... principle of sufficient reason, that 'nothing occurs without a sufficient reason'. I will endeavor to show how this criticism of the argument is weak. I will then move on to look at a criticism of the argument from contingency as put forward separately by Mackie and David Hume. I consider this criticism to be the stronger of the two. Hume attacks the idea of a 'demonstrative proof of an existential proposition'3 a position which Mackie borrows heavily from, arguing that a necessary being is not a metaphysical necessity. I will attempt to show how this is a very forceful objection by exploring its immediate contention to the argument from contingency. Then I will consider some of the further implications of Hume's opposition, which are touched upon by Bertrand Russell in his discussions with Copleston4. Mackie poses the question: 'How do we know that everything must have a sufficient reason?'5 And ...

See this essay or coursework document in full right now