The inquiry of the existence of God is a central question in the philosophy of religion. The notion of an omnipotent, all powerful creator is perhaps the most perplexing metaphysical notion. Philosophers have approached addressing God via a priori methods, or by modes independent of experience, or conversely, by a posteriori, or by appealing to experience. This essay will interpret and unpack the central arguments brought forth by Bertrand Russell and Frederick Copleston. “A Debate on the Argument from Contingency” is an a posteriori argument, Copleston’s bases his argument on the assumption that the universe is the sum of contingent objects, and as such, there must be a necessary being which explains its existence. The notion of contingency is essentially contested by Russell, this contention monopolizes the nature of the debate. Russell assumes the position that the notion of contingency is a useless metaphysical notion, and even if it were real, there are restrictions in the realm within which contingency operates. In “A Debate on the Argument from Religious Experience” …show more content…
For Copleston, the universe is the sum of contingent things, which do not contain within themselves the reason for being. Therefore, the aggregate of contingent objects must have an external explanation, a necessary being. A necessary being is one which cannot not exist and has within itself its reason for being — a being which does not depend on external factors to be —. (Here, Copleston borrows the notion of existence as being a predicate from Anselm, however, Kant points out that existence cannot be a predicate, as existence precedes predicates. ) Copleston would emerge the victor of the debate if Russell argued within the terms of the debate, however, Russell asserts that contingency and necessity are meaningless metaphysical