The Argument from Contingency

This argument or proof comes from a consideration of the existence and order of the
universe. One of the popular arguments for the existence of God is the Cosmological Argument.
Based on the reflection of Aristotle’s observation of the physical world and examine why things
are the way they are in order, to demonstrate the existence of God. The Argument from
Contingency examines how every being must be either necessary or contingent. Since not
every being can be contingent, it follows that there must be a necessary being upon which all
things depend. This being is God (Clarke, 1675-1729). The English theologian and Philosopher
Samuel Clarke created a second variation of the cosmological argument which is considered to
be superior version and it is called the Argument of Contingency. Its premises includes that (a)
Every being that exists is either contingent or necessary. (b) Not every being can be contingent.
(c) Therefore, there exists a necessary being on which the contingent beings depend. (d) A
necessary being, on which all contingent things depend, is what we mean by “God”, (e)
therefore, God Exists. It is noted that even if the argument of contingency has been considered
as superior and its method of reasoning may be superior to the traditional cosmological
argument, it has weakness to its argument and it is called the “Fallacy of Composition”. The
counter arguments are (a) If there is a cause for everything then what caused the first cause
(God)? (b) If the first cause can be thought to be uncaused and a necessary being existing
forever, then why not consider that the universe itself has always existed and shall always exist
and go through a never-ending cycle of expansion and contraction and then expansion (big
bang) again and again. If there is to be a deity that is the exception from the requirement that all
existing things need a cause then the same exception can be made for the sum of all energy
that exists, considering that it manifests in different forms. What the counter argument does is to
indicate that the premises of the cosmological argument do not necessarily lead to the
conclusion that there is a being that is responsible for the creation of the universe. (c) Further,
even if a person wanted to accept that there was such a being there is nothing at all in the
cosmological argument to indicate that the being would have any of the properties of humans
that are projected into the concept of the deity of any particular religion. The first mover or first
cause is devoid of any other characteristic. So, the cosmological argument is neither a valid
argument in requiring the truth of its conclusion nor is it a satisfactory argument to prove the
existence of any being that would have awareness of the existence of the universe or any event
within it.

(1) Pecorino, P. Introduction to Philosophy, The Cosmological Argument (cuny.edu) | Retrieved from :
https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/intro_text/Chapter%203%20Religion/
Cosmological.htm#:~:text=The%20%E2%80%9CArgument%20from%20Contingency%E2%80%9D
%20examines,This%20being%20is%20God.