of things necessary and contingent

a quick glance into the Webster's
revealed very little by way of added insight
into these two philosophical terms
it seems that they have merely found their way into the language
and are used accordingly

however Thomas
and the Greeks long before him
argued over these two points
time and again

these discussions appear to be marked by
the awareness that all of life carries with it
the possibility of not being
and is therefore somewhat "miraculous"
or based on chance

from another point of view
all of life surges forth quite confidently
repeating and flourishing
wherever the conditions are favorable

however
it was and still is an accurate observation
that at least the animate things we see
are for a time and then they cease to be
so a rather certain conclusion can be drawn:
nothing that we apprehend through our senses
which is without doubt "alive" is necessary

rocks as we now know diminish
crumble and fade into dust
even the metals will deteriorate
even gold
over time
crumbles

yet in order for something to exist at all
it seems logical to state
that there is a dependency
in the case of we humans
our existence is contingent upon
our parents
but then we must argue that their existence
is indeed contingent as well
it was never a complete given
that they would exist
there is something chancelike and accidental
about all living things
and at the same time
unmistakably real

aristotle stated emphatically
that in order for contingent things
to exist at all it is clear
that something must be necessary

in our scientific view of life
we are accostomed to thinking
in terms of the elements (or the givens) which sustain life
the sun water chemicals/minerals in the soil
oxygen etc.
these things we say
are necessary for life
yet the argument for the proof of god's existence
based on the fact of being
would have us conclude that these things
are not necessary in the sense of
existing independent of anything else

for in fact even the scientists will state
that the sun's life is finite
and that finitude would pretty much terminate
the "necessity" of the other principle elements
which sustain life on earth

therefor we can state
that even the sun is contingent

the logic of aristotle
and thales and parmenides
and archimedes and heraclitus
and plato and socrates and pythagoras
was sufficient in the sense
that they understood that they possessed
the powers of mind to determine
the degrees by which we can know anything
and become even more certan of our observations
by means of mathematical and theoretical abstraction
and while they worked deficiently by modern standards
they did not have scopes or a working knowledge of chemistry
still their thinking is infused with rather airtight logic

so we are left with the question:
must we acknowledge " something" as NECESSARY?

something that were it not to EXIST then nothing else would exist

and is that necessary "being" by rights
"UNCREATED" without time?
for in order for something to be fully necessary
it must contain within itself its own necessity

is there something or someone
of whom we can say:
there is no distinction between
the fact of being
and the form of being?

as you may have guessed by now
Thomas is prepared to say unequivocally
YES
there is ONE being which is necessary
ONE BEING upon whom every other being is dependent
for existence

(of course we possess the luxury of
denying that...it makes it no less true...
even the atheist must agree to the logic of contingency)

this he calls
the "proof" by Necessity and Contingency

the essence of god is indistinguishable and inseparable
from the existence of god

and there is nothing else for which that can be said