A Good Infinite Regress Step of Some Cosmological Arguments

[Immanuel Can]

If the Universe is infinite, then OBVIOUSLY there was NO "getting going". It always has been going, always IS going, and always will be going.

Your logic above just does not make sense.

I can see you're not following. That may be because I'm not explaining well...I think I am, but hey, maybe not. Perhaps I can find another way to get at it for you. I'm just not sure right now. What I do know is that there is a problem, and that since your responses aren't addressing it, I haven't succeeded in making it clear.

You say no event can happen without a preceding cause, right? If no event CAN happen without a preceding cause, then that means no event COULD HAVE happened without a preceding cause. There IS obviously a present event, therefore there WAS obviously a preceding cause.

Ah. I see. You're deducing from the fact that there IS a present event to the conclusion that therefore there isn't a problem with infinite causal regression. But have you realized this: that argument takes for granted that infinite causal regression happened? In other words, it makes the logical error of "begging the question."

Perhaps you haven't realized it until now, but there's another possible conclusion: namely, that there is, in fact a terminal problem with presupposing an infinite causal chain, but that the reason there IS a present event is that infinite causal regression is not how things actually started.

And that's what I would say is true.

If you want to dispute this present event, say between us right here and now, and say it is not taking place, then you can try.

No, I don't. We both accept that the present event exists. I'm only disputing that this present event can be accounted for with reference to any infinite causal regression...not that the present event exists.

I would further add that the fact that it DOES exist, and we both acknowledge it, proves beyond any reasonable doubt that there has been no infinite causal regression. For if there had been, there would BE no present event.

[wtf]

I would further add that the fact that it DOES exist, and we both acknowledge it, proves beyond any reasonable doubt that there has been no infinite causal regression. For if there had been, there would BE no present event.

I don't expect to change your mind, but I'd like to suggest that, as ken suggested, you're not seeing what people are saying to you because you can't or won't move past your own assumptions.

You seem to believe in the following principle, which I'll call Causality.

* Causality: Everything that happens must have a cause.

Ok. We all agree on that. I will even stipulate for the sake of discussion that it's true, although there's little enough evidence for it in modern physics. Let that pass. I agree to Causality.

Now just suppose, and here we're playing a game. We have a sequence of events, where event n causes event n+1:

... Event(-3) ==causes==> Event(-2) ==causes==> Event(-2) ==causes==> Event(0)

Now can't you see that:

This model satisfies the principle of causality.

"Every event has a cause."

The question of whether there must be a first cause is a separate question. It's a second principle that's logically independent of the principle of Causality.

That's not the only model that satisfies the principle of causality. Circles work too. Or the open unit interval where the causality chain is ..., 1/8, 1/4, 1/2, 1. Every element has a predecessor and the entire system is bounded. Everything is squeezed into one unit length. Or one eon of time if you like.

tl;dr: There are many systems or conceptual models that satisfy the Causality principle. The one where God is the unique first cause is only one of many such models. But frankly the God model is not satisfying, because it would work equally well with the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Saying "Everything has a cause" and then adding, "Except God" is an assumption. It's not necessary to the principle of Causality.

And Godless models of Causality are conceptually simpler than Godful models (God, Flying Spaghetti Monster, Allah, Zeus, Jupiter, ...) because Godless models do not require an exception to Causality. Hence by Occam's razor, we should prefer the explanation that requires the fewest assumptions. Namely, a Godless model of causality in which:

* Every event is caused; and

* There are no exceptions. No uncaused cause.

You ask how did the whole thing get started? How do I know. That is a different question. Why don't you tell us where God came from? Oh, God doesn't need a cause? Well then maybe nothing else needs a cause either. If there's one uncaused cause why aren't there lots of them? Why does God have the only get-out-of-cause-free card?

[Immanuel Can]

* Causality: Everything that happens must have a cause.

Not quite. "Everything that begins to happen must have a cause." That will do.

I agree to Causality.

Fine.

Now just suppose, and here we're playing a game. We have a sequence of events, where event n causes event n+1:

... Event(-3) ==causes==> Event(-2) ==causes==> Event(-2) ==causes==> Event(0)

Now can't you see that:

This model satisfies the principle of causality.

No, it does not. Event(-3) has no cause, in your account. So that means it violates the very principle to which you agreed.

That's not the only model that satisfies the principle of causality. Circles work too.

Time is linear. Entropy is linear. The universe itself is linear. There is no plausible model of cosmology that is self-perpetuating in a circular way...all causal models are linear as well.

