An teleological and ontological question

"THERE CANNOT BE AN INFINITE CHAIN OF CAUSES. THERE MUST BE SOME "FIRST CAUSE." THEREFORE, BY MY OPPONENT'S OWN ARGUMENT, THINGS DO NOT NECESSARILY REQUIRE CAUSES." Ah, young grasshopper, you are wise beyond your years! :) I absolutely agree that philosophically there needs to be a First Cause. I do not deny that in the slightest. What I challenge is whether there is a naturalistic explanation that doesn't ultimately lead to an infinite regress -- essentially, a constant deferring of ultimate causation. For instance, lets state the obvious truth here without injecting any theological or metaphysical speculation first. Lets assume momentarily that all life can be attributed to natural causes. But there is a conundrum here. Allow me to break it down: As I stated earlier an actual infinite cannot exist in the universe by virtue of the fact that you cannot add to an infinite. Being that there is nothing in infinite quantity, we knew, at least philosophically, that the universe surely had a beginning. When Hubble's "Red Shift" discovery was made known it basically proved through hard observation that the universe had a definite beginning. But how? If all physics is essentially cause and effect, reducing precipitating causes leads us to one cause -- the First Cause. Nothing tangible has ever been demonstrated to exist without cause. Moreover, the cause for anything that exists is always outside of itself -- meaning, nothing that exists could create itself before it existed. Seems axiomatic enough. So for a long time now, we have just had to settle that all we know is what is referred to as "Planck's Time" (10 to the -43 seconds after the universe began). What happened prior to the singularity is not known empirically. Some speculation has been raised in order to get around it. For instance, I thought of a way to get around it without injecting some theological suppositions. What I came up with is a multiverse theory (note that I was not original in this. Other people apparently thought of this long before me, but I did surmise such a theory independent of my knowledge of it). Anyhow, I thought to myself, we live in a universe -- strong emphasis on the prefix "uni." Uni, as a prefix, means "one." Obviously the prefix "multi" means many. So I thought that it were conceivable that the universe we live in, as vast as it is, could be but one of many, and that the end of another universe could have been the beginning of ours. A dying universe in the death throes of a Big Crunch, with completely different laws of physics could have existed before our preconditions. The death of that universe could have spawned this universe, the one in which you and I live. As attractive as it sounded theoretically, I realized that I was leading myself in to a trap of sorts. I was appealing to an infinite regress. In essence, I was still not answering the "First Cause" question. I was merely delaying it like everyone else, and so I was no closer to unraveling the mystery than when I began the quest. I then endeavored to answer Ockham's Razor. If the simplest answer tends to be the correct one, then the easiest answer is that whatever the first cause is, it must be outside of the realm of physics. The First Cause is the creator of physics and is therefore not subject to it. "MY OPPONENT SAYS THAT IT IS MY BURDEN TO SHOW THAT AN ACTUAL INFINITE CAN EXIST. HOWEVER, THIS IS UNTRUE. MY OPPONENT IS THE ONE MAKING THE CLAIM. IT WOULD BE RIDICULOUS TO ASK ME TO PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE." It would be more ridiculous for me to prove a negative. What do I mean? If something doesn't exist, I can in no way prove that it doesn't exist. If you assert that it does, WHICH YOU HAVE, then you must provide a reason why that it is true since you are taking the positive position on that. "MY OPPONENT IS SIMPLY SAYING, "I HAVE NO EXAMPLES OF THEM, SO THEY CAN'T EXIST!" I am saying that there is no reason to assume anything to the contrary. The reason we call them the "laws" of physics is because they are timeless, changeless, constant, etc. They don't yield to anything other than its own rules. That isn't bad logic, that's testable observation! What you appear to be doing is lazy debate. Your argument amounts to, "well, I can't disprove anything you've said, so I'll rely on the conceptual possibility and then demand that my opponent refute a negative." That's bad reasoning. I think I was being reasonable. "IF AN ACTUAL INFINITE CAN EXIST, ADDING X + AN INFINITE CREATES AN INFINITE." Ah, but that is the best indication to know that such cannot exist as an actual infinite, only as a potential infinite. Secondly, you are putting the cart before the horse. You are placing 2.13 before 2.11 and 2.12. "I HAVE SHOWN THAT BY MY OPPONENT'S REASONING, THERE MUST BE A FIRST CAUSE." There is no contention with that. In fact, that was going to be my next point. I agree completely that there has to be a First Cause. My question to you is can you have a First Cause in the material universe without deferring to infinite regressions in order to make your claim? "I BELIEVE I HAVE SHOWN THAT 2.11 IS A PRESUMPTUOUS ASSERTION." Supposing it were, would it somehow be less presumptuous than the myriad of intransigent speculations you've made? You've basically stated that the laws of physics aren't really laws, which is patently absurd. But lets take a look at 2.11 again. An actual infinite cannot exist. There is nothing in the universe to demonstrate this whatsoever. First, it totally undermines the Big Bang, secondly it scoffs at well-attested observation, and it lacks cogency within a philosophical context. Besides the observable evidence that the universe had a beginning, what are some other ways to logically determine that it cannot be infinite. An infinite universe would not be able to be added to since infinity encompasses all areas, has and would have an infinite number of matter. This is not the case. Not even time, space, and matter existed prior to the singularity. So not only is it impossible for it to have come by way of some naturalistic explanation in actuality, it does not even have the potential to do so. Why? Conventional wisdom simply cannot account for it. The casual inference of man in his understanding is based on the metaphysical intuition that something cannot come from absolutely nothing. A pure potentiality cannot, in it's own right, actualize itself. In the case of the universe, whether we speak of boundary lines, fixed points or the infinite, there was not anything prior, to the singularity. If you can manage to sift through the rhetoric and get passed all of the fluff, the underlying naturalistic message is: 0 + 0 = everything. Because the materialist cannot account for such an inequality he must ultimately rely on infinite regressions. Speaking about Planck's Time in regards to the First Cause question, renown astrophysicist Stephen Hawking one stated, "What's north of the north pole?" In essence, he is implying that anything before the singularity is inconsequential. Is that really the case? I think to state with a straight face that something comes from nothing is intellectual and scientific heresy. In his defense, however, I agree that quantum indeterminacy is a given because no one was there to view it. We cannot know with Newtonian precision what happened prior to Planck's time. My issue, however, is not that we cannot know definitively what happened. My issue is that to disregard it and view it as unimportant is extremely neglectful. I am looking forward to your next reply and any future debates we might have had. And if it means anything, I am glad that you picked this topic. I see that you are a thinker, and it is much appreciated. Thanks for your participation.