THE CONTINGENCY

OR DEPENDENCY
cosmological
ARGUMENT
for the existence of God
This Powerpoint presentation
is prepared by Dr. Peter
Vardy, Vice-Principal of
Heythrop College, University
of London for

Heythrop College,
University of London, is the
specialist theology and
DIALOGUE Philosophy College of the
EDUCATIONAL University. It offers
undergraduate and
VIDEOS. postgraduate courses in
Copyright reserved
Theology, Philosophy,
Philosophy of Religion and
Ethics. www.heythrop.ac.uk
The Cosmological Argument
for the existence of God
There is no such thing! There are a number of
arguments. The major ones are:
THE KALAM ARGUMENT – this argues for the
need for a cause of the Universe at the beginning of
time (these are dealt with on a separate Powerpoint)
THE DEPENDENCY or CONTINGENCY
ARGUMENTS – these argue for the need for the
Universe to depend on something necessary, i.e.
something that cannot not-exist.
The arguments have a long history, pre-dating
Aristotle. However Aquinas’ versions of the
Contingency arguments and the Kalam argument
are the best known today.
THE SIMPLEST
VERSION
Frederick Copleston sj
(former Principal of
Heythrop College) put
forward what is probably the simplest
cosmological argument in a debate with
Bertrand Russell in 1947.
Copleston’s argument misses out key steps
in the arguments of Aquinas’ and Leibniz
but retains the main thrust of their
arguments.
COPLESTON’S ARGUMENT
1) EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE IS
CONTINGENT
In this first premise, Copleston is claiming that
all things in the Universe, from stars to trees to
human beings, are ‘might not have beens’ -
they need not have existed and are dependent
on something else for their existence. Nothing
in the Universe is non-dependent.
Copleston’s argument (2)

2) THE UNIVERSE IS SIMPLY THE TOTALITY

OF CONTINGENT THINGS AND IS ITSELF
CONTINGENT
This is the key step. It moves from saying that everything in
the Universe is contingent to the claim that the universe as a
whole is contingent.
It is important to notice that there are two separate
statements here – and that there is a a jump in the argument.
Even if one accepts that everything in the world is contingent,
it would be possible to argue that the Universe as a whole is
necessary and that everything within the Universe depends
on the Universe as a necessarily existent totality.
Copleston’s argument (3)
3) GIVEN THE UNIVERSE IS CONTINGENT OR
DEPENDENT, THERE MUST BE SOMETHING
ON WHICH IT DEPENDS – NAMELY GOD.
If the Universe is indeed contingent (premise (2)),
then it follows it must depend on something. Notice
two further implicit assumptions here:
A) That whatever the universe depends on has to be
necessary (which means dependent on nothing else), and
B) That whatever this is, is the same as the God of
religious belief.
 BETRAND RUSSELL’S
REPLY
Russell rejects Copleston’s opening premise – he
rejects all talk of things within the Universe or the
Universe as a whole being contingent or dependent.
He does this because he claims that the very language of
contingency implies there must be something necessary –
he is effectively accusing Copleston of smuggling the
conclusion in with the premise.
Russell says that the Universe ‘just is’. It’s the ultimate
brute fact and requires no explanation.
If Russell is right to reject the language of contingency
and if his claim that the Universe is the ultimate brute fact
is accepted, then his reply undermines Copleston’s
argument.
Copleston’s exasperation
Copleston accepts that if Russell refuses to even ask
the question why there is a universe, then he cannot
be checkmated. The acceptance of the Universe as a
brute fact rules out requiring an explanation.
However he clearly considers this position to be
unreasonable. As Gerry Hughes sj, Master of
Campion Hall, Oxford, says “Any child of 5 would
see that the question ‘why is there a Universe at
all?’ is a reasonable one”.
Supporters of the argument claim that God is a
better ultimate explanation than the brute fact of
the Universe.
THE KEY ISSUE
The key issue is possibly whether the world as a brute fact
(Russell) is more self-explanatory than God (Copleston) as the
cause of the Universe.
Hick and Swinburne take different views on this. It is
essential, if the argument is to succeed, to show why God is
the better ultimate explanation.
Swinburne ('The Existence of God') maintains that God is a
SIMPLER explanation than the brute fact of the universe
because God provides a personal explanation - but this is
debatable. Aquinas considered that God was metaphysically
simple (this is the defining characteristic of the Thomist God
on which other features such as God's timelessness,
immutability, spacelessness, etc. depend) but this is VERY
different from saying that God provides a simple explanation.
Also, it is one thing to say God is personal, but it is far from
clear what this means when applied to the wholly simple God -
it certainly cannot be understood univocally, it does not have a
similar meaning to a human being who is seen as personal.
GETTING MORE COMPLICATED!

