Why an infinite regress fails to explain existence (episode 3 of 20)?

An infinite regress is like asking who pushed the first domino, but if there’s always another domino before it, we’ll never find an answer.

Imagine you have a big line of dominoes, each one knocking over the next. If someone starts pushing them, they all fall down in order. But what if there was no starting push? What if every domino had been knocked over by the one before it, forever and ever?

That’s an infinite regress: a chain that goes on endlessly without a beginning. It might seem like it could explain everything, but actually, it doesn’t help us understand why anything started.

Think of it like a never-ending story with no first sentence. If you keep reading "and then..." forever, you’ll never know what the whole story is about.

So even though an infinite regress might look neat and endless, it can't explain why something exists at all, because there's always another step in the chain, and we're still looking for that first push. An infinite regress is like asking who pushed the first domino, but if there’s always another domino before it, we’ll never find an answer.

Imagine you have a big line of dominoes, each one knocking over the next. If someone starts pushing them, they all fall down in order. But what if there was no starting push? What if every domino had been knocked over by the one before it, forever and ever?

That’s an infinite regress: a chain that goes on endlessly without a beginning. It might seem like it could explain everything, but actually, it doesn’t help us understand why anything started.