The fourth argument I offer for God’s existence in my “Does God Exist?” podcast series is the Contingency Argument.
The contingency argument for God’s existence is a cosmological argument, but unlike the kalam argument, it does not require a temporally finite universe. The contingency argument holds that even an eternal universe requires a cause, and that cause is God.
The essence of the argument is that things which don’t have to exist, but do, can only be explained by something that does have to exist, namely God. I explore the argument over three episodes. Listen wherever you get podcasts, or at https://thinkingtobelieve.buzzsprout.com. If you would prefer to read about the argument, my written paper is available below:
Also, check out a great five minute animated video on the argument from William Lane Craig:
Thinking to Believe 
November 17, 2023 at 7:55 pm
What is your take on WLC’s view of Genesis not being history?
LikeLike
November 18, 2023 at 2:28 pm
Well, here we go again. The narrator jumps from a universal cause to God (as in the KCA). His two causes are God and abstract entities. That list is incomplete and is thus guilty of neglected aspect. And he does not explain why a being cannot have necessity of existence without having all the attributes of God.
That said, the contingency argument gets us closer to rational demonstration. Exactly why are at least some beings contingent? What is it about a contingent being that is different from a non-contingent being that allows us to draw rational inferences from said difference? And why must there be only one non-contingent being?
LikeLike
December 1, 2023 at 1:53 pm
Jason, do you plan on covering any of Aquinas’ arguments?
LikeLike
December 3, 2023 at 5:38 pm
Preacherteacher, to keep this comment thread on-topic, shoot me an email with that question and I’ll give you my thoughts on it.
LikeLike
December 3, 2023 at 5:54 pm
Scalia,
I already addressed the “jump” from a cause to God in my response to you on the Kalam, so I won’t say much here. I’ll just point out that the contingency argument is not really a jump from a cause to God, but from contingency to necessity. Contingent beings must find their ultimate explanation in a metaphysically necessary being. So the real jump is from a necessary being to God. Why think God is the necessary being? I provide two answers. First, I identify some properties of the cause by reasoning backwards from its effects, and note that those properties are consistent with theism (just as I did in the Kalam argument). Second, I argue that only two beings could fit the bill of metaphysical necessity: God, abstract objects. Abstract objects won’t work because the defining characteristic of abstract objects is that they don’t stand in causal relationships with anything. You seem to think that there are more than two options. Can you tell me what that third option is and why it is just as reasonable as the theistic option?
You said I did “not explain why a being cannot have necessity of existence without having all the attributes of God.” I’m not sure I understand the point you are trying to make. Please clarify.
You asked why there must be just one metaphysically necessary being. I explained this when responding to you in the context of the Kalam. I don’t think there needs to be a different explanation for this argument, but I will admit that there doesn’t seem to be anything about the nature of metaphysical necessity per se that demands that there be just one metaphysically necessary being. After all, it seems logically coherent to imagine two metaphysically necessary beings, both of which have being in themselves and neither of which draws their being from the other.
LikeLike
December 3, 2023 at 6:01 pm
Scalia, no I do not plan to cover any of Aquinas’ Five Ways for several reasons:
(1) This series is already going to be super long. I can’t drag it out forever. That’s why I am also choosing to ignore a bunch of other great arguments for God’s existence.
(2) I am not as familiar with Aquinas’ Five Ways as I am the “contemporary” arguments I am covering. I would not be able to do them justice.
(3) From what I do know about the Five Ways, I don’t find them as persuasive as the “contemporary” arguments. Also – again, based on my limited knowledge of the Five Ways – at least some of the Five Ways seem to be based on Aristotelian/Scholastic metaphysics that I do not accept, and lead to conclusions about God that I believe are mistaken (divine simplicity, divine impassibility, God as pure actuality). I’m sure you would disagree with my assessment, and maybe you are right about some things. And maybe if I knew more about the Five Ways, some of my reservations could be overcome. That said, #1 is still the reality.
LikeLike
December 5, 2023 at 9:42 am
Hello, Jason! You write:
I raised this in the other thread and thought I had explained what I meant. Why couldn’t a being have necessity as to its existence without having all the attributes of God?
For example, let’s say that all the essential attributes of God can be described as attributes A through Z. Let’s also say that necessity of existence is attribute A. Why couldn’t a being have A without B through Z? Or, why couldn’t a being have A through G without H through Z? What argument do you offer that A entails B through Z?
As to Aquinas’ arguments, I get it that you’re not familiar with them, but given that the majority of Christians affirm them to one degree or another, I urge you to learn more about them. They are indeed far more powerful than the “contemporary” arguments we hear today. That said, I concede that several contemporary arguments may be more persuasive on the street due to the necessity of understanding the underlying metaphysics of said arguments. There are accessible books that you can read that do not require a prohibitive investment of time.
LikeLike
December 16, 2023 at 10:50 pm
And I also get that you do not buy the “pure actuality” conclusion, but your reluctance to purchase it is rooted in your not understanding the arguments leading to that conclusion. We (classical theists) contend that if God isn’t Pure Act, then He isn’t God at all. Anything which isn’t Pure Act is a composite being which stands in need of an explanation beyond itself. Since no being that exists through another can be God (because it is by definition contingent), God can only exist through Himself. Pure Act follows as a metaphysical necessity.
LikeLike
February 9, 2024 at 7:16 pm
[…] in case you missed it, I also posted my papers for the Kalam and contingency arguments a while back […]
LikeLike