Or the open unit interval where the causality chain is ..., 1/8, 1/4, 1/2, 1. Every element has a predecessor and the entire system is bounded. Everything is squeezed into one unit length. Or one eon of time if you like.

This is essentially Hawking's Gambit, the move he tried in "A Brief History of Time." He was hoping to use a sort of cosmological form of Xeno's paradox to insist that the universe could not have a singularity at its origin.

You can read the experts on whether or not he was successful. I won't redo the critiques here, because it will waste my time and yours.

But frankly the God model is not satisfying, because it would work equally well with the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Saying "Everything has a cause" and then adding, "Except God" is an assumption. It's not necessary to the principle of Causality.

I didn't go there (yet). I will, of course; but for the moment, I'm just working on establishing the necessity of the First Cause. I don't need you to admit it's God yet. I'll let you float the idea that maybe it's something non-intelligent and non-personal.

Then I'll ask you for your candidate for that.

Godless models do not require an exception to Causality.

Actually, they do: they require an exception to the principle you stipulated to agree to at the beginning of your last post, as above. Meanwhile, "simpler" is an insufficient epistemological criterion here. Any theory that is so "simple" it's reductional or flat wrong isn't to be preferred to a more complex one. That's a misunderstanding of Occam.

Hence by Occam's razor, we should prefer the explanation that requires the fewest assumptions.

Ah, there it is! I knew it!

Occam only tells us this: that ceteris paribus (all things being equal, that is), if two theories are identical in explanatory power, but one requires the addition of elements not necessary to the explanation, we should prefer the "parsimonious" or stripped-down version to the bloated one. But it never tells us anything about comparing dissimilar theories.

For example, if you posit two explanations for the stains on your carpet, that go...

1) It's old, and has seen a lot of traffic, and

2) It's old, has seen a lot of traffic, and was artificially stained by aliens too,

Then theory 1 is ordinarily to be preferred.

That's all.

To think it makes "it happened by accident" a more "simple" explanation of the universe is just wrong. We can't know that that explanation is more "simple." After all, in the classic analogy, if you and I find a wristwatch lying on the beach, your superficially simple theory that "it happened to be there because watches grow on beaches" is less likely to be correct than my theory that "a complex entity known as a human being purchased, wore and lost this watch."

You ask how did the whole thing get started? How do I know.

Well, if you concede the principle at the head of this message, then you do know it must have gotten started. That's step 1.

That is a different question. Why don't you tell us where God came from? Oh, God doesn't need a cause? Well then maybe nothing else needs a cause either. If there's one uncaused cause why aren't there lots of them? Why does God have the only get-out-of-cause-free card?

I can answer that. But first I need you to see the necessity of some uncaused cause. I don't need you to give me any cheap wins by calling it "god" arbitrarily. I want to prove my case. But one step at a time, no?

[wtf]

No, it does not. Event(-3) has no cause, in your account. So that means it violates the very principle to which you agreed.

Except for this, your responses were on point and fair minded. I could disagree without doubting your good will. However this is disingenuous and beneath you. You know very well that Event(-3) is caused by Event(-4).

I'll let you float the idea that maybe it's something non-intelligent and non-personal.

Then I'll ask you for your candidate for that.

I find the Flying Spaghetti Monster intelligent and personal and slathered in Marinara sauce. You have a problem with that?

Actually, they do: they require an exception to the principle you stipulated to agree to at the beginning of your last post, as above.

No, you are the one saying that everything is caused and by the way God is not caused. You are the one contradicting the principle of Causality.

To think it makes "it happened by accident" a more "simple" explanation of the universe is just wrong.

But you are putting words in my mouth. I said no such thing. I said that I personally have no idea how the great chain of uncaused causes came to be. This also is bordering on disingenuousness. Please argue with what I say, not with what I didn't say.

[Immanuel Can]

No, it does not. Event(-3) has no cause, in your account. So that means it violates the very principle to which you agreed.

Except for this, your responses were on point and fair minded. I could disagree without doubting your good will. However this is disingenuous and beneath you. You know very well that Event(-3) is caused by Event(-4).

On the other side, it didn't seem fair of me to assume that's what you meant, actually. But since you're happy to declare it now, I'm very happy with that.

Event (-4) couldn't happen until after Event (-5), and Event (-5) couldn't happen until after Event (-6)...and so on, forever and ever. Am I representing your view fairly now? I'm trying to.

I find the Flying Spaghetti Monster intelligent and personal and slathered in Marinara sauce. You have a problem with that?

