The Fatal Flaws in the Contingency Argument for the Existence of God

The contingency argument for the existence of God, often referred to as the argument from incredibility, rests on several unsupported and often illogical premises. This article will delve into the core issues with this argument and explore why it fails to hold up under critical scrutiny.

The Contingency Argument: An Overview

The contingency argument posits that every being that exists is either contingent or necessary. Every contingent being depends on a necessary being for its existence. This argument culminates in the claim that the necessary being must be the deity as defined by various religious traditions.

The First Premise: Contingent vs. Necessary Beings

The first premise states that every being that exists is either contingent or necessary. This premise is problematic for several reasons. The argument assumes that existence can be categorized into an either/or dichotomy. However, this is not a valid logical construction. As an example, consider a person: one can be a father and a son simultaneously. Such existence is both contingent and necessary. The premise is thus falsified by this real-world scenario.

The contingency argument then proceeds to argue that not every being can be contingent. This is a bald assertion that lacks supporting evidence. The concept of infinity and eternity is itself paradoxical and senseless, just as the idea of infinite recursion (turtles all the way down) is often argued against. If time is infinite in both directions, all beings could be contingent and necessary.

Unsupported Premises and Circular Causation

The contingency argument relies on three main premises, only two of which are explored here. The unsupported nature of these premises undermines the entire argument. Consider the pool of beings to which we have access; our observations are confined to a tiny fraction of the universe. With such a limited sample, no valid generalization about the existence of necessary beings can be made.

The argument also fails to consider circular causation, or closed timelike loops, which would suggest that the universe itself could be the necessary element. This would satisfy the problem without the need for a deity. Additionally, even if the premises were true, the conclusion that there must be one and only one necessary being is logically flawed.

The Invalid Conclusion

The contingency argument concludes with the claim that a necessary being exists on which contingent beings depend. However, this conclusion is not logically valid. Even if the premises were true, which they are not, it would not necessarily follow that there must be a single necessary being. There could be multiple necessary beings, a whole pantheon of such beings, or a race of them, or even a galaxy full. The argument's conclusion is thus invalid.

Conclusion

The contingency argument for the existence of God is fraught with logical and evidentiary flaws. Unsupported premises and circular reasoning undermine the entire argument. Without a solid foundation of empirical evidence or logically coherent premises, the contingency argument remains a speculative assertion rather than a compelling argument for the existence of a deity.

For a more rigorous assessment of the arguments for and against the existence of God, it is essential to delve into the broader philosophical and scientific debates. The contingency argument, while popular in some circles, does not stand up to critical scrutiny.