‘This question is logically problematic. If everything needs a creator, than no matter what exists, it must have been created. Furthermore, to be created means that someone or something had to create it. But then, who created the creator and so on? Logically, this would mean there would be an infinite regression of creators and we would never be able to find the first, uncaused cause since, by definition (the questions says that “everything needs a creator”) there wouldn’t be any uncaused cause. This would mean that the sequence of creations is eternal. But, if it exists that there is an eternal regression of creators, then who created the infinite regression of creators? Remember, the question presupposes that all things need a creator — even the eternal sequence of creators — which becomes logically absurd. Furthermore, if there is an eternal regression of creators that are eternal, then the question is not answered. In fact, it cannot be answered since it weakness is that “all things need a creator.” Of course, this only begs the question in that how did the process begin? Therefore, the question only raises the same problem it asks and it is a question that, by its own design, cannot be answered.
The question is better phrased as a statement: “Everything that has come into existence, was brought into existence by something else.” This is a more logical statement and is not wrought with the difficulties of the initial question. In the revised statement “Everything that has come into existence,” implies that the thing that “has come into existence” did not already exist. If it did not already exist but then came into existence, then something had to bring it into existence because something that does not exist cannot bring itself into existence (a logical absolute). This pushes the regression of creators back to what we would call the theoretical “uncaused cause” since there cannot be an infinite regression of creators as discussed above and since in infinite number of creators would mean there was an infinite number of creations and created things including things that cannot be destroyed since they would constitute things that exist. If that is so, then the universe would have had an infinite number of created things in it and it would be full. But it is not full. Therefore, there has not been an infinite regression of creations’.
The question is better phrased as a statement: “Everything that has come into existence, was brought into existence by something else.” This is a more logical statement and is not wrought with the difficulties of the initial question. In the revised statement “Everything that has come into existence,” implies that the thing that “has come into existence” did not already exist. If it did not already exist but then came into existence, then something had to bring it into existence because something that does not exist cannot bring itself into existence (a logical absolute). This pushes the regression of creators back to what we would call the theoretical “uncaused cause” since there cannot be an infinite regression of creators as discussed above and since in infinite number of creators would mean there was an infinite number of creations and created things including things that cannot be destroyed since they would constitute things that exist. If that is so, then the universe would have had an infinite number of created things in it and it would be full. But it is not full. Therefore, there has not been an infinite regression of creations’.