Why is there something rather than nothing?
If dependent things do not explain themselves, can the universe explain itself or does reality need a necessary foundation?
You are viewing a shareable lesson page. Return to the full course to have this study count toward your progress and mark it complete there.
Begin with dependent things, the universe's beginning, and what would explain them.
Now we turn from the tools to reality itself. Why is there anything here at all?
Maybe the universe is just there
The conversation keeps going. Jordan says, “All right, say truth is real and evidence can get us somewhere. I still do not see why any of that gets us to God.”
You start talking about the difference between things that depend on something else and something that would not. Jordan understands the basic idea quickly enough. “Sure, people depend on parents, trees depend on all kinds of things, houses depend on builders. Fine.”
Then he stops you. “But why cannot that just keep going? Or maybe the universe is the thing you finally stop at. Maybe it does not need anything else.”
He looks over. “Why do you need something beyond the universe at all?”
Contingent things do not contain the reason for their existence in themselves. The dependent universe points to a necessary, self-existent foundation.
The contingency argument asks a very basic question that is hard to avoid once we start looking at reality: why is anything here at all? We can explain one dependent thing by pointing to another, but eventually we still have to ask why there is any dependent reality in the first place.
The argument from contingency
Start with the things around us. Trees, people, planets, and just about everything we experience depend on something else in order to exist. Philosophers call these things contingent. A contingent thing exists, but it did not have to exist and it does not contain the full reason for its own existence within itself.
For example, a tree depends on the seed it came from, the soil, water, sunlight, and a whole series of conditions outside itself. You depend on your parents and on many conditions that had to be in place before you ever existed. We can keep tracing these explanations backward, but each explanation is still pointing to another dependent thing.
If every explanation only points to something else that is also contingent, we have still not explained why there is any contingent reality at all. We have explained how one dependent thing relates to another, but not why the whole collection exists in the first place.
The argument rests on a principle about explanation, often called the Principle of Sufficient Reason: contingent things have explanations for why they exist. That is how we ordinarily reason about the world. When something depends on conditions outside itself, we look for what explains it. A critic can reject that principle when we reach the universe, but then the question becomes why dependent reality should be left without an explanation at precisely that point.
One response is to say that the universe is simply a brute fact, meaning that it exists without any further explanation. That is possible, but it is not itself an explanation. It is a decision that no further explanation is needed. Another response, going back to Hume, is that once each dependent thing is explained by another, there is nothing left to explain about the whole. But explaining each member of a dependent chain by another dependent member still does not answer why there is any dependent reality at all. The real disagreement is whether contingent physical reality should simply be left unexplained or whether it is more reasonable to look for a necessary foundation.
Sometimes the objection is put more strongly: “The universe can be its own creator.” That can mean two different things. If it means the universe literally caused itself to begin, then the universe would have to exist before it existed in order to do the causing. That does not work. If it means the universe exists necessarily and does not need an explanation outside itself, that is a different claim. But necessary means more than saying the universe exists or has always existed. It means it could not have failed to exist and does not depend on anything beyond itself. The particular physical order we actually have includes things and conditions that could have been otherwise. If someone says the universe as a whole is necessary, they still need to explain why it could not have failed to exist. Naming it “the universe” does not settle that question.
The contingency argument says that dependent reality ultimately needs to rest on something that is not dependent in the same way. That is what necessary means here. A necessary being does not receive its existence from something else and does not exist only because some outside condition happened to produce it.
If contingent things need an explanation, the argument points beyond them to something that exists necessarily. That is a starting point for understanding God as the One who depends on nothing else. Next we'll ask whether the universe itself had a beginning.
Bottom line: Contingent reality needs an explanation that ultimately rests in something necessary rather than dependent.
Think about it: Why does an endless chain of contingent things not fully answer the argument?
Dependent reality points beyond itself
You return to Jordan’s suggestion that the universe might simply be the stopping point. You tell him the argument depends on a basic idea: contingent reality should have an explanation for why it exists rather than not.
Jordan is quiet for a moment. “I could still call the universe a brute fact, but I see the problem. That feels more like stopping the question than answering it.”
He nods. “A necessary foundation makes more sense than I expected. But if there is something behind the universe, what else can we know about it?”
Use what you learned in a different situation
Someone says, “Why not just say the universe is a brute fact and stop asking for an explanation?” How would you explain what the contingency argument is still asking?
The full course lets you write your response, compare it with a model, and track your progress.
Practice this inside the full courseQuestions this argument still has to face
“Why think contingent things need an explanation at all?”
That is the key premise, and it can be challenged. The reason to accept it is that looking for explanations of contingent facts is basic to ordinary reasoning and science. If someone wants to stop that search at the universe, they can, but they still need a reason why the universe should be the exception rather than simply calling it a brute fact.
“Maybe the universe is just a brute fact.”
That is a real option, but it is not an explanation. It is a decision to stop looking for one. The question is whether leaving contingent physical reality unexplained is a better stopping point than a necessary foundation that does not depend on anything else.
“If every part of the universe is explained, why does the whole need another explanation?”
Explaining each dependent thing by another dependent thing can tell us why this event followed that one, but it still leaves the larger question unanswered: why is there any dependent reality at all? The argument is not adding one more physical cause to the chain. It is asking what ultimately explains why the dependent chain exists in the first place.
“Why cannot the universe itself be necessary?”
It can be proposed, but necessary means more than existing forever. It means the universe could not have failed to exist and does not depend on anything beyond itself. The changing, particular physical universe we actually observe gives us no obvious reason to think it has that kind of necessary existence. So the claim that the universe is necessary needs an argument too.
“Who created God?”
The argument is not that everything needs a creator. It is that contingent things need an explanation outside themselves. If God is the necessary foundation of reality, then asking who created God treats God as though He were another contingent thing, which is not what the argument is claiming.
Use this in a real conversation
- Before answering “the universe does not need a Creator,” find out what the person means. Self-causation, existing forever, existing necessarily, and being a brute fact are different claims.
- If someone rejects the Principle of Sufficient Reason, do not pretend there is no disagreement. Ask why contingent facts normally call for explanation but the universe should be exempt.
- If someone says the universe is necessary, ask what makes it necessary. Existing forever is not the same thing as being unable not to exist.
- Let this argument do its own job. Contingency points toward a necessary foundation; it is not supposed to prove every Christian doctrine in one step.
Keep the question on why contingent reality exists at all. The argument points to a necessary foundation rather than another dependent thing in the chain.
Sources for further study
- Reasonable Faith | Argument from Contingency: Gives a standard Leibnizian formulation using explanation, necessity, and God.
- Ligonier | Necessary Being: Treats the move from dependent reality to a necessary being in classical theism.
- Ligonier | What Is the Aseity of God?: Explains God as the necessary being who exists in Himself rather than through another.
- Biola | Introduction to Christian Apologetics: Introduces arguments for God's existence and the role of evidence in assessing them.
Continue in the full course to track your progress and explore more lessons.
Return to full course for more lessons