Copleston’s is the simplest argument but in

order to understand the issues more fully, it
is important to be aware of more complex
forms of the argument and replies to them.
These forms start with Aquinas’
‘Five Ways’ and, in particular,
THE THIRD WAY – the
argument from contingency.
This argument includes additional
steps to that of Copleston……….
 Aquinas’ Five Ways
Aquinas' Five Ways are the cornerstone of
Catholic Natural Theology because they claim to
show that language about God successfully refers.
Aquinas was not creating new arguments but using
old ones. Aquinas' Fifth Way owed much to Plato's
argument in 'The Timaeus‘ and the rest are derived
from Aristotle. There are five arguments:
1) FROM MOTION
2) FROM EFFICIENT CAUSES
3) FROM CONTINGENCY AND NECESSITY
4) FROM GRADES OF PERFECTION IN THINGS,
and
5) FROM DESIGN
It is not at all certain that Aquinas DID intend his arguments
to establish the existence of God independent of faith,
although most commentators assume this was his intention..
 AQUINAS’ THIRD WAY
Peter Vardy's summary of it is as follows:
Everything can 'be' or 'not be',
If this is so, given infinite time, at some time
everything would not-be
If there was once nothing, nothing could come from it,
Therefore something must necessarily exist (NOTE
MOST CAREFULLY that this is not God).
Everything necessary must be caused or uncaused,
The series of necessary things cannot go on to infinity
as there would then be no explanation for the series,
Therefore there must be some Being 'having of itself its
own necessity',
This is what everyone calls God.
ALL THESE STEPS CAN BE CHALLENGED…
 Aquinas’ Third Way
Aquinas first sets out to show that not everything can be
contingent. He claims that if everything can not-exist then, if
there had been infinite time going back into the past, there
would have been a time when there was nothing at all. He
claims this because he considers that in infinite time all
possibilities would be realised and one possibility is that
nothing once existed.
If, Aquinas claims, there was once nothing in existence, even
now there would be nothing as nothing can come from
nothing. He clearly considers it absurd to say there is
nothing now.
From this he concludes that not everything can be
contingent – there must be something necessary.
 NECESSARY BEINGS
Aquinas considers there are two types of
necessary beings:
1) CAUSED NECESSARY BEINGS. These are
angels which Aquinas considered could not not-exist
once they were created. He did not think there could
be an infinite regress of such necessary beings as
then there would be no explanation for the series. So
there must be another category…
2) AN UNCAUSED NECESSARY BEING. This is
the de re necessary God. The God who cannot not-
exist and is not dependent on anything else.
 What is Aquinas’
‘ultimate explanation?
Aquinas' arguments purport to arrive at 'That which is
necessary to explain the Universe' or that which is
necessary to explain motion, causation or contingency.
We do not know what God is, but whatever God is, God is
whatever is necessary to explain the Universe's existence.
There is a jump, however, from whatever this is to describing
it as God. THIS GAVE RISE TO PASCAL'S QUOTE "The
God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - not the God of the
philosophers".
Aquinas ends his proofs by saying 'This is what everyone calls
God' but this can be challenged. Aristotle's Prime Mover
appears radically different from the God of most Christians.
If we said that God was 'whatever sustains the universe in
existence' we would be somewhere near to what Aquinas was
saying - but this 'whatever' may be some way from Yahweh.
This lies at the heart of the central problem in
Philosophy of Religion – namely ‘What is ‘God’?
God necessarily exists…..
It is important to recognise that Aquinas ends up
with God as de re necessary – God is necessary in
and of God’s self and God is uncaused.
This is NOT meant to be the same as logical
necessity (de dicto necessity – necessity based on
how words are used) which applies in the Ontological
argument.
It is really important to try to be clear on the
difference between de re and de dicto necessity.
The Ontological argument starts with de dicto
necessity and attempts to arrive at de re necessity.
Th Cosmological argument starts from the world and
tries to reason to de re necessity.
The de re necessary, wholly
simple God
The de re necessary God is wholly simple, bodiless, without
parts, immutable, timeless and spaceless. SIMPLICITY is the
key defining characteristic of this God….
The two central characteristics of Divine simplicity are
(1) the identity of essence and existence in God - God is not
some thing that just happens to exist, God’s essence includes
existence. God cannot be a material being because God:
‘...cannot have any intrinsic accidental properties: cannot,
therefore, change in any way; and cannot be an individual of
