The Contingency Argument

The Contingency Argument, also known as the Argument from Contingency, is a philosophical argument rooted in the principle of sufficient reason and the distinction between contingent and necessary beings. This argument attempts to demonstrate that God is a necessary being.

The Argument

Everything that exists is either contingent or necessary.
Not every being can be contingent.
Therefore, there exists a necessary thing on which the contingent beings depend.
A necessary thing, on which all contingent things depend, is what we mean by "God".
Therefore, God exists.

The Rebuttals

Principle of Sufficient Reason: Not everything needs an explanation. The cosmos might be a brute fact, existing without further explanation, just like God.
The Problem of Necessity: If God is defined as a necessary being, it's unclear why the cosmos itself couldn't be necessary.
Infinite Regress: Some argue that an infinite regress of explanations is not inherently problematic. Our intuitions about infinity may not apply to metaphysical realities. Each step in an infinite chain could have an explanation, even if the chain as a whole doesn't.

"The universe is just there, and that's all. It seems to me that the idea of the world's having an explanation is really rather odd, and that the idea of it having a sufficient reason is just meaningless."

Bertrand Russell, BBC Radio Debate with Frederick Copleston (1948)