Comment from @cookiecherith

Infinite Regress doesn't sound like an issue to me. But if I had to prevent it, I would say the universe itself is the necessary object. Why do we need to take it one step further and assume something beyond that? We can say that there must have been some necessary being that created the universe. But why would that being be necessary? Why can't that being itself be contingent? I do not see how assuming a being created the universe prevents Infinite Regress in any way. We assume that being would be necessary, but why would they not themselves be part of a loop of Infinite Regress? If nothing within the universe is necessary, then why would we assume anything outside of it would be necessary? The key point here is that regardless of whether you stop at the universe, or continue higher, you will always need to assume that some part of the system is necessary if you wish to prevent Infinite Regress. So I don't see why it's logical to bring in the idea of a God, when the universe itself would be a more reasonable assumption for something that is necessary. We say the universe has a beginning only because we cannot measure before a certain point. That isn't to say the universe hasn't existed for longer than that, it just means we can only confirm the universe has existed that long. I find assuming that the universe is eternal far more reasonable than assuming there is a God that exists outside the universe and decided to create it. Adding a new element to the equation instead of modifying an existing one just seems like too much of a stretch to me.