any given species or genus. Hence an absolutely necessary
being does not have a nature in any straightforward sense at
all’.
(2) God has no potential. Everything in the universe is actual
and has potential – but God is pure actuality and has no
potential at all.
WILLIAM OF OCKHAM (1290 – 1350)
Ockham raised three problems with Aquinas’ approach:
He challenged Aquinas' view that an infinite series
was impossible. He maintained that causes could be
ORIGINATING CAUSES and not CONSERVING
CAUSES
He queried whether there was any necessary link
between cause and effect. This was the same point
which was made by Hume centuries later
Ockham did not think it possible to prove that there
was only one God nor that the most perfect possible
being existed. There is a distinction between two
possibilities. Either God is:
i) The most perfect being that actually exists - in this
case, there is clearly such a being (whatever it may be) but
this does not mean it is the Christian God, or
ii) The most perfect being that could possibly exist. In this
case, however, there is no way of showing that this
POSSIBLE being is also an actual being.
Leibniz’ argument
"Suppose the book of the elements of
geometry to have been eternal, one copy
always having been written down from an
earlier one. It is evident that even though a
reason can be given for the present book out
of a past one, we should never come to a full
reason. What is true of the books is also true
of the states of the world. If you suppose the
world eternal you will suppose nothing but a
succession of states and will not find in any of
them a sufficient reason.”
Leibniz’ argument
Leibniz' argument can be summarised as follows
1) The world we see is changing
2) Whatever is changing lacks within itself the reason for its own
existence,
3) There is a sufficient reason for everything either within itself or
outside itself,
4) Therefore there must be a cause beyond itself for its existence
5) Either this cause is itself caused or is its own sufficient
reason,
6)There cannot be an infinite regress of causes because this will
never provide a sufficient reason,
7)Therefore there must be a first Cause of the world which has
no reason beyond itself but is its own sufficient reason.
The key to this argument is the PRINCIPLE OF
SUFFICIENT REASON which Leibniz thought to be
self-evidently true.
Hume’s criticisms
1) Like causes resemble like effects - the most that can
be derived from finite effects will be finite causes.
2) We have no experiences of universes being made.
Nothing counts for or against the hypothesis about
the origin of everything.
3) No proposition about existence can be logically necessary. The
opposite of any statement about experience is always perfectly
possible. This may rest on a confusion as Aquinas does not
claim that God's existence is logically necessary - instead he
claims that the existence of God is necessary GIVEN motion,
cause, contingency, etc..
4) The words 'necessary being' have no consistent meaning. Any
being claimed to exist may or may not exist.
5) If 'necessary being' means only 'imperishable being', then the
universe itself may be necessary.
6) An infinite series is possible.
7) There is no way of establishing the principle of causality (see
discussion of this point under Ockham).
 KANT
Kant rejects the Cosmological argument
as he did not consider there was any
way of reasoning from finite events to a
transcendent cause.
In particular, he rejected the idea of a
‘necessarily existing being’ saying that this
was nonsense. The only things that are
necessary are propositions where truth rests
on linguistic convention – in other words on
the way words are used. Thus ‘All spinsters
are female’ is true because of the way we use
words and the definition we give to spinsters.
MARTIN LEE
Lee considers that the Cosmological argument rests
on a confusion as EITHER God is something or
nothing.
If God is something we can ask what caused God.
If God is nothing, then nothing cannot be a cause of
the Universe.
So Lee rejects the very idea of a self-explanatory,
necessary ‘something’.
AQUINAS’ reply to this would be that God is NEITHER
something NOR nothing – God is in a category of
God’s own. The question, however, is how such a
category can be established. He could be accused of
inventing this unique category in order to stop the
regress of explanation.
 THE HEART OF THE MATTER
The heart of the issue is whether the Universe needs
an explanation. The most the argument itself could
arrive at is a positive answer to this question and
then to claim that the Universe does, indeed, have an
explanation.
This next step, the identification of this cause with
the God of Christianity, Islam and Judaism is,
however, a separate step and further argument is
needed to establish this.
Some hold that the unmoved mover, the uncaused
cause, the de re necessary being is not personal
enough to be the same as the ‘Thou’ of religious
belief. This, however, is a separate issue…..