The argument from contingency draws on the distinction between things that exist necessarily and things that exist contingently. Something is “necessary” if it could not possibly have failed to exist. Something is “contingent” if it is not necessary, i.e. if it could have failed to exist. Most things seem to exist contingently.
All of the human artefacts around us might not have existed; for each one of them, whoever made it might have decided not to do so. Their existence, therefore, is contingent.
The argument from contingency rests on the claim that the universe, as a whole, is contingent. It is not only the universe, the argument suggests, that each of the things around is us contingent. It might have been the case that nothing existed at all. The state of affairs in which nothing existed at all is a logically possible state of affairs, even though it is not the actual state of affairs.
If the universe might not have existed, then why does it exist?