Hi Chalky,
Let’s approach this in yet another way. Do you agree that the things we see around us are ‘contingent’ or merely ‘possible’. A contingent thing is something that may either exist or not exist; its nature does not guarantee that it exists. Although all the things we experience directly are indeed contingent, there is also something else that exists necessarily, in other words, whose very nature guarantees that it exists.
Since a contingent thing on its own merit could either exist or not exist, it must have some external cause that made it exist - like ‘tipping the scales’ in favor of its existence rather than its non-existence.
Take me, for instance. I am contingent, meaning that I am the sort of thing that could easily have failed to exist. In fact, at one time I didn’t yet exist, and in the future I will cease existing, that proves I’m not necessary.
So there must have been a cause, maybe my parents, who brought me into existence.
Now the aggregate whole of all contingent things – in other words the physical universe – is also contingent. After all, everything in the universe is contingent, so taken all together as one thing, it too must be contingent. Thus it also needs an external cause, just like I do. Since that external cause has to be outside the whole aggregate of contingent things, it cannot itself be contingent. So it is necessary. Hey my friend, we’ve proven that there is a necessary existent which causes all other things! And this, of course, is God.
To summarize, I am trying to show that when you look around and think, ‘All of this could have failed to exist; why is there something, rather than nothing?’ The answer to the question is that not everything can be contingent; that is, not everything could have failed to exist. There must be something that just has to exist, to explain why everything else has wound up existing. I hope it makes sense.
Let’s approach this in yet another way. Do you agree that the things we see around us are ‘contingent’ or merely ‘possible’. A contingent thing is something that may either exist or not exist; its nature does not guarantee that it exists. Although all the things we experience directly are indeed contingent, there is also something else that exists necessarily, in other words, whose very nature guarantees that it exists.
Since a contingent thing on its own merit could either exist or not exist, it must have some external cause that made it exist - like ‘tipping the scales’ in favor of its existence rather than its non-existence.
Take me, for instance. I am contingent, meaning that I am the sort of thing that could easily have failed to exist. In fact, at one time I didn’t yet exist, and in the future I will cease existing, that proves I’m not necessary.
So there must have been a cause, maybe my parents, who brought me into existence.
Now the aggregate whole of all contingent things – in other words the physical universe – is also contingent. After all, everything in the universe is contingent, so taken all together as one thing, it too must be contingent. Thus it also needs an external cause, just like I do. Since that external cause has to be outside the whole aggregate of contingent things, it cannot itself be contingent. So it is necessary. Hey my friend, we’ve proven that there is a necessary existent which causes all other things! And this, of course, is God.
To summarize, I am trying to show that when you look around and think, ‘All of this could have failed to exist; why is there something, rather than nothing?’ The answer to the question is that not everything can be contingent; that is, not everything could have failed to exist. There must be something that just has to exist, to explain why everything else has wound up existing. I hope it makes sense.