“The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence—which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.”
The Argument from Contingency
- P1 Contingent things exist — things that are, but might not have been.
- P2 Every fact — including the existence of the whole of contingent things — has a sufficient reason or explanation. the hinge
- P3 The totality of contingent things is itself contingent — it too might not have been.
- There is an explanation of that totality lying outside it: a necessary being, one that exists by its own nature.
The dispute turns on one premise: The Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR).
The argument is valid: if the premises are true, the conclusion follows. A valid argument built on a false premise establishes nothing — so everything turns on whether the marked premise is true.
The Principle of Sufficient Reason
If every contingent fact has an explanation, the conjunction of all contingent facts needs one too — and the only available candidate may make that conjunction necessary, so that nothing is truly contingent (the "modal collapse" worry).
A restricted Principle of Sufficient Reason avoids the collapse: a necessary being can explain the contingent facts through a free choice that could have gone otherwise — an explanation that does not necessitate what it explains.
Alexander Pruss, The Principle of Sufficient Reason (2006) ↗
Deny it and you admit brute facts — things that simply obtain with no explanation at all; and without a sufficient reason, Leibniz holds, inquiry has no principled place to rest.
Leibniz, Principles of Nature and Grace §7 (Latta 1898)
Giving up the Principle threatens the ordinary explanatory reasoning we rely on everywhere else, since one must then draw an unprincipled line between facts that need explaining and facts that do not.
Every line is attributed to a named thinker. Neither column is refereed — the reader weighs them.
The argument turns on a difference between two kinds of thing. A contingent thing — one that might not have existed — needs something beyond itself to explain why it is here at all. A necessary thing does not: it exists by its own nature and could not have failed to be, so nothing is left over to explain. That is why the chain of explanations can stop at a necessary being without stopping arbitrarily — and why the familiar retort, "then what explains God?", misfires: only contingent things call for an outside cause.
But on its own the argument reaches only a necessary being. It does not tell you what that being is:
God — an infinite mind whose very nature is to exist. On this view reality's ultimate ground is not a brute fact but self-explanatory, and what is most fundamental is mind. As Aquinas ends, "This all men speak of as God."
The universe itself — matter and energy as the thing that simply had to be. On this view reality's ultimate ground has no further explanation, and what is most fundamental is matter.
So the real work shifts to one concrete question: is the universe itself contingent or necessary? The theist argues it is contingent — its laws and constants could have been otherwise, and on the standard cosmological picture it appears to have had a beginning; if so, the universe is exactly the kind of thing that needs an explanation, and cannot be where the chain stops. Anyone who would rather the universe be the necessary ground has to make the opposite case — that it exists by its own nature and could not have failed to be. That argument, not this one, is where the matter is actually decided — and it is taken up in the other arguments and the doctrine elsewhere in the library.
“From this it is manifest that even by supposing the eternity of the world, we cannot escape the ultimate extramundane reason of things, that is to say, God. Accordingly the reasons of the world lie hid in something extramundane, different from the concatenation of states or the series of things, the aggregate of which constitutes the world.”
“And that of sufficient reason, in virtue of which we hold that there can be no fact real or existing, no statement true, unless there be a sufficient reason why it should be so and not otherwise, although these reasons usually cannot be known by us.”
“Why does something exist rather than nothing? For 'nothing' is simpler and easier than 'something.'”
“Now this sufficient reason of the existence of the universe cannot be found in the sequence of contingent things … Thus the sufficient reason, which has no need of any other reason, must needs be outside of this sequence of contingent things and must be in a substance which is the cause of this sequence, or which is a necessary being, bearing in itself the reason of its own existence, otherwise we should not yet have a sufficient reason with which we could stop. And this ultimate reason of things is called God.”
“In such a chain, too, or succession of objects, each part is caused by that which preceded it, and causes that which succeeds it. Where then is the difficulty? But the whole, you say, wants a cause. I answer, that the uniting of these parts into a whole, like the uniting of several distinct countries into one kingdom, or several distinct members into one body, is performed merely by an arbitrary act of the mind, and has no influence on the nature of things.”
“The transcendental principle: "Everything that is contingent must have a cause"—a principle without significance, except in the sensuous world. For the purely intellectual conception of the contingent cannot produce any synthetical proposition, like that of causality … But in the present case it is employed to help us beyond the limits of its sphere.”
The modern revivals and their critics are under copyright, so we don't host them — the reading doesn't stop at the public-domain record. Follow it at the sources:
You have read the premise, the objection, and the cost of each move. The library draws no conclusion.