Infinite Regression Fallacy: Failure of Logic and Evidence
Regression Fallacy: Ascribing a cause where none exists in situations where natural fluctuations exist, while failing to account for natural fluctuations.
Infinite regress is not a sufficient explanatory mechanism. It does not resolve the problem it is invoked to answer but instead postpones it indefinitely. Each belief or claim is said to be justified by another, which itself requires justification, and so on without end. This structure provides no grounding point—it defers resolution rather than offering one.
Beliefs are not equivalent to facts.
While beliefs may be informed by facts, they remain interpretations, models, or assumptions. A belief cannot ultimately justify another belief without some form of evidence or shared foundation. Otherwise, the structure risks circularity or infinite regress: “A is true because of B, B is true because of C, and so on without closure.” This is not explanation but deferral.
In cosmological contexts, infinite regress fails to answer origin questions.
For instance, when asked “what created the universe,” one reply might be “God.” If the next question is “what created God,” and the answer is “another deity,” the regress continues. The same problem arises if the answer is “another universe” or “another cause.” In all such cases, the chain avoids the demand for a first principle or uncaused cause.
A priori assumptions complicate this further.
These are claims treated as true without evidence. Both theists and atheists risk this error when asserting unprovable premises as ultimate truths. When such assumptions are left unexamined, regress becomes a way of avoiding the need for justification rather than providing one.
Claims require proportionate justification.
The slogan “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is best understood as a call for evidence proportional to the scope or novelty of a claim, not as an excuse to dismiss arguments outright. Logical validity depends on coherence, clarity, and support, not rhetorical deflection.
Infinite regress is problematic within the space-time framework.
Our reality operates within time and causation. To posit an endless chain of causes “before” or “outside” time may not be conceptually coherent, since such causes would exist outside the framework in which causation has meaning. As such, regress does not function as an explanatory tool within physical cosmology.
Causation itself is not uniform.
There are different kinds—efficient, material, formal, final (to borrow Aristotelian categories), or dependent, accidental, and intentional. Current conditions cannot always reveal prior causes, especially when those causes are inaccessible to observation or replication.
Paradox must also be allowed for.
Some outcomes appear contradictory but reflect limits in human logic or language rather than reality itself. Philosophical analysis must leave room for this possibility without collapsing into incoherence.
The term “universe” requires precision.
Is it the totality of all that exists, or merely the observable portion accessible to science? Without a clear definition, arguments about “the origin of the universe” risk talking past one another.
From Regress to First Cause
A creation implies a creator; design implies a designer; fine-tuning implies a fine-tuner, just as laws imply a lawgiver. The central question, however, is not whether such correlations exist, but whether they demand a personal cause. When we ask “who created God,” in the context of the creator of the cosmos, we must be precise: if God is conceived as timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and uncaused, then the question of creation does not apply. But then another question emerges: why could not “nature” or “the totality of existence” itself occupy that role, existing timelessly and without cause? In other words, could not the universe itself be its own ground of being, uncaused, eternal, and self-sufficient?
The philosophical and scientific evidence suggests otherwise. The universe, unlike the God of classical theism, does not exhibit the properties of aseity (self-existence). Instead, observable features of cosmology point to contingency, change, and dependence. Consider the following:
Thermodynamics – The second law demonstrates entropy: usable energy diminishes over time, and the universe is running down. If the universe were eternal, it should already have reached thermodynamic equilibrium, with no usable energy left. The presence of usable energy indicates a finite beginning.
Cosmic Expansion – Observations of the accelerating expansion of space-time, traceable back to a singular origin, show that the universe had a definite beginning. The singularity represents the boundary of space-time itself, not merely a physical point. A beginning implies contingency, not necessary existence.
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation – The afterglow of the early universe confirms that it originated in a hot, dense state and has been cooling ever since. This observation fits precisely with a finite origin.
Structure Formation – Variations in background radiation seeded galaxies, stars, and planets, all governed by constant physical laws. This development is evidence of order imposed upon matter-energy, not self-explanatory chaos.
Co-relativity of Space, Time, and Matter – These fundamental aspects arose together at the origin event. Since they began, they cannot be the uncaused cause of themselves; the cause must transcend space, time, and matter.
These features align with the conclusion that the universe is contingent and cannot serve as its own first cause. Instead, reason points to something beyond—an entity timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and self-existent.
