Why The Universe Exists Now (Still)... • Liberteque

In the modern discussion between theism and atheism, the focus often lies on the distant past: the Big Bang.

The central question usually is: “Who or what set the universe in motion?” However, as recent analyses demonstrate, this is a reduction of a much older and more sophisticated philosophical argument.

The real debate might not be about how the universe once began, but why it continues to exist at this very moment.

This article discusses the fundamental shift from a “temporal” to a “hierarchical” view of causality, and why this transforms the concept of God from a distant creator into an active sustainer.

The core shift: Beginning versus sustenance

A common misconception is the image of God as the “first domino.” In this view, God is the one who gave the initial push 14 billion years ago, after which natural laws took over. Note that this view overlooks deeper metaphysical arguments, rooted in the work of thinkers like Thomas Aquinas. The core shift lies in the distinction between two types of causality.

1. Temporal causality (the horizontal line)

This is the form of causality most people think of. It’s a chain of events extending back in time.

Analogy: Your parents are the cause of your existence. However, if your parents pass away, you continue to exist. Their causal role was necessary for your genesis, but not for your continued existence in the here and now.
The implication: If God is merely a temporal cause, the universe could theoretically continue without Him, just as a child can live without parents.

2. Hierarchical causality (the vertical line)

This argument focuses not on the past, but on the present. It’s about what sustains an object’s existence at this very moment.

Analogy: A chandelier hanging from a chain. The bottom link is held by the link above it, which in turn is held by the link above that, and so on, all the way to the ceiling. If the top link (the foundation) breaks now, the entire chandelier falls now.
The implication: Here, the cause is continuously necessary. The universe wasn’t given a push; instead, it is “sustained” or “borne.”

Core concepts: Contingency and necessity

To understand this hierarchical structure, the text introduces two crucial philosophical terms: contingency and necessity.

Everything is contingent

Let’s assume that everything we observe in the universe is “contingent.” This means it does not have to exist; its existence is dependent on something else.

A chair is dependent on wood.
Wood is dependent on cells.
Cells are dependent on atoms.
Atoms are dependent on fundamental natural forces (such as gravity and nuclear force).

Nothing in our direct experience explains its own existence.

The “necessary being”

If you follow this chain of dependence downwards (into the hierarchy), philosophers encounter a problem. You cannot infinitely continue with things that are dependent on yet something else. Somewhere there must be a “floor.” There must be something that is not dependent on anything else, but that exists by its own nature.

This is what theologians call God: the Necessary Being. This being is not just a “super-thing” within the universe, but the ground of being that holds all contingent things in existence at every moment.

The musician metaphor

To clarify the difference between the “God of the beginning” and the “God of sustenance,” we use this example: the musician.

Imagine the universe, not as a statue, but as a song.

A statue can be made by a sculptor and continues to exist after the sculptor leaves (temporal causality).
A song, on the other hand, only exists as long as the musician plays. If the musician stops, the song stops immediately. The song has no independent right to exist apart from the musician.

In this view, God didn’t merely “begin” the universe once; He is like the musician who “plays” the universe at every moment. Existence is a continuous act of creation.

Why this distinction is important

This analysis has significant implications for the quality of the debate between believers and atheists. It suggests that many atheists are “shadowboxing.”

The problem with “who made God?”

A standard counter-argument from atheists is often: “If everything has a maker, then who made God?”

Against the temporal “God as the first domino” theory, this is a valid question.
Against the hierarchical theory, this argument fails. Why? Because the definition of God in this argument is the Necessary Being. Asking about the cause of something that, by definition, has no cause (because it is not contingent) is a category error. It’s like asking: “What color is the number seven?”

Conclusion

By shifting the discussion from “time” to “being,” it becomes clear that the religious position is much more robust than often portrayed. It’s not about a bearded man in the sky who flipped a switch billions of years ago.

It’s about the search for the fundamental ground of reality. Whether one calls it “God,” “The Source,” or “The Necessary”; the insight that the universe must currently be sustained by something that is not itself, forms the core of classical theistic philosophy.