Why Atheism Must Acknowledge God

William Lane Craig’s argument from contingency reveals an inescapable truth: the universe, as a contingent reality, requires an external cause that only a necessary being—God—can provide. When properly examined, this argument compels not just theists but also atheists to confront the inadequacy of a purely naturalistic worldview. Here, I present a fortified version of the argument, addressing common objections and demonstrating why atheism must accept its conclusion.

The Argument from Contingency

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

• This principle, rooted in the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR), undergirds all rational inquiry. To deny it is to embrace a worldview where events and entities have no rhyme or reason—an intellectually untenable position. Without this principle, science itself collapses, as it presumes that all phenomena are explainable.

2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

• The explanation for the universe must transcend space, time, and matter. It must be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and personal, since abstract entities cannot cause anything. Only a personal agent with the power to choose to create fits this role.

3. The universe exists.

• This premise is undeniable. The universe is a contingent reality: it could have failed to exist or existed differently.

4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence.

5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God.

Addressing Common Objections

1. Does the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) Hold?

Critics often challenge the PSR, claiming the universe might exist as a “brute fact” without explanation. However, this position is self-refuting:

• Denying the PSR undermines the foundation of rationality. If some things exist without explanation, how can we trust our reasoning or the consistency of natural laws?

• A “brute fact” universe arbitrarily halts inquiry, contradicting the very premise of atheistic reliance on science and reason.

Atheists rely on the PSR to reject “God of the gaps” reasoning, so rejecting it here would be inconsistent. To sustain rational coherence, atheists must accept that the universe has an explanation.

2. Why Can’t the Universe Be Necessary?

Some argue that the universe itself could be the necessary entity. This fails for several reasons:

• A necessary entity must exist in all possible worlds. The universe, however, is contingent—it could have existed differently or not at all, as evidenced by its finite beginning (the Big Bang) and its reliance on finely tuned constants.

• Necessary beings must exist independently. The universe, composed of space, time, and matter, depends on these conditions to exist, making it contingent by nature.

3. Is the Cause Personal?

Critics suggest that the cause could be impersonal, such as physical laws or abstract principles. However:

• Abstract objects (e.g., numbers or laws of nature) are causally impotent. They describe reality but do not bring it into existence.

• The cause must account for why the universe began at a specific time rather than existing eternally. A personal cause, possessing will and agency, explains this choice. An impersonal cause cannot.

This aligns with the scientific evidence that the universe had a beginning, as confirmed by the Big Bang theory, pointing to a timeless, spaceless, and personal cause.

4. What About the Multiverse?

Atheists often invoke the multiverse as an alternative explanation, suggesting our universe is just one of many. Yet this does not escape the problem of contingency:

• The multiverse itself would require an explanation. Why does it exist? Why does it generate universes?

• A multiverse merely extends the chain of contingent causes. It does not address the need for a necessary being to ground existence.

• No empirical evidence supports the multiverse. It is speculative and fails to undermine the necessity of a transcendent cause.

Why Atheism Cannot Escape the Argument

Atheism faces a profound dilemma:

• To reject the PSR is to embrace irrationality, undermining science and reason.

• To deny the contingency of the universe is to ignore cosmological evidence and philosophical reasoning.

• To propose an impersonal or abstract cause fails to explain the universe’s beginning, agency, or fine-tuning.

• To invoke the multiverse only shifts the problem, leaving the existence of the multiverse unexplained.

Each alternative collapses under scrutiny, leaving the atheist with no viable escape from the conclusion that the universe requires a necessary, personal cause. This necessary being is God.

The Inescapable God

Craig’s argument from contingency is not merely a theistic argument; it is a rational mandate. Atheism must either abandon rationality or accept the existence of a necessary being who explains the universe. This being must transcend space, time, and matter, and must possess the power to create. These attributes point unmistakably to God. In rejecting this conclusion, atheism denies the very principles of reason and inquiry it claims to uphold. For those committed to rationality, Craig’s argument is not just compelling—it is inescapable.