Only this: that ridicule is not argument at all. And maybe I can suggest to you why.

I can tell you that American biochemist and Creationist, Dwayne Gish, mocks Evolutionism thusly: he calls it, "the fish-to-Gish" theory. Now, if, as a Theist myself, I find that clever and amusing and repeat it to you, have I defeated any belief you have in Evolutionism?

No?

I didn't think so.

But if that's fair, then how does it seem hard to imagine repeating a silly parody like the SFM, borrowed from the imagination of someone like R. Dawkins could fail to impress? It's just mockery, after all.

Now, I do think there might be a serious question to be dug out from underneath he mockery, but I think I'll wait until I actually see you pose the serious question. There's no value in me reacting to mere parody, is there?

...you are the one saying that everything is caused and by the way God is not caused. You are the one contradicting the principle of Causality.

You're too quick there. I haven't been arguing for God (yet). I will. But not now. Right now, I'm just going to argue for a First Cause.

What we know is this, then. There had to be a First Cause. It had to be uncaused. It had to cause all things, including the commencement of the chain of causality itself. Of that much, we can both be absolutely certain.

Are you content so far, with that? We'll talk about God in a minute, I promise you. But for now, just give me what seems reasonable to you: a First Cause of some kind.

Fair?

Please argue with what I say, not with what I didn't say.

Sorry. Did I misunderstand?

I wrongly thought you were saying something to the effect of, "Because of Occam's Razor, Physicalism is right and Theism is wrong."

And I confess that I might well feel a little tender too, if someone pointed out to me the fallacies of such an argument. However, I didn't mean to insult. So I apologize if I misunderstood what you were trying to argue there.

But then, i must also confess that I no longer understand the relevance of referring to Occam at all. But we can let that lie.

[wtf]

On the other side, it didn't seem fair of me to assume that's what you meant, actually. But since you're happy to declare it now, I'm very happy with that.

Really? You didn't understand the leading ...'s in my diagram, despite my having presented this same example earlier?

... Event(-3) ==causes==> Event(-2) ==causes==> Event(-2) ==causes==> Event(0)

Event (-4) couldn't happen until after Event (-5), and Event (-5) couldn't happen until after Event (-6)...and so on, forever and ever. Am I representing your view fairly now? I'm trying to.

You are representing what I said as UNFAIRLY as you possibly can. I did not ever say "Event(-4) couldn't happen until after Event(-5)." YOU are the one saying that. I am saying something far simpler:

Every event has a cause.

The fact that you made this distortion of my words and don't understand that you're distorting, is the essence of what you refuse to see.

Every event has a cause

That is manifestly true of my model. I have said nothing else.


Every event has a cause

I said nothing else. Also note for the record that I only say that for purposes of this discussion. The question of causality is open in physics. And causality is much more complicated than you are willing to admit. Your deterministic, linear notion of causality leaves no room for free will. Surely a God that did not give us free will would not punish us for sin.

Only this: that ridicule is not argument at all.

Not ridicule. An example that illustrates a problem with your argument for God. In the end you (and Craig) want to argue for the Christian God. It's quite a stretch. You know Pascal's Wager? That's also an argument for believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

What we know is this, then. There had to be a First Cause.

Repeating your assumption doesn't help your argument. I just showed a model of the principle of Causality that has no first cause.

It had to be uncaused. It had to cause all things, including the commencement of the chain of causality itself. Of that much, we can both be absolutely certain.

You have faith but no argument. I don't mean to deprive you of the former, only to show your lack of the latter.

Are you content so far, with that? We'll talk about God in a minute, I promise you. But for now, just give me what seems reasonable to you: a First Cause of some kind.

You're insistent but no longer even attempting to make a logical case. Just asking me if I'm "content" with the existence of the very thing whose necessity I just disproved.

Sorry. Did I misunderstand?

If you can't see what you can't see, I accept that. Honestly I said everything I have to say in my earlier post when I showed a model of the principle of Causality in which everything has a cause, yet there is no first cause. I have nothing to add.

I wrongly thought you were saying something to the effect of, "Because of Occam's Razor, Physicalism is right and Theism is wrong."

What? Where on earth did you come up with that? I made no argument about physicalism or theism, I said nothing about them. You are so blinded by your own assumptions you can't even read the words in front of your face. I said that there's a rather simple model of the principle of Causality in which every event has a cause and there is no first cause.

You are literally unable to read the words on the page because of your own assumptions.

