No reason justifies disbelief.

[The Grand Nudger]

A long and involved metaphysical logical argument has to do with the fact that things existing are held in existence by things that are essentially (not temporally) prior, and it appears that the chain has to go back to one non-contingent thing that holds everything else in existence. I know I'm going to get into trouble for citing this one -- people really get worked up by Aristotle. But it's just an example of what I mean by a non-empirical demonstration.

-an artifact of the system being used to pose the question, and the subject posing it...not a binding commitment on reality.  Logic requires terminus to operate, as it seeks to provide conclusions.  The universe may not possess terminus and it isn't in the business of doling out aconclusions. Hell, we can use logic to demonstrate this. If there really is no "first cause" then no valid means of inference can answer the question posed - logic simply isn't designed or equipped to do so, and so it prefers a universe that does meet the conditions for it's own validity.

Logic has a requirement of empirical demonstration, all the same. The answers it provides, the terminus it arrives at, true or false (in some sense aside from being logically true or false) depends on the quality of the assertions. If a then b is only as good as the if in a. Go ahead, give it a try, try forming a logical argument without invoking some thoroughly empirical assertion. What assertion can you possibly make that -doesn't- rely on your sense experience? The two (and neither may be the only way to arrive at knowledge, nor is it certain that either is...well...certain) are joined at the hip...and their shared hip is inextricably tied to the means and limits of human perception.

The truly amusing bit, in all of this, is that the notion of an un-caused cause plays with this overtly. It explicitly invokes the very thing that is antithetical to it's own method, as a way to get around the issue of it being unable to answer the question in question. If all things have a cause, then we have infinite regress and no answer to the question. That's that, it can go no further..at least not logically. So we posit some x that violates this rule, that violates the very thing we point to in order to establish it's own validity.

It's a delicious little knot.

Meanwhile, other systems exist and are used by people to satisfy the function that western philosophy attempts. Systems not built on the same rules and without whatever limitations those rules impose (but, obviously with limitations all their own). For those systems, infinite regress poses no particular issue...it isn't seen as some "problem of the universe" that needs solving. It's often taken as a pure fact of the universe. No begining, no ending, these two things are only important to a particular set of rules, and important only for practical reasons accounted for by the contents of the system itself. In this, any person who attaches their god to the particulars of western philosophy and imagines this to be demonstrative still has all of their work ahead of them, they will have to have the exact same argument all over again with a person using the other system, it's almost as if there's an infinite regress in faithful idiocy. Irony abounds.

-and in all of this...all of this, let's not lose sight of the fact that we're discussing a version of spiderman. Gods are superhuman characters in stories.