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 necessity of an uncaused being.
A Necessary (Uncaused) Being. But perhaps the whole idea of an uncaused Being is meaningless. It is a coherent concept in the sense of being noncontradictory. A contingent being is one that can not exist. A necessary being is one which cannot not exist. Since the latter is logically (and actually) opposite of the other, then to reject the coherence of a necessary being would involve rejecting the coherence of a contingent being. But those are the only two kinds of being there can be. Hence, to reject the meaningfulness of the concept of a necessary being would be to reject the meaningfulness of all being. But to say “all being is meaningless” is to make a statement about being which purports to be meaningful. This is self-defeating.
Another way to show the meaningfulness of the concept of an uncaused Being is to point to the atheist’s concept of an uncaused universe. Most atheists believe it is meaningful to speak of a universe which had no cause. But if the concept of an uncaused universe is meaningful, so is the concept of an uncaused God.
Geisler, N. L. (1999). In Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics (p. 294). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.