The Nature of the First Cause
If such an entity exists, does it have a beginning? The answer is no, because timelessness entails the absence of beginning or end—what classical philosophy terms eternity. To possess aseity is to exist in and of oneself, uncaused and self-sufficient. This, by definition, is what is meant by the “Unmoved Mover” or “Necessary Existence.”
Addressing Alternatives
Some argue for multiverses, higher dimensions, or other speculative frameworks. But these proposals remain unobserved and unverified. Moreover, if multiple universes exist, each still requires explanation, and the existence of many contingent realms only increases the demand for a necessary, non-contingent source.
Others argue that even if a necessary being exists, there is no reason to call it “God.” Yet when we analyze what a necessary being entails—uncaused, eternal, immaterial, powerful enough to generate all contingent reality—the description converges closely with the traditional concept of the Divine. Adding intelligence and will strengthens this alignment, as order, fine-tuning, and comprehensibility are more consistent with intersectionality than blind chance.
The Comprehensibility of the Universe
The universe is rationally intelligible, which would not be expected if it arose by pure chance. The fact that human reason can uncover mathematical and physical laws suggests correspondence between mind and cosmos.
The fine-tuning of cosmological constants is so precise that random chance is an inadequate explanation. Their values appear set in a way that permits life, implying purpose.
The laws of nature do not evolve but are constant, suggesting that they either predate the universe or were instantiated with it. In either case, they are not self-explanatory and imply a source beyond nature.
Intelligence permeates the structures of reality—from quantum laws to biological systems. Intelligence implies mind, and mind implies a personal source distinct from the universe itself.
Holographic Universe Fallacy
Another modern speculation is the so-called Holographic Universe hypothesis, which claims that the three-dimensional cosmos we experience is in fact a projection of information encoded on a distant two-dimensional surface. Some have suggested this model can resolve questions of origins by treating reality as an emergent illusion rather than a created order.
Yet this explanation does not escape the same logical demand for a first cause. If the universe is “holographic,” then:
The information encoded on the supposed boundary must itself have a source. Information does not spontaneously arise from nothing; it is structured, ordered, and patterned—features which presuppose intentional arrangement.
A hologram requires not only encoded data but also a medium in which the encoding exists and a mechanism by which the projection occurs. Both imply prior causal conditions, not self-sufficiency.
Most critically, information implies intelligibility. If the universe is truly holographic, then the intelligibility of the code presupposes an intelligent author. Otherwise, we are left with the claim that raw chance generated a self-consistent, rationally comprehensible projection—an assertion less parsimonious and less coherent than positing intelligence itself.
Thus, the holographic model, even if granted as a physical description, fails as an ultimate explanation. At best, it describes how reality manifests, not why it exists. At worst, it is simply another attempt to sidestep the recognition of an intelligent, directive cause by substituting one unexplained framework for another.
We are thus brought back to the first principle:
Infinity, if treated as a set of contingent things, cannot serve as its own explanation. Every contingent being requires a cause, and an infinite series of contingents remains contingent. Therefore, there must exist a necessary cause outside the series, one that is not contingent but absolute.
When expressed theologically, this necessary cause is described as the One and the Three (One God and Three Goddesses). The One retains aseity, the uncaused cause of all things, while the Three reflect conscious, intelligent, and relational dimensions of the Divine. This understanding integrates metaphysics, logic, and cosmology into a coherent vision of a timeless, spaceless, immaterial ground of all being.
Final Thesis
The question of origins cannot be resolved by appealing to infinite regress, speculative multiverses, holographic projections, or temporal extension of the cosmos. Each of these explanations merely postpones, rather than answers, the demand for a first cause. Contingency multiplied remains contingency; dependence repeated endlessly never produces independence.
Causation in all its forms—material, efficient, formal, and final—demonstrates that the universe is not self-grounding. Matter and energy cannot be their own source; structure and law cannot emerge without an ordering principle; purpose cannot arise from purposelessness. Whether the universe is perceived as billions of years old or hypothetically eternal, the logic of dependency and entropy testifies to its insufficiency as a necessary being. Time itself is contingent, and no span of duration converts dependence into self-existence.
