Shalom,
'Logically', he would start out by pointing out the unjustified (in that their truth cannot be demonstrated without assuming what you are trying to prove) assumptions in that argument.
Why? Demonstrate that it is not an infinite regression.
Trumble, you’re over complicating and misinterpreting a very simple matter. In no way, is my original post proof of G-d’s existence. What it is, is merely an example of how it is completely logical to assume that G-d does not have a creator. If you want to debate away your life on if there was a “first cause” your welcome to do so on your own. However, this is not the point, nor is it even part of the topic this thread was designed for.
In my observation, relying on “infinite regression” is a convenient excuse, to a huge problem you have. The problem is that you do not have the answer. You rule out G-d so quickly, yet you rely on what is basically, although a bit different, akin to circular reasoning. Have your opinion, but you let the entire point of the original post fly right over your head.
The logic is first “everything has to have a creator” and then, when any single point is made it is automatically “infinite regression”. I assume, you know that Judaism holds that G-d is everything and created everything, and in an essence, dualism is rejected more for the belief of monism. Therefore, since G-d is infinite, why can the essence of G-d, which is infinite, not be the source of the universe which you cite above?
Accepting, purely for sake of argument (I don't otherwise) that there was a first cause, why should it be God?
Unless, of course you define God that way, in which case why should we ascribe the characteristics usually asssociated with God to it? (*) Why could it not be a space-time singularity or such? Or why could the 'first cause' not be what created God? Or what created that which created God? Not saying it was, but start throwing the word 'logically' about and that's what you'll get back.
You’re under the assumption that this argument tries to prove G-d’s existence, it does not, it proves what a logic fallacy it is to make the argument “who created the creator”, when at the same time rejecting any argument relating to G-d and explaining G-d in non-human terms, such as infinity. This has nothing to do with “does G-d exist” it has everything to do with the fallacious arguments that people will throw at a theist such as “who created the creator”. Than when you step back into the comfort of “infinite regression” a whole new area of discussion is opened up. Why can G-d not be infinite and the cause of this? Why can G-d have no always been their? What makes infinite regression anymore of a proven theory? It is a cop-out in my humble opinion.
Your theory of infinite regression I assume is a great way out of a very difficult ideology to explain.
(*) A little bit of proper logic for you. God is usually presumed to be both omnipotent and omniscient. But if He is omniscient, then He must know what actions He is going to take in future using his omnipotence. If He knows, that means He can't change His mind - in which case he can't be omnipotent! So, as omniscience and omnipotence are mutually exclusive, which does God actually have?
You’re treating G-d like a human in terms of “logic”. What you’re doing is basically creating a straw man and beating it down. I would suggest you read up on the many Kabalistic explanations of creation and the essence of G-d before you use such logic and apply it to G-d. A very small bit of info on some basic concepts:
Kabbalah teaches that God is neither matter nor spirit. Rather God is the creator of both, but is himself neither. But if God is so different from his creation, how can there be any interaction between the Creator and the created?
This question prompted Kabbalists to envision two aspects of God, (a) God himself, who in the end is unknowable, and (b) the revealed aspect of God that created the universe, preserves the universe, and interacts with mankind. Kabbalists speak of the first aspect of God as Ein Sof (אין סוף); this is translated as "the infinite", "endless", or "that which has no limits". In this view, nothing can be said about this aspect of God. This aspect of God is impersonal. The second aspect of divine emanations, however, is at least partially accessible to human thought. Kabbalists believe that these two aspects are not contradictory but, through the mechanism of progressive emanation, complement one another. See Divine simplicity; Tzimtzum. The structure of these emanations have been characterized in various ways: Four "worlds" (Azilut, Yitzirah, Beriyah, and Asiyah), Sefirot, or Partzufim ("faces"). Later systems harmonize these models.
Some Kabbalistic scholars, such as Moses ben Jacob Cordovero, believe that all things are linked to God through these emanations, making us all part of one great chain of being. Others, such as Schneur Zalman of Liadi (founder of Lubavitch [Chabad] Hasidism), hold that God is all that really exists; all else is completely undifferentiated from God's perspective.
If improperly explained, such views can be interpreted as panentheism or pantheism. In truth, according to this philosophy, God's existence is higher than anything that this world can express, yet He includes all things of this world down to the finest detail in such a perfect unity that His creation of the world effected no change in Him whatsoever. This paradox is dealt with at length in the Chabad Chassidic texts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabbalah
I would recommend reading the Zohar, maybe than the Tanya. It cannot be explained in this thread obviously because it is esoteric and incredibly complex to clarify to someone who is not familiar with it. Nevertheless, with your theory of infinite regression can you oppose with any logic used when saying that G-d was always there because he created “creation” and therefore, he is infinite in every way? It is basically the exact same logic you are using. In my mind - infinite regression is merely an evasion.
Take care Trumble, because I am very busy so I have no time to play around with such deep concepts right now on an Islamic message board, nor any message board. It takes to time and to much energy to reason with someone who applies foreign concepts to the actual concept of G-d that Judaism holds.