The Argument from Contingency is a cornerstone of classical and modern philosophy. It seeks to answer the profound question: “Why does anything exist at all?” The argument posits that contingent beings—things that depend on external causes—require a necessary being as the ultimate foundation for their existence. This necessary being, whose existence is self-explanatory, is what we call God. However, some atheists misunderstand or misrepresent this argument, leading to flawed critiques. This blog explores 15 things some atheists get wrong about the Argument from Contingency, providing logical clarifications, scholarly insights, and connections to contemporary discussions.
1. Misunderstanding Contingency
Many atheists misinterpret contingency as meaning “random” or “unplanned,” rather than understanding its philosophical definition. Contingent beings depend on external causes for their existence, in contrast to a necessary being, which exists by its very nature.
Edward Feser explains: “A contingent being’s existence is not self-explanatory; it requires a cause, whereas a necessary being’s existence is explained by its own nature.”¹
¹ Edward Feser, Five Proofs of the Existence of God (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2017).
2. Confusing Necessary with Eternal
Some critics argue that an eternal universe eliminates the need for a necessary being. However, something can be eternal and still contingent if it depends on external conditions to exist.
William Lane Craig writes: “Even an eternal universe requires an explanation for why it exists rather than nothing. Its eternity does not make it necessary.”²
² William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008).
3. Rejecting the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR)
The Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR), which states that everything has an explanation for its existence, is foundational to the Argument from Contingency. Some atheists reject this principle, yet they rely on it in science and everyday reasoning.
Alexander Pruss argues: “The denial of the Principle of Sufficient Reason undermines rational inquiry itself, as it abandons the search for explanations.”³
³ Alexander Pruss, The Principle of Sufficient Reason: A Reassessment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).
4. Equating Contingency with Random Chance
Critics sometimes dismiss the Argument from Contingency by equating contingency with randomness. However, the argument is about dependency, not probability. Contingent beings exist because they are caused, not because they are random.
Richard Swinburne states: “The Argument from Contingency does not rely on randomness but on the need for a sufficient cause for the existence of dependent entities.”⁴
⁴ Richard Swinburne, The Existence of God (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2004).
5. Mischaracterizing the Necessary Being
Some atheists caricature the necessary being as an anthropomorphic deity, rather than engaging with the philosophical concept of a being whose essence entails existence. This straw man argument fails to address the argument’s actual claims.
Thomas Aquinas explains: “A necessary being is not like contingent beings; its essence is existence itself, making it fundamentally different from anything in the created order.”⁵
⁵ Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I.2.3.
6. Assuming the Universe Is Necessary
Many atheists claim that the universe is a necessary being without addressing why it exists at all. However, the universe exhibits contingent properties, such as its dependence on fine-tuned physical constants.
N.T. Wright writes: “The universe’s dependency on specific conditions for its existence underscores its contingency rather than its necessity.”⁶
⁶ N.T. Wright, Simply Christian: Why Christianity Makes Sense (New York: HarperOne, 2006).
7. Ignoring the Distinction Between Explanation and Cause
Some critics argue that the Argument from Contingency confuses causation with explanation. However, the argument seeks an explanation for contingent beings, whether or not it involves a temporal cause.
Robert Koons explains: “The Argument from Contingency is about metaphysical explanation, not temporal causation. It seeks the ultimate reason for existence.”⁷
⁷ Robert Koons, The A-Theory of Time: A Defense (New York: Springer, 2019).
8. Proposing the Multiverse as a Necessary Being
Some atheists suggest that the multiverse could serve as a necessary being. However, even if the multiverse exists, it would still be contingent, as it depends on specific conditions or laws.
Stephen Meyer writes: “The multiverse hypothesis simply multiplies contingencies; it does not provide a necessary explanation.”⁸
⁸ Stephen Meyer, Return of the God Hypothesis (New York: HarperOne, 2021).
9. Claiming ‘We Don’t Need an Explanation for Existence’
Some atheists argue that existence simply “is” and does not require an explanation. However, this stance undermines the very foundation of rational inquiry, which seeks to explain why things exist rather than nothing.
Alexander Pruss states: “To reject the need for an explanation of existence is to abandon the search for understanding, which is the basis of all philosophical and scientific inquiry.”⁹
⁹ Alexander Pruss, The Principle of Sufficient Reason: A Reassessment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).
10. Confusing ‘Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?’ with Scientific Inquiry
Critics often dismiss the Argument from Contingency as unanswerable or irrelevant by treating it as a scientific question. However, the question is philosophical, seeking a metaphysical explanation rather than a scientific one.
