What main critique does the concept of "infinite regress" address in arguments for the existence of God?

The concept of "infinite regress" primarily critiques arguments that posit a need for a cause or reason for existence. In the context of arguments for the existence of God, it addresses the issue of assuming that everything must have a cause, leading to the question of what caused God. If one were to assert that everything must have a cause, this could lead to an endless chain of causes, where no ultimate cause exists. This critique highlights the challenge of trying to establish God’s existence purely based on the notion that everything has a cause, because it raises the question of whether God is also contingent upon another cause.

By emphasizing that the cause of God cannot simply be assumed without facing the problem of infinite regress, this critique suggests that positing God as a necessary being, which does not require a cause, is crucial to resolve this dilemma and to justify the existence of a first cause or an uncaused cause within philosophical discussions. This position thus serves a pivotal role in defending theistic arguments against the potential pitfalls of assuming an infinite regress in causal sequences.