First order logic, set theory and God

[The Grand Nudger]

If regressive cause is the true state of affairs....it simply can't provide us with the terminus of conclusion we so desperately seek.

What argument do you use to prove that the true state of affairs must be an infinite regress? 

It may be true that people want to find a first cause just because they don't like infinite regress.

But it may be that you want an infinite regress just because you don't want a first cause. I mean, you come across as someone who really doesn't like the idea. 

I don't know what's true, so I'm happy to listen to real arguments.

I don't bel.  I don't know that it is.  It's certainly possible, and with respect to some questions it very much seems to be the case. So..when those issues arise..we might do well to grant the notion a little more credence.

However, what I do know, is why we have a preference for one of the other two horns of the trilemma - and that comes down to a limitation of our system of inference derived from our finite observations combined with a desire to know.  Ultimately, that desire may lead us to reject an unsatisfying truth in favor of a more satisfying fiction, as we both agree. I, like anyone else...would love to be able to give these questions their final terminus..to point to the one answer that rules them all. I simply don't have it, and the argument we're discussing gets me no closer to it.

The trilemma points towards the impossibility of proving anything, should we continue the chain of questioning no matter how many answers we receive. I like to take a little bit of every column, myself.

(why would I have anything against first causes....or..do you mean to say -gods-, like a common apologist nutter reading shit in from page 1.., lol ........?)