Argument from Contingency Lecture Notes

Introduction

• Argument from contingency explores foundations of existence.
• Numerous objections exist; lecturer summarizes 8 key objections.
• Argument overview: contingent things exist, seeking a necessary existence foundation.

Summary of the Argument

Definition

• Contingent things: things that can fail to be (e.g., blocks destroyed by a hammer).

Basic Premises

1. Something exists: Self-evident premise based on existence of own doubts.
2. Each portion of reality is dependent or not: Example of matter depending on prior states.
3. Contingent things depend on something beyond themselves: E.g., iPhone needs to be invented.

Supports for the Argument

• By experience: Objects can't just appear from nowhere (e.g., iPhones, Play-Doh).
• Contingent things can’t account for their own existence: Require a foundational existence with necessary properties.

Main Objections to the Argument

Objection 1: No Totality or Super Big Object

• Argument doesn't rely on a single totality of contingent things.
• Uses plurals, e.g., multiple iPhones requiring a foundation.

Objection 2: Fallacy of Composition

• Doesn't assume totality dependent from part dependence.
• Arguments apply to groups, not just individuals (e.g., Play-Doh example).

Objection 3: Infinite Regress

• Lecturer's version doesn't rule out infinite chain of dependencies.
• Infinite existence doesn't explain existence itself; it presupposes it.

Objection 4: Quantum Mechanics

• Distinction: Virtual particles not necessitated by prior; but still depend on prior conditions.

Objection 5: First Event is Special

• Reasonable inferences can be made based on observed experiences.
• Principle of irrelevant differences: dependent nature doesn’t change by time/place relocation.

Objection 6: Bootstrapping Problem

• Problems with both contingent and necessary causes leading to circularity or unwanted necessity.
• Proposes spontaneous action for a necessary foundation causing a contingent effect.

Objection 7: Universe is Necessary

• Stage one of argument doesn't conflict with material foundation.
• Argument open to exploring nature of foundation; stage two focuses on nature debate.

Objection 8: Argument is Too Lofty

• Intellectual humility and bold exploration can coexist.
• Understanding of ultimate reality can progress through careful inquiry and not presumptions.

Final Thoughts

• Emphasized importance of building knowledge, not just objecting.
• Purpose: to serve and aid understanding, not to dogmatically persuade.
• Encourages skeptical but constructive approach to formulating sound arguments.