I have witnessed infinite regress being used to "prove God as impossible" with the following objections: If god is the creator, who created god? If the universe needs to be intelligently designed, who intelligently designed the designer? If god is the ultimate cause, then there is an entity which doesn't require an ulterior cause. Then why can't the universe itself be that entity?
Then my coder instinct kicks in and I object "wait, in the domain of the hypothetical god, you assume that the concept of creator is defined, which is a pretty bold assumption".
The usual reply is "here, another guy who want us to believe that god defies logic, cause and effect...".
Yet to me the opposite is true, the lack of logic is in the seemingly rational infinite regressive objection which entails an impossible model.
The believer's model: God > all things and concepts > the universe > man
The phrase "who created god" can't fit this model. Why? the main reason is in the meaning of "create". To create means to cause into existence by some will. To simplify, let's forget about defining existence and subjective will, so let's use the following which is better defined:
"If God caused all, whatever meta-caused God?
But still we run into a problem. The cause is a correlated necessary antecedent to the effect. To be an antecedent the time must be unidirectional. If you do away with the unidirectionality of time, cause equals effect, they are both correlations.
So how can you define cause outside time? The infinite regression objection does not bother. I bothered to. The only conceivable model I came up with is
Meta-SpaceTime > God > all the rest as usual.
Which means you need to think there is a context in which God operates, and that context features a unidirectional arrow of time that behaves like ours. Or is ours. Chronos that creates Zeus. Escaping theology gets us in metatheology.
I find it unacceptable. I don't care about the hypothetical God in this context. I care about an objection revealing itself as a mere word salad. This is not about theology, it's about logic.
So I might be missing something maybe? I found nothing much online that doesn't steer quickly back into faith or theology.
This is not a parallel of dealing with the solipsistic hypothesis, there are two equally possible choices there. Here we have one problem with logic. And I am still considering logic as a system able to transcend god here which sounds like another assumption. But OK.
So, am I missing something?