William Lane Craig explains: “The question of why there is something rather than nothing transcends scientific inquiry. It is a metaphysical question about the foundation of all reality.”¹⁰
¹⁰ William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008).
11. Asserting That Contingency Is an Illusion
Some atheists claim that contingency is merely a human construct, arguing that it has no real bearing on reality. However, the dependency of things in the universe on prior causes is not an illusion—it is a fundamental feature of existence. For example, the fact that a tree depends on water, sunlight, and soil is a direct observation of contingency.
Edward Feser observes: “The dependency of contingent beings is not an illusion; it is a feature of reality that demands explanation, not dismissal.”¹¹
¹¹ Edward Feser, Five Proofs of the Existence of God (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2017).
12. Arguing That the Necessary Being Could Be Abstract
Some atheists propose that the necessary being could be an abstract object, such as a number or a mathematical law. However, abstract objects cannot cause or explain the existence of anything since they lack causal power. A necessary being must be a concrete, self-existent entity.
Richard Swinburne explains: “A necessary being must be capable of causing or explaining the existence of contingent things. Abstract entities, by their nature, cannot fulfill this role.”¹²
¹² Richard Swinburne, The Coherence of Theism (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993).
13. Treating God as a ‘Gap Filler’
Some critics dismiss the Argument from Contingency as a “God of the gaps” argument, claiming it invokes God to fill gaps in knowledge. However, the argument is not based on ignorance but on the positive evidence that contingent beings require a sufficient explanation.
William Lane Craig argues: “The Argument from Contingency is a deductive argument grounded in the nature of contingency, not an appeal to ignorance.”¹³
¹³ William Lane Craig, On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision (Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 2010).
14. Ignoring the Logical Necessity of a First Cause
Some atheists claim that the universe or multiverse could exist as an infinite regress of contingent causes. However, infinite regress fails to provide an ultimate explanation, as it merely pushes the problem further back.
Thomas Aquinas writes: “An infinite regress does not resolve the question of existence; it only postpones the need for a necessary being.”¹⁴
¹⁴ Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I.2.3.
15. Misrepresenting the Relevance of the Argument
Some atheists dismiss the Argument from Contingency as irrelevant to modern debates about God’s existence, suggesting that it is a relic of medieval philosophy. However, the argument addresses timeless questions about existence, contingency, and necessity, which remain as relevant today as they were in Aquinas’ time.
C.S. Lewis reminds us: “We must not dismiss the great questions of existence as outdated. They remain central to our understanding of reality.”¹⁵
¹⁵ C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970).
The Relevance of the Argument from Contingency
The Argument from Contingency offers a profound and rational explanation for the existence of the universe. By grounding contingent beings in a necessary being, it addresses the most fundamental question of all: “Why is there something rather than nothing?” Far from being outdated, the argument continues to challenge modern thought and provides a robust philosophical foundation for belief in God.
Real-World Relevance
This argument intersects with contemporary scientific discussions, such as the multiverse hypothesis, fine-tuning of the universe, and the origin of physical laws. These phenomena highlight the contingency of our universe and underscore the necessity of a metaphysical explanation beyond naturalism.
- Multiverse and Contingency: Even if the multiverse exists, it would still be a contingent system requiring an explanation for its origin.
- Fine-Tuning of the Universe: The precise physical constants that allow for life point to the universe’s dependency on external causes, supporting the argument’s premise.
Stephen Hawking himself recognized the philosophical challenge of existence, stating: “Why does the universe go to all the trouble of existing?”¹⁶
¹⁶ Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam Books, 1988).
Engaging Prominent Critics
- Bertrand Russell dismissed the argument by claiming, “The universe is just there, and that’s all.” This response sidesteps the philosophical issue rather than addressing it.
- Richard Dawkins critiques the need for a necessary being, but his arguments rely on naturalistic assumptions that fail to account for contingency.
Alexander Pruss counters such objections: “The refusal to engage the principle of sufficient reason is not an answer; it is an avoidance of the question of existence itself.”¹⁷
¹⁷ Alexander Pruss, The Principle of Sufficient Reason: A Reassessment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).
Christian and Theistic Scholars on Contingency
- Thomas Aquinas: “A necessary being is required to ground the existence of all contingent things, providing the ultimate explanation for why anything exists.”
- Alvin Plantinga: “Contingency points us to a transcendent source—an ultimate reality that is beyond the physical universe but sustains it.”
A Final Challenge
Could it be that atheists misunderstand the Argument from Contingency because they overlook the profound philosophical implications of contingency and necessity? By engaging the argument honestly and consistently, both atheists and theists can better explore the ultimate foundation of existence.
Tom's Theology Blog 
Leave a comment