Short and sweet: I’ve been wondering about one of the objections to the argument, namely, WHY can’t we have an infinite chain of causes stretching back forever?
The problem I see is that if a chain of things that ALL need to be caused stretches back forever and ever, well…isn’t that, by simple definition, impossible? Being contingent means having a cause. But if you go back forever, you have no cause. It’s the uncaused cause.
In one way, you’re actually proving that in some way we need an infinite being, something that always and ever will be there, to keep things in motion. Congratulations, you’ve hit upon one of the standard arguments for the existence of God.
Of course, I’m taking only one of the premises of one of the most basic possible forms of the argument and putting it up against what is itself a very basic objection. I recognize that I haven’t gotten completely “there” yet with my response, but I feel as if I’ve reached a good starting point. Ultimately it goes back to denying a fundamental aspect of reality to make a point – a contingent chain going on forever? Do we have ANY evidence of this occurring? I would argue that even if we accepted this as an objection we could still say that the existence of God is likely, if not absolutely proven. But I’m really spitballing here, having no formal training in the subject.