There is an article called Clearest Rational Argument for the Existence of a Creator proposed by a Muslim named Yusuf Mullan. He is proposing the existence of Allah, the Arabic name for god.
The short summary and conclusion is at the bottom.
The first premise states that a movement of the hand begins to exist. I have no problem agreeing with this premise. I can test this premise myself and have others test it and they receive the same result. We might entertain some solipsistic notion that the hand does not really exist but solipsism is fraught with logical fallacies and lack of supporting testable evidence. Our most tested evidence and logically valid conclusion is that premise 1 is logical and valid.
The second Premise is where we run into a problem. He states that “whatever begins to exist must have a cause”. Yusuf states later that the reader needs to continue on and I do continue on and analyze the entire article but for the sake of logic and for the acceptance of statements two parties need to agree on the premise of a statement for the two parties to continue. In this case we don’t agree on the premise that “Whatever begins to exist must have a cause”.
Whatever Begins to Exist Must Have a Cause, Rejected
I am not stating that this is a false statement, nor am I stating it is true. My rejection of this premise is the lack of evidence. This premise is a strong premise and is stating a strong absolute. For me to accept this I would need to see and understand strong evidence for this.
This goes in the other direction too. If Yusuf stated that “all existence has always existed and it had no beginning” I would reject this too unless It was presented with evidence that average level intelligence could understand and was strong.
Specifics of the Rejection
The burden of proof is on the one with the claim so Yusuf must be able to support their claim and premise with evidence that can be understood by the average intelligence. Again, the ability for them to do this and the acceptance or rejection of the claims has no bearing on the truth of either claim. This is about justification for belief or rejection of a belief.
Yusuf’s first evidence to back up the second premise is that it is a self evident truth. He states that it is ingrained in our nature. This is not how I form beliefs or accept premises. We still have to test statements for logical fallacies and structural problems. The premises must be agreed upon and there should be testable evidence that people of average intelligence can understand for us to expect acceptance of a premise.
Yusef’s second evidence is a string of premises with no evidence that hops from one premise to the next. He states “that which has not existed forever is not necessarily existent” and then says that whether or not this category exists is not important. He next tries to state that if something exists contingently that it is both equal to existence and non existence with no proof of this claim either. This section culminates in the statement that all non contingent actions that begin “will necessarily need to be on account of some external cause preferring its existence over its non-existence” which just dissolves in to the question “why is there something instead of nothing”.
As much as Yusef argues for this not being about infinite regress the argument is still attributing the effects of existence back farther and farther until it reaches a cause or force which supposedly did not have a cause.
Short Summary and Conclussion
In short there is a premise stating that everything that exists must have a cause. This is not proven through testable evidence. As much as the the author argues that this is not infinite regress it still follows the same principle. It applies an absolute of cause and effect for all existence then proposes a cause that is not in existence and this cause is not subject to the prior absolute law of cause and effect.