Why is it more rational to push religion to infinite regress than science?

We do not know the origins of the universe, if that event even existed. We just have data that seems to point back 14 billion years, until at some point conditions in the universe were too exotic to be describable by our current understanding of physics. We cannot probe earlier events than a singularity. Maybe "infinite regress" is physically possible, maybe it isn't. No one is claiming it has to be one way or another, except theists who claim they already know the answer. The only logical way to describe the universe in its current thermodynamic entropic state. Their particular deity with its set of rules and regulations and relationships. The problem is that sure maybe some concept akin to a god could actually be real and manifest in reality somehow, but until specific substantial evidence biased heavily toward a particular deity is out, no one's ideas about which gods exist is anything to write home about.

Science isn't making any infinite regress because it isn't claiming anything for certain, just propagating a series of tests, results, error margins, levels of confidences, etc. Take what you want from their evidence. Logic automatically accomodates that infinite regress by taking certain statments as axiomatically true for the convenience of using that to gain more knowledge about other things. Science works by being useful, a.k.a. under the assumption that models with great scope and predictive utility are better than ones with no predictive utility.

Logic solves the infinite regress by assuming certain axioms justifiable by the fact that you can't proceed to do anything in life until some basic principles are accepted as true, false, and whatnot. Science solves it by being a resource, in the sense that its job is to test claims very carefully to get as much information as possible about something, so its principles are aimed to be as accurate a depiction of reality as possible in the practical sense. Religion solves it by postulating an invisible being who cares about us all, does mysterious things, and showing absolutely no demonstrable effects on anything in existence. What if the Big Bang is the first thing to exist? No need for a god, idea of an invisible transcendent mind that sits outside and above existence etc.

I'm confused by your question, I probably misread, because infinite regress has nothing to do with an argument directly supporting the existence of God. Maybe one might (fallaciously) argue infinite regress is not possible, that something cannot come from nothing, therefore God exists. But that's a double standard. It's like saying "the universe needs a creator." Well if the universe needs a creator to exist, why doesn't God, kind of thing. If infinite regress in itself has nothing to do with actually explaining God's existence, then there is no double standard. ... Most theologians argue that God is eternal, infinite regress is also eternal, but God in all his being is eternal.

Either existence occurs through infinite regress, or something always was. In my opinion the idea that something came from nothing is fallacious. If something did come from nothing, then there was never nothing to begin with, because it contained something. We come up with theories that explain how the universe came from nothing, but this nothing contains energy, anti-matter, laws of physics and so on. Either there is a particular something that always was, or infinite regress is the explanation. Ironically, according to Gödel, the theory of everything is not possible, we are all a part of the system we are describing, we are all contained by the system, while a lot of scientists are hopeful, the theory for everything it would seem is not possible, so from a scientific perspective, the chances are we'll never really know the answer aha

Respectfully I would argue that the issue is the underlying premise: "something cannot come from nothing". I think a more accurate premise would be "anything that had a beginning had to have a cause".

We can based on the laws of classical physics assert the Material Universe had a beginning and therefore must have had a cause (based on our premise). At the same time, the law of causality while preventing a cause from being quantitatively or qualitatively greater than it's cause, in no way prevents the cause from being greater that the effect. - In short the cause need not have had a beginning, and the burden falls upon the one arguing the cause had a beginning. This then ends the regression unless or until it is established the cause had to have a beginning.

The problem here becomes cyclical. People will ask, what caused the first thing to exist? They'll claim that something cannot come from nothing (even though in truth we don't know even that), so that something must have 'always' existed, and then created everything, essentially from nothing. This argument is invalid for many reasons, and even if it weren't would only get you as far as theism at best, depending on what you term 'god'. If something did cause this universe, it wouldn't be anything that fits a specific god, as you allude to. But somehow the people making this argument jump from, something can't come from nothing, so my specific god must exist!

First thing you need to realise is that the infinite regression argument is not an argument against god, it's a simple rebuttal to the common first cause argument presented by theists. That's our entire stake in it. In fact, it's not the infinite regression that's important. It's merely a response to the problem that theists see in not knowing what (if anything) caused the universe to exist, which is to go a layer deeper and ask what caused their god to exist. I mean, it's easy enough to go a layer deeper and a layer deeper after that, but the idea is to hoist a theist by their own petard, and show that the very thing they claim is problematic in our worldview is equally present in their own.