But then, i must also confess that I no longer understand the relevance of referring to Occam at all. But we can let that lie.

The reference is as follows. You have added to the principle of Causality the statement: "There exists exactly one (not two, not forty-seven) uncaused causes."

If you don't see that this is an assumption on your part, then so be it.

[Immanuel Can]

I just showed a model of the principle of Causality that has no first cause.

Actually, you didn't. You stopped at (-4). That only shows you can count five places backward...nothing more. Now, if you could keep going infinitely, THEN you would have provided such a model. But as it is, no joy.

I've tried explaining infinite regress to you several ways. But I can't find a way to make it click for you, apparently; and I just can't think at this moment of a way that might work better. So I have no choice for the moment but to leave it there.

Keep thinking it over, and I suspect you may figure it out one day. Just apparently not today.

And that's okay.

Be well.

[thedoc]

I just showed a model of the principle of Causality that has no first cause.

Actually, you didn't. You stopped at (-4). That only shows you can count five places backward...nothing more. Now, if you could keep going infinitely, THEN you would have provided such a model. But as it is, no joy.

I've tried explaining infinite regress to you several ways. But I can't find a way to make it click for you, apparently; and I just can't think at this moment of a way that might work better. So I have no choice for the moment but to leave it there.

Keep thinking it over, and I suspect you may figure it out one day. Just apparently not today.

And that's okay.

Be well.

There must have been an event without a cause, otherwise there would be an infinite regress. You may call the initial event whatever you like, but you can't deny that it happened.

[Immanuel Can]

There must have been an event without a cause, otherwise there would be an infinite regress. You may call the initial event whatever you like, but you can't deny that it happened.

Nicely put. That is, indeed, the point.

[ken]

There must have been an event without a cause, otherwise there would be an infinite regress. You may call the initial event whatever you like, but you can't deny that it happened.

Nicely put. That is, indeed, the point.

But was it not YOU who was the one who stated EVERY event HAS A cause, and then tried to argue that way,?

Did you start out by arguing if you can not say a number without saying the preceding number, then that means no event can happen without the preceding cause?

Do you now say that there is AN event so that means there was a preceding cause?

If yes to these three, then, besides your belief, how do you arrive at the conclusion that there was a first uncaused causer?

[ken]

If the Universe is infinite, then OBVIOUSLY there was NO "getting going". It always has been going, always IS going, and always will be going.

Your logic above just does not make sense.

I can see you're not following. That may be because I'm not explaining well...I think I am, but hey, maybe not. Perhaps I can find another way to get at it for you. I'm just not sure right now. What I do know is that there is a problem, and that since your responses aren't addressing it, I haven't succeeded in making it clear.

WHY be dismissive of what I said and carry on with this? Obviously I am not following you. You are not making much sense to Me. Saying, "Every event has a preceding cause" but also saying, "But there is one event without a preceding cause" obviously is a contradiction that would not make sense at first glance. Maybe if you explained HOW this possible, and that explanation made sense, then I could follow. But until then you are right I am not following you.

You want Me to address the "problem". But there is no actual problem. What is happening is you are just allowing your beliefs to distort the Truth. Just because I will not follow your distorted beliefs does not mean I am not addressing the "problem", of which you are just making up. I have already explained HOW and WHY your "logic" does not make sense.

You say no event can happen without a preceding cause, right? If no event CAN happen without a preceding cause, then that means no event COULD HAVE happened without a preceding cause. There IS obviously a present event, therefore there WAS obviously a preceding cause.

Ah. I see. You're deducing from the fact that there IS a present event to the conclusion that therefore there isn't a problem with infinite causal regression.

NO I am not deducing that conclusion at all. I have NOT come to any conclusion yet. You are the one who has have arrived at a conclusion, which is based solely upon your already held belief by the way, which I am showing is WRONG because of how you based your "logic" on the premise that if a human being can not say a number without saying a previous number then that means there is no infinite regress, and then that must mean there is a first cause. This is all WRONG. I was NOT deducing anything at all. I was just stating that there is an event, so then there must of been a preceding cause, which was one of YOUR premises.

But have you realized this: that argument takes for granted that infinite causal regression happened? In other words, it makes the logical error of "begging the question."

But you are the one who stated every event has a preceding cause. I was just using your premise. Arguments, themselves, do not take things for granted. People interpret things, and if things are taken for granted then that is because of the person.

If you want to use the statement 'EVERY event has a preceding cause', then HOW would you like Me to interpret that? If that statement does NOT mean an infinite causal regression, then what does it mean?

