The contingency apologetic argument posits that all that exists must be necessary or contingent. A necessary being is uncaused and cannot not exist. Necessary and contingent beings can create contingent beings. As humans, we can only procreate, not create life. Another short hand method within this argument is the impossibility of time being infinite. If time were infinite, an infinite amount of time would have to have passed before this moment. Since we exist, time must have had a starting point for contingent beings to exist.
p1. That which begins to exist (that which came into being) and is reliant on another for its existence is a “Contingent” existence.
p2. The first existing contingency did not cause itself into existence. It would have to exist prior to itself to cause its own existence. That is logically absurd.
p3. Absolute nothing did not cause the first existing contingency into existence. Absolute nothing has no means to cause anything.
p4. Therefore, the first existing contingency is reliant on that which is not contingent for its own existence.
p5. That which has always existed and therefore is self reliant (isn’t reliant on anything else for its existence) is a Necessary existence.
C1. Therefore, the Necessary existence is the best possible explanation for the cause of the first existing contingency.
There is scientific evidence to support that the universe began to exist (the big bang). Therefore, it isn’t self reliant (5). The universe did not cause itself (2), and absolute nothing did not cause it (3). The universe must have a beginning point for today to exist. Therefore, the existence of the universe is reliant on a Necessary Cause or the Necessary Reason (the origin of this site’s name).
The best explanation for the Necessary Cause is God (uncaused, immaterial, spaceless and timeless). God is the first and only necessary being. The Contingency apologetic argument is also called the ontological argument.
Traditional criticism of the ontological argument is that we cannot think a being into existence. We can demonstrate the possibility of God but no direct proof is provided by the argument. While the argument can not be used to convert a non-believer to a believer, the faults in the argument do not prove that there is no god.
See also: The Typology of Christ