In fact, infinite regression poses no issue to me. I see nothing wrong prima facie with an infinite chain of cause and effect. I see nothing wrong with the view that something caused our universe to exist, and something caused it to exist, and something caused that to exist, etc. I mean, it lacks evidence, but that's about all I see that's wrong. I also don't see anything wrong with something causing this universe to exist that had no cause itself, just as I see nothing wrong with our universe simply existing without cause. Infinite regression gets its negative connotation from its applications to logic and semantics, where it refers to an argument that requires an infinite number of steps to prove (which is not valid), or a chain of meanings that is infinite (e.g. I might say a Boojum level 1 is just a Boojum level 2 but twice as tall, which is just twice as tall as a Boojum level 3, etc. It doesn't tell you what a Boojum is). Both of these are problematic, but an infinite chain of cause and effect? Again, I see no issue.

Finally, I would like to point out that you cannot smuggle conclusions via semantics. If you wish to redefine "God" as "that which caused everything to exist", then it is no more correct to say this "God" is the Christian god than it is to say that it is the FSM. There's no such thing as an "incorrect definition", only a fallacious inference from the intended definition.

For thousands of years, people have said that their gods were behind what they didn't understand -- life, lightning, stars, earthquakes, the origin of life, the world or the universe, etc. Positing a god to supposedly answer a question solves nothing. It just adds an unwarranted level of complexity and stops you from asking more questions.

It used to be that science couldn't answer the question about the origin of the universe or of the Big Bang, but that didn't mean we should make up an answer (such as a god) and say that it was the cause. Within the last few decades scientists have discovered some good answers. Of course, a scientific explanation is more complex than simply saying, "God did it."

Quantum mechanics shows that "nothing," as a philosophical concept, does not exist. There are always quantized particle fields with random fluctuations. Quantum mechanics also shows that events can occur with no cause.

There are many well-respected physicists, such as Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, Sean M. Carroll, Victor Stenger, Michio Kaku, Alan Guth, Alex Vilenkin, Robert A.J. Matthews, and Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek, who have created scientific models where the Big Bang and thus the entire universe could arise from nothing but a random quantum vacuum fluctuation in a particle field -- via natural processes.

In relativity, gravity is negative energy, and matter and photons are positive energy. Because negative and positive energy seem to be equal in absolute total value, our observable universe appears balanced to the sum of zero. Our universe could thus have come into existence without violating conservation of mass and energy — with the matter of the universe condensing out of the positive energy as the universe cooled, and gravity created from the negative energy.

I know that this doesn't make sense in our Newtonian experience, but it does in the realm of quantum mechanics and relativity. As Nobel laureate physicist Richard Feynman wrote, "The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as she is — absurd."

For more about the Big Bang and its implications, watch the video at the 1st link - "A Universe From Nothing" by theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss, read an interview with him (at the 2nd link), or get his new book (at the 3rd link). And, see the 4th link for "The Universe: Big Bang to Now in 10 Easy Steps."

"The total energy of the universe is precisely zero, because gravity can have negative energy. The negative energy of gravity balances out the positive energy of matter. Only such a universe can begin from nothing. The laws of physics allow a universe to begin from nothing. You don't need a deity. Quantum fluctuations can produce a universe."

- Lawrence Krauss, physicist

"The cosmic microwave background radiation is one of the many reasons that we know that the Big Bang actually happened."

- Lawrence Krauss, physicist

"God" implies a personal creator. If the "creator" of the universe happens to be a natural phenomenon such as quantum fluctuations, I think it's pointless to call this "God".

Theists argue for a personal creator, which requires evidence, since there is no reason to believe whatever caused the universe to exist (if anything) is personal or a "being".

Nothing exists in nothing.

If there was absolutely and totally nothing, then how could a being exist in nothing? So, this 'something in nothing' created everything, even created the dimension/realm for it to exist in?

Mass/energy of the universe exists, existed yesterday, the day before and to the moment of the Big Bang (and since energy/mass cannot be created nor destroyed) and even before the moment of Big Bang in another state (probably Singularity). Therefore, how could we claim that the mass/energy of the universe was being created from nothing at the moment of Big Bang? It was just a transition stage and nothing more (of mass/energy) was created.

Interesting idea, but isn't this only trying to rationalize what God is? Why not try to veiw Science as being something spiritual? If the definition of God were redefined as you say, it would change nothing. There would always be people claiming the opposite.

I agree we need to redefine god. Note the small letter "g" so as not to be confused with the Biblical monster god du jour. I would go one step further and aver a paradigm shift is long overdue. For example, a shift that would include but not be limited to more competitive cooperation.