God Exists (Contingency Argument)

In this argument I will make the case that 1) Something must exist that exists by the necessity of its own nature, and that 2) this something is personal and transcends space, time, matter, and energy. Such a personal transcendent being is what we mean by "God" so the fact of its existence is sufficient to prove a broad theistic worldview. The argument I will present trades on the concepts of "contingency" and "necessity". Something is "contingent" if it depends on something else for its existence. Something exists by "necessity" if it does not depend on something else for its existence (it is non-contingent). So if "A" is exists by "necessity", then it exists no matter what and no matter what else may or may not exist. It exists because it is its nature to exist. However if "A" is contingent on "B", then you need "B" in order to get "A". Sunlight is contingent on the sun, so if you haven"t got the sun then you can"t have sunlight. The sun is also contingent, because if you didn"t have the swirling mass of space dust (or whatever) that coalesced into the sun then you wouldn"t have a sun. The space dust is contingent because if you didn"t have " and on and on we could go but only to a point. We can"t have an infinite regress of contingent objects because there would be nothing to start the chain going. There would be nothing to provide the sufficient conditions for the first contingent object to exist. You need a fixed point to get the first contingency going. Think of a chandelier attached to a chain. Let"s say that each link in the chain has a number, starting at the bottom with number 1. Let"s say link 1 is hanging on link 2, link 2 is hanging on link 3, link 3 is hanging on link 4, and so on up the chain. If you don"t eventually get to a link that is hanging on the ceiling then none of the links can be upheld. The ceiling in this analogy would be the fixed point, itself not contingent on anything (existing by "necessity"). In reality ceilings are contingent on construction companies, but for the purposes of our analogy imagine that the ceiling isn"t contingent on anything. This sort of existence is called "necessary" existence. It exists by the necessity of its own nature rather than existing contingent on some other set of conditions. The argument shows that not everything can be contingent, there must be some necessary reality to ground it. Notice that this has nothing to do with any sort of time duration. It isn"t that link 1 first relies on link 2 and then link 2 relies on 3. It is a matter of position, not of chronology. We could imagine that the chandelier had been there forever from eternity past and it would still be the case that the first link relies on the second, the second on the third, and so on. This is what makes this argument a little different from the Cosmological Argument. While the Cosmological argument deals with what is the cause of something beginning to exist, the argument from contingency relies on the relationships between things. For this reason the argument from contingency works even if we assume the universe has existed forever. What does any of this have to do with God? Let"s point out exactly what this "necessary" being is necessary for. This being is the necessary grounds for the reality of all space, all energy, all matter, and of time itself. In order to be the grounds for those things to exist, it cannot be made up of those things. It must be spaceless, timeless, and immaterial. In other words, it has to be an abstract object1. There are really only two sorts of abstract objects, numbers and unembodied minds. There just aren"t any other candidates out there. Numbers, however, don"t stand in causal relationships to anything. The number "3" never held up a chandelier, even though we"ve labeled one of the links "link 3". Since numbers don"t stand in causal relationships to anything then the only remaining candidate is an unembodied mind. What do you call an unembodied mind that is the grounds for all space, time, matter, and energy? The term in English is "God". So let"s sketch out the argument. I"m using the word "Universe" to refer to all space, time, matter, and energy. If you believe in the multiverse, then you can substitute the term "Cosmos" below. "Premise One: Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause. (i.e. it either exists by "necessity" or it exists "contingently") "Premise Two: If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God. "Premise Three: The universe exists. "Premise Four: Therefore the universe has an explanation of its existence (from Premise One and Three). "Premise Five: Therefore the explanation of the universe is God (from Premise Two and Four). "Premise Six: Therefore, God exists. Several of these premises are not controversial at all. Premise One is a catch all, encompassing all possibilities. It basically says that things either exist contingently or non-contingently (that is, "of necessity"). This is the equivalent of saying that everything is either "A" or "non-A", so it shouldn"t be controversial. Premise three is obvious, and premises four, five, and six are merely logical conclusions of the other premises. I would suspect that the controversial premise would be premise two, "If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God." I"ve given arguments above for why the necessary grounds for the existence of the universe must be a personal and transcendent unembodied mind. That is to say, the necessary grounds for existence must be "God". If my opponent is to defeat this argument, they must identify which premise they disagree with and why that premise is false. If my opponent is to deny the controversial premise (premise two), then they must show either 1) why the necessary grounds for the universe need not be transcendent and/or 2) what abstract object other than an unembodied mind is capable of standing as the necessary grounds for the contingent universe. [1] Objects are either abstract or concrete. Abstract objects have no physical referent and concrete objects do. Since the explanation of the universe explains the existence of physical reality, it can"t have a physical referent itself.