Perhaps you haven't realized it until now, but there's another possible conclusion: namely, that there is, in fact a terminal problem with presupposing an infinite causal chain, but that the reason there IS a present event is that infinite causal regression is not how things actually started.

Hang on, are you TRYING TO accuse Me here of not being open. I am the One who has NOT stated either way here. I have not arrived at a conclusion and I have never argued for infinite regression or not. I have just highlighted your own wrong reasoning. Remember it is you who is NOT open to anything other than what you already believe is true.

You do realize that IF there was a start, then there is no infinite regression?

The thing is there is absolutely no proof put forward yet to Me that there was a start.

If you want to dispute this present event, say between us right here and now, and say it is not taking place, then you can try.

No, I don't. We both accept that the present event exists. I'm only disputing that this present event can be accounted for with reference to any infinite causal regression...not that the present event exists.

Good so we agree that there is an event so then you also agree that there must of been a preceding event also? If you do, then can you please give up on the counting numbers argument as it just does not work.

I would further add that the fact that it DOES exist, and we both acknowledge it, proves beyond any reasonable doubt that there has been no infinite causal regression. For if there had been, there would BE no present event.

HOW?

HOW does the present event prove beyond any reasonable doubt that there has been no infinite causal regression? And,

HOW would there BE no present event if there was an infinite causal regression? And,

Can you please explain to Me how you think this logically follows?

I do not want anything else but the answers to these questions. If you want others to follow you, then you have to be able to explain yourself.

[Immanuel Can]

But was it not YOU who was the one who stated EVERY event HAS A cause, and then tried to argue that way,?

No. You're close, but you misread me by leaving out a clause.

The precise wording is this: "Every event that begins to happen( or thing that begins to exist) has a cause."

If there are any eternal entities in the universe, then they would, by definition, have to be "uncaused."

Now, are there any "uncaused" entities of any kind? Yes.

How do we know? Because of the impossibility of infinite causal regress. Something has to start the chain.

But that thing itself cannot be caused, or we just have a further regress and again, until we have an initiation point for the sequence, nothing could exist or happen. If it's not something that has a prior cause, then we can only call it "uncaused." And if it causes things to happen or exist, we can only call it an "uncaused cause."

That's my real argument so far, in a nutshell.

Did you start out by arguing if you can not say a number without saying the preceding number, then that means no event can happen without the preceding cause?

That is correct, but only if you keep that caveat you've included above intact. Of course, in real life, one can just up and say any number one can imagine. One can even say "infinity." There's no caveat restricting what one says. But impose that rule, that caveat, in advance, and one is immediately silenced. One cannot say the present number until all past numbers have been listed. So one can say no numbers at all.

Think of that as past events, each one causally dependent on the previous, and you have the illustration correct. For likewise, one cannot have a present event if the past is an infinite regress of causes, each necessary to the production of the others, trailing back infinitely.

I would think that's fairly clear.

Do you now say that there is AN event so that means there was a preceding cause?

I never said otherwise. I said that...

P1: IF there were an infinite regress of causes, there WOULD BE no present event.
P2: But there IS a present event,
C: ERGO the past was NOT an infinite regress (i.e. an eternal chain) of previous causes.

There it is as a syllogism....hypothetical in form, but QED if the premises are true.

And if you aren't sure, consider this: which premise would you have reason to doubt?

If yes to these three, then, besides your belief, how do you arrive at the conclusion that there was a first uncaused causer?

No "belief" is required. Only an ability to do logic, as above, which potentially, anyone has. IF the past was not the product of an infinite, material, causal regress, then there must have been a first cause. There is no other logical alternative -- either the universe had a first cause, or it did not -- so that's deducible by the simple means of the Law of Non-Contradiction.

You'll note that so far I haven't needed a single premise that requires you to believe in a god or gods. Nothing I'm saying isn't something that an ordinary person, working from a belief in causality, plus basic maths and logic, could not figure out.

[ken]

There must have been an event without a cause, otherwise there would be an infinite regress. You may call the initial event whatever you like, but you can't deny that it happened.

I also could TRY TO argue that,
There must have been an infinite regress, otherwise there would be an event without a cause. You may call the infinite regress whatever you like, but you can not deny that happened.

I could argue that way but I would not, as to do so would be a totally ridiculous thing to do.

You having a belief does NOT mean I can not deny something. If you want to say something that can not be denied successfully, then provide a sound, valid argument.

