In the article Existence of anything can ultimately point to God1 I have shown that if anything exists at all, then ultimately there will have to be something that will be neither in space nor in time, as otherwise there will be an infinite regress.
When I have posted this article in one YouTube comment thread, one commentator has asked the following question: ‘Why must we “stop an infinite regress”?’
He has also remarked that as far as he can tell, ALL discussions of origins, purpose and meaning, eventually would lead to infinite regress if one cannot simply accept reality as it appears to be.
He is the same person who in another occasion has written that in Krauss’ hypothesis (A universe from nothing: Why there is something rather than nothing) it is required that reality must have an underlying nature that would include the laws of quantum mechanics, but that Krauss cannot explain why such laws should exist when there would be nothing. He has also written that like theists Krauss also runs into the problem that all explanations of origin would ultimately lead to infinite regress. He has written that no matter how the scientists explain the origin of the universe, it would have to be in terms of some pre-existing condition or entity, which leads to the question of why that is the way it is, and whatever explains that would then need to be explained.2
So the reason he has asked the above question is quite apparent. It is due to the sad realization that even the scientific explanation for the origin of the universe has failed to keep itself free from the infinite regress problem that is a real bug in the theistic explanation, because in the later case nobody knows why God would have to be always there or where did God come from. In the scientific explanation also one has to assume that quantum laws were already there but nobody can explain why that would have to be so. So the scientific explanation is no better than the theistic explanation in this respect, because in both the cases there would be an infinite regress. So, if we cannot stop this infinite regress in one occasion, then what is the use of trying to stop it in another occasion?
But this person is definitely wrong here, because the question ‘who created God?’ has already been answered and thus there would be no infinite regress in the theistic explanation. We have been able to show that God is a bunch of several zeroes and everybody knows that zero does not have to come from anything. For this one can read the article ‘Who created God?’ here3.
So it can be said that the scientific explanation for the origin of the universe still suffers from infinite regress problem, whereas the theistic explanation has overcome this problem. In that sense it can be said that the theistic explanation is much better than the scientific explanation.
We would also say that there is no need to feel frustrated over the issue that the infinite regress problem can never be solved, because we have successfully shown that it can be solved.4,5
4. When this article was published in one online journal, one person after reading this article sent me an e-mail saying that ‘the inevitable presence nowadays in various cosmological models of the “infinite regress” is simply a … silly … thing …’ Below is what he wrote to me:
‘I am writing in connection with your latest paper “On Infinite Regress” …
But of course, the inevitable presence nowadays in various cosmological models of the “infinite regress” is simply a … silly … thing … 😊
Indeed, a number of serious physicists have for some time by now stated that our usual perception of TIME is wrong, due to the fact that TIME, as much as SPACE, are NOT fundamental entities in Physics, but ONLY … epiphenomena arising from OTHER yet more fundamental entities …
And then the issue is: is there today concept of TIME according to which “infinite regression” does NOT appear anymore?
With best wishes.’
So I wrote back to him this: ‘I have gone through your e-mail. My question is: is there any scientific model at present for the origin of the universe in which it has not been assumed that quantum laws were already there? Can you give any citation?’
In his reply e-mail he did not provide any answer to my question and so again I had to write to him asking the same question.
This time he wrote back this: ‘I do not much care about technical details of present day cosmology: they are like … lady’s fashion … born yesterday, die tomorrow …’
His refusal to answer my question is due to the fact that there is not a single cosmological model at present in which it has not been assumed that quantum laws were already there even when there was nothing. As scientists cannot explain whence those quantum laws appeared when there was nothing, so no cosmological model is actually free from this “infinite regress” problem. But in his first e-mail he wanted to establish that there is no “infinite regress” in various cosmological models. Perhaps after realizing that it is impossible for him to do this, he refused to answer my question.
5. In his article ‘The Other Side of Time (2000) (Ref: https://infidels.org/library/modern/vic_stenger/otherside.html) scientist Victor J Stenger had written the following:
‘Finally, by showing that the universe did not necessarily have a beginning, we can counter another common theist line of argument used whenever the claim is made that a spontaneous “creation” violates no known physics. The theist will say, “Where did physics come from?” If their imagined God did not have to come from something, because she had no beginning, then neither did physics.’
Now we are in a position to counter his above statement by saying that the question “Where did God come from?” has already been answered, whereas the question “Where did physics come from?” has not yet been answered.