Argument from contingencyPart 2

RecapNecessary beings: exist as a necessity of their

own nature. (Potential examples: numbers, God.)

Contingent beings: non-necessary beings. Might have failed to exist, even if they have existed forever

Since contingent beings cannot account for their own existence, their existence can only be explained by other beings

Only necessary beings can adequately explain the existence of contingent beings

Recap continued Fallacy of composition?

Brick wall analogy: If every brick in the wall is contingent (e.g. is made by a brick making machine), then it seems valid to infer that the brick wall too is contingent. Importantly, the brick wall seems contingent for the very reason that the bricks are contingent. Had those bricks not been made, then that particular brick wall would not have existed.

In any case, no need to ask whether ‘the universe’ is contingent to establish that some ‘necessary being’ is required

Recap continuedCounter argument: Argument doesn’t show

that only one necessary being is required

But arguments aren’t propounded in a vacuum. A given argument needn’t do all the work we need it to do, all by itself. We build a cumulative case

Counter argument 1Humean response: The contingency argument

seems to say that God is logically necessary. But where’s the contradiction in the statement, “God does not exist”? (Compare to something like, “John is a married, unmarried man”.)

No longer considered to be a good response. There are different kinds of necessity and impossibility. The argument establishes the need for at least one ‘metaphysically’ necessary being

(Sometimes the terms ‘factually’ or ‘ontologically’ are used instead)

Metaphysical/Factual NecessityMuch stronger than mere physical necessity,

but not quite as strong as strict logical necessity

If given certain facts, beyond mere physical law, the non-existence of X is impossible, we may say X’s non-existence is ‘factually impossible’

Metaphysical/Factual Necessity This is so, notwithstanding that we might utter the

sentence, “X does not exist”, without contradiction

However, we can perhaps draw out a formal fallacy. Consider the following set of statements:

1. Given certain facts (f), the non-existence of X is metaphysically impossible.

2. Those facts (f) do obtain.

3. X does not exist.

We can see that 3 contradicts 1 and 2, so if 1 and 2 are true, 3 cannot be true

Counter argumentsRundle: It’s not necessary that any particular

material universe exist, but it is necessary that some material universe or other exist

Brick wall analogy: Although no particular collection of bricks has to exist, it is nonetheless necessary that some collection of bricks exist

Counter argument 2Widely regarded as implausible on two

grounds:

1. Why think that some universe or other has to exist? It seems like an arbitrary claim

2. The argument has a very implausible implication: If we posit the non-existence of every contingent thing except for, say, a flying spaghetti monster, then it becomes necessary that the flying spaghetti monster exist!

Next sessionKalam argument: Ties in with the contingency

argument

Why does the cause of the universe have to be a living and immaterial being?