Over the years, many arguments or proofs have developed for God's existence. These proofs are primarily philosophical in nature, although there is some scientific evidence to support some of them. None of them will conclusively prove the existence of the God of the Bible, but they do demonstrate that a belief in God is rational.
One of these proofs is the argument from contingency. This article will provide a brief overview of this argument.
The first thing to note is that most arguments for God’s existence are philosophical rather than scientific. There is certainly some overlap between the two fields. Still, science derives knowledge primarily from observation and experiment, while philosophy is more concerned with the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.
Science advances by making observations about the natural world, developing hypotheses to explain those observations, then testing the hypothesis to see if it is valid. This makes science very good when examining the natural world – things that can be observed and tested. Science is good at answering the “how” questions.
Philosophy, on the other hand, is more concerned with the “why” questions. Why is there something rather than nothing? Philosophical arguments consist of three parts. First, there are premises, which are highly plausible truths. Second are inferences, intermediate conclusions that form additional premises. And finally, there are conclusions, an explanation that, if the premises are all true, is the most logical explanation for them.
A philosophical argument is sound if each premise is valid and the conclusion reached provides the best explanation for the premises. Two examples will serve to illustrate both valid and invalid arguments.
1. Bats can fly (true premise)
2. Only birds can fly (false premise)
3. So, bats are birds (invalid conclusion based on false premise)
-
1. All humans die (true premise)
2. I am a human (true premise)
3. So, I will die (valid conclusion)
The first premise in this argument is what is often called the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR). The PSR states that everything that exists or happens must have a reason or a cause. And that cause, most commonly, is something outside of itself. Something cannot cause itself to come into existence.
We don’t look at a chair and assume it came into existence without a cause. We understand that someone has made that chair. The same is true of our cars, our houses, and everything we encounter daily. While we may not know how they were made, we recognize they were.
The same is true for the natural world around us. While we may not know how it came to be, we accept that there was a cause for its existence. It did not just appear out of thin air with no cause.
Few people will likely argue against the validity of this premise. There is no good reason to doubt it. Some might argue that since we do not know everything yet, it is always possible that we might find something that exists without a cause. But the only real reason for taking that approach is to avoid the conclusion it leads to.
The second premise is that contingent beings exist. A contingent being does not have to exist. It could just as easily not have existed. Our world is filled with contingent beings, including myself. I do not have to have existence. That is true of every person who has ever existed and every other living creature. And it is just as valid for every physical object that you encounter. No necessity required any of it to come into existence. Every contingent being or thing has a cause for its existence.
The causes for contingency take two different forms—the first deals with origins. A contingent being was caused to come into existence at some time in the past. Once the contingent being exists, the cause is no longer needed. An example of this is my parents. They were the initial cause of my existence. But they are no longer required for me to continue in existence.
The second form deals with current existence. I am no longer dependent on my parents for existence. But there are several reasons why I continue to exist. These include a suitable environment to support life, a beating heart, a functional brain, and other necessary biological processes. But all of that is likewise contingent on many factors, including specific chemical interactions. These, in turn, are contingent on the proper atomic elements, which depend on the strength of the strong and weak nuclear forces, which also seem contingent on some unknown factors.
It is not just me that is contingent. Everything that has physical existence is contingent on something else for its origin and for its continued existence. And this chain of contingency will either go back infinitely or until it reaches a cause that is not contingent.
Given the two premises described above, each of which is generally presumed true, what conclusions can be drawn? Remember that there are two variations of contingency, but the conclusion we will reach is the same for both. So, for simplicity, let’s use the first one, contingency of origin.
I am a contingent being. And there must be sufficient reason for my existence. That reason is found in my parents. But they are also contingent beings who need a reason to exist and who, in turn, were caused to exist by their parents. But their parents were also contingent and so required a cause. And back and back the trail of contingent beings goes.
The contingency chain will go back until one of two conditions is met. The first is that there is no end. The chain will proceed infinitely backward in time. The second possibility is that something that is not contingent kicked it off in the first place. This is what is generally called a necessary being or object.
The first thing we need to do when addressing the first alternative is to determine if it is reasonable. Is an infinite sequence even possible?
There are at least a couple of problems with an infinite sequence. If an actual sequence extends infinitely far into the past, can the sequence have ever reached our current time? No matter how many steps you traverse in the sequence, you will never reach the end where we are now. Reaching the end of an infinite sequence is not physically possible.
A second problem with the infinite sequence is the age of the universe. The universe itself would have to be eternal to have an infinite sequence. And all the scientific evidence points to a universe that began to exist back at the beginning of time.
Some posit that our universe is only a part of a much larger multiverse or ensemble of universes. And that multiverse is the cause of this universe, kicking off a locally finite chain that is, in turn, part of a much larger, possibly infinite chain.
But this possibility also has two weaknesses. First, the existence of a multiverse has no supporting evidence, nor can it since it is not observable from within our universe. And secondly, it faces the same issue with an infinite regress. How do we get to the present from an infinitely distant past?
The alternative to an infinite chain of contingent beings is one that ends with a necessary being. Unlike contingent beings who have a beginning and do not have to exist, a necessary being has neither a beginning nor the possibility of non-existence. A necessary being must exist and has always existed without a cause.
This necessary being would stand at the beginning of the causal chain, being the reason that the first contingent member in the chain came into existence. And, indirectly, the cause of every member in the chain.
For the casual chain concerned only with the origin of a contingent object or being, you might posit that the necessary being was no longer necessary once the chain had started, but that the chain had become self-perpetuating. But that is not true with the second form of contingency — the one dealing with current existence. If any link in that chain is broken, all the following contingent objects would cease since they depend on the previous objects in the chain.
Assuming a necessary being who is the first cause of all that is, what can we know about this being? There are several attributes that we can reasonably assume. A necessary being must be . . .
A person: This means that this necessary being must be capable of choosing to start the contingency chain. If not, then the chain would, of necessity, either have always been or have never been.
Immaterial: Since all this material world depends on a necessary cause, the cause itself must be immaterial.
Transcendent: The necessary being must be distinct from his contingent causes, having his existence prior to anything else.
Self-existent: Being a necessary being, there can be no external cause. This being’s existence must lie entirely within himself.
Eternal: A necessary being cannot not exist. He would be eternal.
All-powerful: This being would contain within himself all that is necessary to create the universe we inhabit.
As you can see, a necessary being that would be responsible for the universe does map closely to the God of Christianity.
Does the argument from contingency conclusively prove that there is a necessary being responsible for all that exists? I do not believe so. But it does demonstrate that a necessary being is more rational than the alternative, and one that is more plausible. It also makes the God of the Bible a strong candidate to be that necessary being.
Ed Jarrett is a long-time follower of Jesus and a member of Sylvan Way Baptist Church. He has been a Bible teacher for over 40 years and regularly blogs at A Clay Jar. You can also follow him on Twitter or Facebook. Ed is married, the father of two, and grandfather of three. He is retired and currently enjoys his gardens and backpacking.
He is a cross pendant.
He is engraved with a unique Number.
He will mail it out from Jerusalem.
He will be sent to your Side.
Emmanuel
Bible Verses About Welcoming ImmigrantsEmbracing the StrangerAs we journey through life, we often encounter individuals who are not of our nationality......
Who We AreWhat We EelieveWhat We Do
2025 by lntellectual Reserve,Inc All rights reserved.
