chains of possible existences? The answer is no. This necessary existence must also be the reason why all the possible existences keep existing. It must be their sustainer.
Let´s look at an example: One could argue that he could simply build a house and say that he plays the role of a necessary existence for this house. Without him, there would´ve been no house. But what happens when the builder dies. The house will simply keep on existing. If creating/starting a chain would make someone a necessary existence then there would be many of them. Therefore the necessary existence must also be the sustainer of possible existences.
The contingency argument is considered to be one of the strongest ways of understanding God. Can you think of any flaws or missing parts in the contingency argument? This article only represents my understanding of this deep philosophical topic. I urge you to listen or read about this topic from scholars that have studied it.
