One of the goals of Apologetics is to deal with the objections that people have regarding the existence of God. For the last several weeks, we have been exploring some of these objections and the arguments that address them. This week we look at the possibility of an uncaused universe:
An Uncaused Universe. Meaningful though an uncaused universe may be, pulling one together in practical terms is something else. The universe is a collection of parts, each contingent and so needing a cause. Either the whole universe is equal to all its parts or else it is more than all its parts. If it is equal to them, then it too needs a cause. The sum of many dependent parts will never equal more than a dependent whole, no matter how big it is. Adding up effects never yields a cause; it produces only a big pile of effects. Only if the universe is more than all its effects can it be uncaused and necessary. But to claim that there is a something more, uncaused and necessary on which everything in the universe is dependent is to claim exactly what the theist means by a Necessary Being on which all contingent beings depend for their existence.
The whole issue can be clarified by asking the nontheist this question: If everything in the universe (i.e., every contingent being) suddenly ceased to exist, would there be anything left in existence? If not, then the universe as a whole is contingent too, since the existence of the whole is dependent on the parts. But if something remained after every contingent part of the universe suddenly ceased to exist, then there really is a transcendent necessary uncaused Something which is not dependent on the universe for its existence. But in either case, the atheists’ claim fails.
Geisler, N. L. (1999). In Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics (p. 294). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.