Objections to the Contingency Argument A. The notion of a necessary fact (or a necessary existence) is incoherent (Hume, Kant). Hume: anything we can imagine existing, we can imagine not existing. Response: (1) the existence of a necessary first cause is the conclusion of the argument, not a presupposition. We don't believe that God exists necessarily because we can't imagine Him not existing: we can't imagine God at all. (2) Hume's principle is self-defeating. Hume holds that only logical or definitory truths can be necessary. Is this principle supposed to be necessary or contingent? It can't be contingent -- on what empirical evidence is it based. So it must be necessary. But, it isn't a logical truth, and it isn't true by definition. B. The argument commits the fallacy of composition: from the fact that each part of the cosmos is caused, it fallaciously draws the conclusion that the whole cosmos is caused. Response: this is a misstatement of the argument. The argument assumes that all wholly contingent situations are
This is the end of the preview. Sign up
access the rest of the document.