I suggest so, contrary to Hume.
But suppose Hume persists and says that the following proposition is still possible:
(1) "Something will happen somewhere at some time in the future without a cause."
So, suppose I get up tomorrow and observe a dead fish lying on the coffee table. "Ah-hah!" I say. "This sucker just popped into existence uncaused." I can see that.
Nothing whatsoever can be affirmed about these random occurrences, because to attribute any property to them is partially to determine them. The preposterously random stuff happens at 100% random locations in the universe, at a random frequency, at frequencies that change at random, etc., all as completely unpredictable and without a pattern as the decimal expansion of an irrational number.
But to introduce chaos into this world in this fashion is to pay a hefty price. If that was our universe, I don't think we'd have survived as a species in it.
Thus, I simply deny that we are living in a universe like that. Even if (1) is possible, it is not actual. I think that is good enough.
The principle that everything that begins to exist has a cause may have some use in theology. Regarding that, we cannot proceed from the possibility of (1) to the idea that a universe can come into existence without a cause. (1) proposes that an object within our peculiar universe and capable of being supported by it can appear in space and time uncaused. But "before" the universe, there was no environment in which stuff could appear, nor space, nor time, nor apparently the randomness-generating mechanism. The principle is uniquely plausible in regard to the emergence of the universe as a whole.