So last time we spoke about the first mover theory posited by Aquinas, but underneath the first mover, he postulated another meta physical layer we can explore.
So once again let start on something we can all agree on. Things exist (obviously). They come into being, change, and pass away. People are born, live, and die. Stars ignite and burn out. Buildings go up and crumble (Jet fuel cant melt steel beams). In philosophy we call these things contingent. A contingent thing is something that does not have to exist. It exists, but it could have failed to exist, and it depends on something else to exist. You and I are contingent. The chair under you is contingent. Every atom in your body is contingent.
Now define the contrast. A necessary being is something that cannot not exist (Yeah the phrasing is weird but its appropriate). Its existence is not borrowed. It does not depend on anything outside itself. If anything necessary exists, it would exist in all possible situations, and it would exist regardless of whether anything else existed. That is the idea on the table.
Here is the basic argument for contingency in plain language.
- There are contingent things. That is obvious.
- Contingent things do not explain themselves. They point outside themselves for a reason why they exist. This is not a scientific equation. It is the principle of explanation. If something could have failed to exist, then we can still ask, truthfully and meaningfully, why it does exist rather than not.
- If everything that exists were contingent, then there could have been a situation where nothing at all existed. If every item is the kind that can fail to exist, then it is possible that they all fail at once. Aquinas puts it briefly: “there must exist something whose existence is necessary.”
- If there were ever nothing, then nothing would exist now. Nothing comes from nothing. If you have zero, you do not get a universe for free.
- But there is something rather than nothing. So not everything is contingent. Therefore there exists at least one necessary being.
- Finally, either that necessary being has its necessity from another, or from itself. If it has it from another, we are back in a chain of borrowed necessity. That cannot continue without end, or we are left with nothing that actually has the power to exist in itself. So there must be a necessary being that has its necessity from itself. That is what classical theism calls God.
Let me sharpen the key ideas so the steps are crystal clear.
A contingent thing is like a light that is on only because power is supplied. Remove the power and the light goes out. A necessary being is like a source that has power in itself. It does not flicker. It does not switch on because something else woke it up. It simply is. Aquinas’s “Third Way” is exactly this move. He looks at the world of things that can be and not be, then concludes with a short line that drives the point home. There must be something necessary, “and this everyone calls God.”
This is not the First Mover argument. In that post we asked what explains change right now. Here we are asking what explains existence itself. Why is there anything at all, especially when everything we bump into looks contingent, dependent, and temporary. The contingency argument is not about a first event in time. It is about the kind of explanation required for the existence of things here and now.
Picture a long string of rechargeable flashlights clipped together in a line. Each flashlight only shines if it is charged by the next one. You can add one hundred flashlights. You can add one thousand. If every flashlight only has borrowed charge, the whole line stays dark unless something in the system has charge by itself. You need at least one unit that does not need to be charged by another. Existence works the same way. If every being only exists by borrowing existence from something else, you never get real existence started. You need a being that has existence in itself. That is the necessary being.
Common Objections
Objection 1: “Maybe the universe as a whole is the necessary being.”
Rebuttal 1: This takes the features of the parts and pretends the whole has different features without a reason. That is the fallacy of composition. The universe is a collection of changing, dependent, finite things. The collection does not magically become independent by being a collection. The set of all contingent things is still contingent. If each thing in the set can fail to exist, then the set can fail to exist. A pile of borrowed existence is still borrowed existence. A set of empty cups does not become full because there are many of them.
Objection 2: “Infinite regress is fine. Maybe there is an endless chain of contingent explanations that never bottoms out.”
Rebuttal 2: An infinite regress of borrowed existence does not explain existence. It only repeats the need forever. This is like saying every book is held up by a book above it, with no shelf. You can have an infinite tower of books. Without a shelf, the tower still falls. The fallacy here is thinking that adding more of the same thing creates a new kind of explanation. It does not. You still have no non-borrowed source. The argument needs at least one being that does not get existence from outside itself.
Objection 3: “Why not say the universe is a brute fact. It just is. End of story.”
Rebuttal 3: That move cuts off explanation at the very point where the need for explanation is strongest. It is a refusal to answer rather than an answer. Calling the universe a brute fact violates the principle of sufficient reason at the most basic level. It is also special pleading. It exempts the universe from the rules of explanation that we use and trust everywhere else without giving a principled reason for the exemption. If contingent things need an explanation, the biggest contingent total does not get a free pass.
Objection 4: “You are equivocating on the word necessary. Math truths are necessary. Maybe all you have shown is that necessary truths exist. That is not God.”
Rebuttal 4: The argument is about metaphysical necessity, not merely logical necessity. Necessary truths like 2 plus 2 equals 4 are abstract. They do not cause anything to exist. What the argument reaches is a necessary being with real existence, not a proposition. Confusing an abstract necessary truth with a concrete necessary being is a category mistake. Laws and truths describe. They are not the kind of thing that supplies existence to the world.
Objection 5: “Perhaps a fundamental physical law is necessary. No God required.”
Rebuttal 5: A law is a description of how things behave if they exist. It does not by itself produce the things that obey it. If there were no electrons, the law about electrons would not make any electrons appear. A law also has modal flexibility. Physicists discuss possible worlds with different constants and laws. A necessary being, in this argument, must be the kind that could not have failed to exist. A descriptive law that presupposes a world of things does not fit that bill. This is another category mistake.
Objection 6: “If God does not need a cause, why cannot the universe also not need a cause.”
Rebuttal 6: That is not a fair parallel. It ignores the distinctions the argument has already drawn. The universe presents itself as contingent, changing, and composite. A necessary being is argued to be non-composite, not limited, and not dependent for existence. Exempting the universe without changing its features is special pleading. The argument is not “everything has a cause except God.” The argument is “contingent things call for an explanation, and a regress of contingent explainers does not remove the need for a non-contingent source.”
Objection 7: “Possibility and necessity in Aquinas depend on time. If matter is eternal, the argument fails.”
Rebuttal 7: The core point does not depend on a temporal beginning. Even if the world had no first moment, the things within it are still the kind that do not have to exist. The question is not about when they began. The question is about why they exist at all given that they are the kinds of things that could have failed to exist. The contingency argument is about dependence, not a first date on the calendar.
Final Thoughts
Contingent things exist. They do not contain the full reason for their own existence. If everything were contingent, there could have been nothing. Nothing produces nothing, which is the end of the story. But there is something. Therefore not everything is contingent. There is at least one necessary being. Once you see that, you ask whether the necessary being is borrowed or not. If it is borrowed, you are back in the same problem. So you need a necessary being that has existence in itself. That is what the classical tradition calls God. Aquinas said it in a line that is hard to beat for brevity. “There must exist something whose existence is necessary.” That is not poetry. That is logic.
How does this move the project forward. In the First Mover post we examined change and argued that there must be a present source that is not moved by another. Here we examined existence itself and argued that there must be a being that does not borrow existence from anything else. Two different paths. Same destination. Another plank added to the bridge of evidence across the chasm.
That’s it for that lesson. If you are ready for the next one CLICK HERE.
-Will”