If you ask to borrow a book from me and I say I do not have it but I have a friend that will let me borrow it, and that friend says the same to another friend, and on and on, then it is true that you will never get the book therefore infinite regress is implausible.1) By definition, every dependant thing needs something to depend on2) The universe (the sum total of dependant things), is a dependant thing3) Therefore, the universe needs something to depend upon (i.e. God)I know no other un-caused caused that is backed up by archaeology and scripture - 5600 new testaments which is more than any other historical secular or other religious writings. Without sounding rude (I do not mean to be rude), does primordial cosmic "chaos" have this with millions of believers across the globe? Thomas Aquinas: If God exists, then He can’t have been created – but the same thing can’t be said of the universe… even
Something else about infinite regress:Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli and the reduction absurdum:There is the hypothesis that everything needs a cause to exist. But caused by what? Beyond everything that is, there can only be nothing. But that is absurd: all of reality is dependant – but dependant on nothing?!?! There must be an un-caused being as this is absurd.
The solution to an infinite regress of causation is in the wording of the first premise of the Kalam. "Whatever begins to exist has a cause." Current cosmology indicates that the universe did in fact begin to exist. Time, matter and energy all came into existence at some finite point in the past. Further, Dr. Craig has argued that an infinite number of anything (think past moments of time) cannot be arrived at by successive addition (as moments of time are, with one moment arriving after the other). This is further evidence that the universe cannot be past-infinite, which subjects it to an explanation of its cause.God's eternity, as understood in orthodox Christianity, is that God existed without the universe, which would make Him non-temporal in the absence of the universe. As such God did not begin to exist, since a beginning requires a period of time before which something did not exist. Therefore God is not subject to causation.
The simplest solution to the problem of infinte regress is to postulate that the universe as a closed system is uncaused while all other causations, the ones we know of, are merely processes happening immanent to the universe, that is as a whole permanently unchanged. If you believe that the universe itself needs a cause, and thereby start the chain of regress, it suggest that the cause of the cause of the universe also needs a cause. The resulting regress could go on infinitely, unless you postulate that the cause of the universe has no cause. But according to what reason can you assume that the regression ends with the cause of the universe and not the cause of the cause... of the cause of the universe? If you can postulate an end to such a chain of regression only with the argument of necessity of a brute begin, it is much simpler to assume that the universe is uncaused and eternal. In that case the universe is matter in motion due to the necessity of itself instead of due to the will of an external mind.
If you can stop infinite regress by defining God as not dependant on anything, you might just as well place some other cosmic origin (like primordial cosmic "chaos") as not dependant on anything and stop the regress there. It is just a matter of definition when you look at the "begin" of the universe. What speaks against the universe beginning naturally by itself without a God hand pushing it prior to that? If you place a supernatural being before the natural universe in a chain of causality, what speaks against some more supernatural or meta-supernatural beings that is the cause of the cause of our universe? Under such consideration, there is either no real end to infinite regress or you just define the end of regress and postulate it as a brute fact at any unspecific position of that chain of causality (if there is one).