For

information and source of the following presentation, consider the last paragraph and reference.
My existence must fit one of three logical categories: impossible, possible, or necessary. And reality is
subject to the law of non-contradiction; reality cannot be contradictory. But since my existence is neither
impossible nor necessary, it follows that it must be possible for me not to exist.
First, my existence is not impossible. I do exist and undeniably so. But what exists proves that its existence is
actually possible. Only impossible things, like square circles, cannot exist. My actuality proves that it is
possible for me to exist. Hence, my existence is not impossible.
Second, my existence is not necessary. A necessary existence is that of a being that cannot not exist. The
nonexistence of a necessary Being is impossible. If there is a necessary Being, then it must exist necessarily.
There is no other way a necessary Being could exist than to exist necessarily.
(a) What is more, a necessary existence would be pure actuality, with no potentiality whatsoever. If it had
any potentiality with regard to its existence, then it would be possible for it not to exist. But this is precisely
what a necessary existence cannot do; it is not possible for a necessary existence not to exist. Therefore, a
necessary existence would be pure actuality with no potentiality in its being whatsoever.
(g) A necessary Being must be an uncaused being. Whatever is caused passes from potentiality to actuality.
But a necessary Being has no potentiality in its being, and, hence, it cannot change. Therefore, it is clear that
a necessary Being cannot be caused. And since a self-caused being is impossible, one must conclude a
necessary Being is an uncaused being.
Now from these descriptions of what a necessary existence would be, if there were one, it is both obvious
and undeniable that I am not a necessary existence. First, I am a changing being. I change in space, time, and
knowledge. I do not always live the same moment or in the same place or relation to the world. This is an
obvious fact of my experience. Further, it is an undeniable fact of experience that I change in knowledge.
Even if I claim to have arrive to the realization that my knowledge is unchanging, I have not avoided
changing in my knowledge, for anyone who comes to realize or know something has changed in his
knowledge. There was the state of realization before he believed, which was followed by the different state
in which he arrived to believe that he is unchanging in knowledge. Hence, it is really impossible to arrive to
know one has unchanging knowledge. If there were anyone with unchanging knowledge, he would always
have known it. But if I change in any way, then I am not a necessary Being, because a necessary Being is both
simple and unchanging. As simple, it has no parts and, hence, cannot be partly anything. Whatever it is, it is
wholly and completely. In addition, an unchanging being could not know anything in a changing way. Things
could change, but its knowledge of them could not. All it knows it would have to know always. It follows,
therefore, that I am not a necessary existence, for I know in a changing way, and a necessary existence could
not possibly know in a changing way.
Second, I am not alone. I use language, but language is a common medium of communication shared with
others. This implies that others exist. Even the denial that language is a medium by which we speak to
others is an attempt to speak to others through language. Authors publish articles on the assumption there
are others to read them.
We are now in a position to put the argument together. I exist; this cannot be denied. My existence cannot be
impossible since I actually exist. Nor can my existence be necessary since my existence implies both change
and multiplicity, neither of which a necessary Being can have. The only remaining alternative is that my
existence must be a possible existence. In other words, my existence is contingent. That is, I am but I might
not be. My nonexistence is actually possible. I can arrive to be, and I can cease to be. I am a may-be but not
a must-be. Although I exist, nevertheless, I have the potentiality within my very being not to exist. I could
go out of existence at any moment. I am contingent as well as limited and changing.

The presentation here was influenced in large part from a book authored by Norman L. Geisler on pages 269
through 271, which I reference later in this website.