Abiogenesis and Its Limits
The appeal to abiogenesis as a solution to the origin of life illustrates the same principle. Even if the mechanism by which life arises from non-life were fully demonstrated, the result would remain dependent upon the preconditions of the cosmos—the laws, constants, and informational structures that permit such a process. Abiogenesis would therefore not negate the need for a first cause; rather, it would further testify to the reality that even life’s emergence is governed by laws external to itself. It would remain contingent upon a framework of order that must itself be explained.
Multiverse Proposals
Similarly, the invocation of a multiverse does not diminish the probability of the Necessary Existence; it heightens it. Multiple contingent universes only multiply the demand for a necessary, transcendent ground. The greater the plurality of contingent realities, the more necessary is the unifying source that anchors them all. Thus, far from displacing the One and the Three, multiverse theories underscore their necessity.
Fine-Tuning and the Six Cosmological Constants
The mathematical precision of the cosmos provides further evidence. The six primary cosmological constants—dimensionless, universal, and unchanging—reveal a fine-tuning that is both profound and irreducible:
N – the ratio of the electromagnetic to gravitational force between protons (~10³⁶). A smaller value yields only a small, short-lived cosmos; larger, and structure becomes impossible.
ε (Epsilon) – the nuclear efficiency of hydrogen-helium fusion (0.007). Shifted slightly downwards, no elements beyond hydrogen could exist; shifted upwards, all hydrogen would have fused almost instantly.
Ω (Omega) – the density parameter, finely balanced near 1. Any deviation would either collapse the cosmos or disperse it without stars.
Λ (Lambda) – the cosmological constant (~10⁻¹²² in Planck units). Even minutely larger, structure would never have formed; minutely smaller, collapse would ensue.
Q – the ratio of gravitational binding energy to mass-energy (~10⁻⁵). Too small, and galaxies never form; too large, and the cosmos is too violent for stars to survive.
D – the number of spatial dimensions (3). Without three dimensions, motion, stability, and life are impossible.
These constants are neither arbitrary nor accidental. Their specific values make life, complexity, and intelligence possible. Within the framework of information theory, this precision is best understood as evidence of intelligent agency, not blind chance. To dismiss them as coincidence is itself a form of magical thinking—relying on unreason rather than reason, and substituting denial for explanation.
Geometry, Unity, and Sacred Order
The fine-tuning of the universe is mirrored in the patterns and archetypes of geometry, which permeate both the microscopic and cosmic scales. From atomic structures to galaxies, reality manifests geometric harmonies that reflect an underlying principle of unity. The four primal rules of sacred geometry and the metaphysical principle of the One and the Three converge here, showing that mathematics and metaphysics are not separable but expressions of the same truth.
This interconnectedness reveals that we are not isolated from the cosmos but integrally bound to it. The unity of all form, structure, and law is a continuous reminder of our relation to the whole, even on this small planet within an immense expanse. Such unity harmonizes with both gradual adaptation and sudden transformation, demonstrating that evolution and change, whether progressive or abrupt, do not undermine but reinforce the intelligibility of design. Only fools dismiss one while affirming the other.
Conclusion
Thus, whether considering abiogenesis, multiverse speculation, holographic models, or cosmological constants, the conclusion remains the same: the universe is contingent and intelligible, not necessary or self-explanatory. Every explanatory sidestep ultimately reaffirms the demand for a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, self-existent ground of being.
This is the Necessary Cause—the Unmoved Mover—the unity of the One and the Three (One God and Three Goddesses). In this unity we find the ultimate explanation of causation, the coherence of natural law, the fine-tuning of constants, the order of geometry, and the intelligibility of existence itself.
Addendum: Beyond the "God of the Gaps"
It must be emphasized that the recognition of the One and the Three is not a “deities of the gaps” argument, invoked to cover what is presently unknown. Rather, it arises from what is already established: the contingency of the universe, the laws of thermodynamics, the finitude of time and energy, the fine-tuning of cosmological constants, the intelligibility of natural law, and the necessity of a terminus to causal chains. These are not gaps but givens—features of reality as it is known.
The One and the Three are therefore not posited as a filler for ignorance, but as the coherent explanation of knowledge itself. Their transcendence, though beyond full human comprehension, is grounded in evidence, logic, and the unity of mathematics, metaphysics, and cosmology. Belief in them does not shrink with the advance of science, but is illuminated and confirmed by it.
