One of the goals of Apologetics is to deal with the objections that people have regarding the existence of God. Over the next several weeks, we will be listing some of these objections and the arguments that address each one. The below article responds to the challenge that God isn’t a necessary being:
No Necessary Being. It is urged that such terms as Necessary Being and Uncaused Cause are meaningless, since nothing in our experience corresponds to them. This is not a valid objection. The very sentence, “A Necessary Being has no meaning,” is meaningless unless the words necessary being can be defined. The claim is self-defeating.
There is nothing incoherent among such terms if they are not contradictory. We know what contingent means, and necessary is the opposite, namely, “non-contingent.” The meanings of these terms are derived from their relationship to what is dependent upon them. And these meanings are twofold: First, the terms necessary and infinite are negative. Necessary means “not contingent.” Infinite means “not finite.” We know what these limitations mean from experience, and, by contrast, we know that God does not have any of them. A negative term does not denote a negative attribute. It is not the affirmation of nothing; rather, it is the negation of all contingency and limitation in the first Cause. The positive content of what God is derives from the causal principle. He is Actuality because he causes all actuality. He is Being since he is the Cause of all being. However, as Cause of all being his being cannot be caused. As the Ground of all contingent being, he must be a Necessary (non-contingent) Being.
Geisler, N. L. (1999). In Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics (p. 288). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.