I find that hard to accept considering that scientists and cosmologists are currently trying to discover such a cause.
They may be trying to discover a cause
, but I don't think they're necessarily trying to discover an uncaused cause (which seems to be what you're implying with the phrasing of 'discover such a cause').
By the same token as we don't run up against a problem, give up, and say "We don't know so God must have done it", I don't think we ought to run up against a problem, give up and say "We don't know so there must not be a cause".
Right. But we also don't give and and say "we don't know so there must not be infinite regress". Or, to put it a different way, we don't give up and say "infinite regress of cause and effect makes our brains hurt - there must not be infinite regress of cause and effect."
And the only reason to bring up an uncaused cause is to solve the problem of infinite regress. I'm not sure if it's valid to say that there cannot be an infinite procession of causes.
I guess that's what I'm missing - why
is an uncaused cause necessary? Just to keep our brains from hurting? Just because it seems too hard
to be able to conceive of an infinite succession of effects preceded by an infinite succession of causes? It just seems to be arbitrary to assume that, in order to logically explain every effect, there must be an effect for which there is no explanation.