The Principle of Contingent Causation: The Impossibility of Infinite Regress.

[Nishant Xavier]

Arewethereyet, ok. I don't claim to speak for Atheists, although I have heard/read what Atheists typically argue, both here and otherwise; Atheists are speaking for themselves on this thread, and I was just summarizing their arguments/objections to God.

For e.g. "Fake Messiah" said: "So a Christian theologian, Aquinas, is not associating First Cause with the Christian God"? I answered that, by saying, yes, he was, and so what? St. Thomas never claimed that the First Cause Argument/Demonstration itself proved the Christian God, though it is consistent with it. It only proves a First Cause. The Truth of the Christian God, as Belacqua also said, is supported by further arguments down the line. 

Now, onto Brian's question: First, I want to deduce Two Essential Properties about the First Cause, which will also help answer his objection.

We have seen: "B1, The First Being in Existence, or First Cause of all things, exists Non-Contingently, without Dependence on a Prior Being.". 
Let's call this statement as Axiom I. 

Property I of the First Cause: The First Cause has no beginning but exists eternally [another reason it is not the 13.7 BN y.o. universe]

Proof of Property I: This is evident from the fact that (1) all that begins to exist exists contingently. (2) but the First Cause, as we proved in Axiom I, exists non-contingently. (3) Therefore, the First Cause of all beings/things has no Beginning of Existence, but Exists Eternally.

Property II of the First Cause: The First Cause of all beings also has no end of existence and will continue to exist eternally i.e. forever.

Proof of Property II: The Truth of this 2nd Property can be established in a similar way to the above. If someone contests this, I will spell it out.

Now, the answer to the objection is evident. [again, also note that while not proving the Christian God, a First Cause that has no Beginning or End, as the Bible declares about God, is consistent with the God of Judeo-Christian Revelation; it's therefore part of a cumulative case for His Existence]

Objection 4, Brian's Objection: "The ONLY way to save it is an answer to the child's question, 'Where did God come from?', but then you - not atheists - run bang into the infinite regress problem."

Response: The answer is evident from what was shown above. The First Being in existence, B1, unlike all subsequent beings that follow it, is not contingent upon a previous being/thing (does not "come from" somewhere), as was shown in the OP; and, as was shown in Property I, has no beginning and exists eternally. Therefore, the argument/question "where did God come from" is not a defeater to God's existence. God does not "come from" somewhere, as we contingent beings do, because God is not a contingent being. Basically, the question is characterized by anthropomorphism, and falls into the error of thinking God is a contingent being just like us, and therefore must have a beginning. But since, as the argument showed, B1, unlike other beings, is non-contingent, non-dependent on a previous being, the atheistic argument fails.

Deese I will respond to later. Just a brief word: we use both ancient philosophers/Philosophy and modern scientists/Science in establishing some basic premises from which we deduce God's Existence. The Big Bang Theory btw was first proposed by a Catholic Priest, Fr. George Lemaitre. Truth is Truth no matter who said it and when. Truth is of the greatest importance today, in this modern world that has fallen into so many and such grave errors, from which come its Abortionism, its Atheism, its Communism, its mass-killings, and its indifference to God's Truth.

Regards,
Xavier.