[Hobbes' Choice]

P1: IF there were an infinite regress of causes, there WOULD BE no present event.
P2: But there IS a present event,
C: ERGO the past was NOT an infinite regress (i.e. an eternal chain) of previous causes.

P1 is false, as all infinite regresses, imply a series of present events. So P1 entails P2.
Therefore conclusion bullshit.

[Immanuel Can]

If the Universe is infinite, then OBVIOUSLY there was NO "getting going". It always has been going, always IS going, and always will be going.

Your logic above just does not make sense.

I can see you're not following. That may be because I'm not explaining well...I think I am, but hey, maybe not. Perhaps I can find another way to get at it for you. I'm just not sure right now. What I do know is that there is a problem, and that since your responses aren't addressing it, I haven't succeeded in making it clear.

WHY be dismissive of what I said and carry on with this?

I wasn't. I was saying, "Maybe the fault is mine." And maybe it is. I don't think so, but maybe it is. Maybe if I put it differently, you'd see the problem. I've certainly tried.

Obviously I am not following you. You are not making much sense to Me. Saying, "Every event has a preceding cause" but also saying, "But there is one event without a preceding cause" obviously is a contradiction that would not make sense at first glance. Maybe if you explained HOW this possible, and that explanation made sense, then I could follow. But until then you are right I am not following you.

I've tried again, in my response just previous to this one. See if it helps.

You want Me to address the "problem". But there is no actual problem.

I understand that you're not seeing it yet, so can't address it. No insult. Just a fact.

You say no event can happen without a preceding cause, right? If no event CAN happen without a preceding cause, then that means no event COULD HAVE happened without a preceding cause. There IS obviously a present event, therefore there WAS obviously a preceding cause.

Ah. I see. You're deducing from the fact that there IS a present event to the conclusion that therefore there isn't a problem with infinite causal regression.

I was NOT deducing anything at all. I was just stating that there is an event,

Um...so you're not "concluding" that there is a present event? But, according to what you say, you're "stating" it -- presumably as a fact? But that's not a "conclusion" on your part? So you're not sure "there is an event"?

Well, I can't make heads or tails of that, I confess.

If you want to use the statement 'EVERY event has a preceding cause', then HOW would you like Me to interpret that? If that statement does NOT mean an infinite causal regression, then what does it mean?

See my last message: you'll note there that you've deleted a phrase when you paraphrased me, and it is that that is causing your current perplexity.

Perhaps you haven't realized it until now, but there's another possible conclusion: namely, that there is, in fact a terminal problem with presupposing an infinite causal chain, but that the reason there IS a present event is that infinite causal regression is not how things actually started.

Hang on, are you TRYING TO accuse Me here of not being open.

No. I'm only suggesting you're perhaps not aware of there being a different possibility.

Remember it is you who is NOT open to anything other than what you already believe is true.

You wouldn't know this, of course. We've never met. I see no reason to be thin-skinned.

You do realize that IF there was a start, then there is no infinite regression?

Yes, of course.

The thing is there is absolutely no proof put forward yet to Me that there was a start.

The most absolute proof actually has two forms: mathematics and logic. No empirical test is ever so conclusive as these. And I've given you both.

Good so we agree that there is an event so then you also agree that there must of been a preceding event also? If you do, then can you please give up on the counting numbers argument as it just does not work.

If you think so, you just haven't understood it. And I can't fix that.

I would further add that the fact that it DOES exist, and we both acknowledge it, proves beyond any reasonable doubt that there has been no infinite causal regression. For if there had been, there would BE no present event.

HOW?

Mathematically and logically.

HOW does the present event prove beyond any reasonable doubt that there has been no infinite causal regression?

Because infinite causal regresses cannot exist, in the most profound sense of "cannot." They cannot logically, mathematically or actually.

And,

HOW would there BE no present event if there was an infinite causal regression?
Because the cause immediately prior to the present event could not happen until the cause prior to that, but that could not happen until the cause prior to that...and so on, without end, forever.

Hence, no present event would exist. But one does, so there has not been an infinite causal regress.

If you want others to follow you, then you have to be able to explain yourself.

That is true. (I wouldn't say "follow," but "listen to and consider" perhaps.) But there is also responsibility on the hearer: the hearer must demonstrate he/she is capable of listening carefully, and must be possessed of the background and knowledge to "follow" the argument. People have trouble "hearing" new things, things they have not considered before, or things that challenge their conventional answers. That's just psychology; and they must learn to overcome their difficulties in listening too, for the speaker cannot do everything.