Final answer:
Something is contingent if its existence relies on certain conditions that could vary. The Argument from Contingency suggests every contingent being depends on a necessary being, often identified as God. However, the concept of a 'necessary being' can also be interpreted in non-divine ways, such as energy.
Step-by-step explanation:
We can discern that something is contingent based on its nature of not being necessary—that is, its existence depends on certain conditions or factors that could be otherwise. For example, political outcomes are contingent because they depend on various unpredictable human behaviors, social conditions, and governing rules, which makes it impossible to predict them with certainty, though they can be reasonably guessed at given enough information.
The Argument from Contingency, originally presented by English theologian and philosopher Samuel Clarke, suggests that not everything can be contingent since contingent beings must depend on a necessary being, which Clarke and others identify with the concept of God. However, one could rebut this argument by proposing that the necessary being could be something like energy, which changes form through time and thus does not necessarily point to a divine entity.
In essence, determining whether something is contingent involves an analysis of its dependencies and the potential for different outcomes. By examining evidence, understanding underlying principles, and evaluating causal relationships, we can deduce whether a being or outcome is necessary or contingent.