Contigency argument.

The first premise of the argument is as follows:

1. Everything that exists has a explanation of it's existence either in necessity of it's own nature or in a external cause.

Now let me explain some terms than move on to a defense of the premise. So what does it mean to exist necessarily. Well many philosophers think number exist this way. That they cannot not exist they are necessary. For example numbers always exist because quantity always exists. For example if I have three oranges in front of my what is the number? 3. It immediately corresponds to reality. Now to the next one a external cause. What does that mean? Well something contingent. Something that came into existence from something else. Like cars or planets or stars etc.

Now this argument is great because it would apply to everything even if the object is eternal. So this argument would hold if the universe was eternal. So the premise is rooted in the principle of sufficient reason. That everything must have a explanation. That there is nothing that exists that has no explanation. This is consistently confirmed in science. If everything did not have a explanation than science would be destroyed. To give a analogy, suppose I find a ball in the woods. You stumble across it during a hiking expedition with your friend. You look at the ball and say how did it get here? And your friend just said forget it! It exists inexplicably! Would you take that response? NO! You would find his answer without logic. You know it must have a explanation. Now suppose the ball was the size of a car. Wouldn't still cry out for a explanation? Suppose it was the size of a building? Wouldn't cry out for a explanation? Suppose now it was the size of a planet? Wouldn't still cry out for a explanation? Suppose now that it was the size of the universe. Wouldn't it still cry out for a explanation? So does the size somehow make it inexplicable the object in question? No! It still requires a explanation. Now some people respond that since the universe came into being from nothing and since there was nothing before it. It is a exception to the principle. Well this is question begging because they are presupposing atheism to be true. But on theism there is a state of affair prior to the big bang namely God. Now some just say the principle is true to things inside the universe but not the universe as a whole. This is just committing the taxi cab fallacy. Which is dismissing a principle because it doesn't fit your conclusions. For example I say all guys are perverts. Than I call my brother not a pervert. Well what makes him a exception? He still a guy. Then he is a pervert. Just because he is my brother doesn't make him a exception. So either I am wrong in my assertion all guys are perverts or that my reasoning is wrong. So with atheist who claim the universe has no explanation they do not like the conclusion it would lead to if it did. What makes the universe a exception to the principle it exists therefore a explanation is needed.


That is it for today. Tomorrow I will discuss the second premise.