Infinite Regress is a fatuous argument for the existence of god.

I beg pardon for the delay in answering. As I will not have the benefit of my opponent's corrections, I will proceed directly to answer his arguments.1. Infinite Regress not an argument for the Christian GodPro admits this is a tangent not relevant to the question at hand, and not really the objective Aquinas had with this particular argument.2. Doubt when faced with arguments from infinity and "Occam's Razor"There is nothing infantile about philosophy. What is truly infantile is the contention of Hitchens and others that the only knowledge we may have is empirical or scientific knowledge. Mathematics is not scientific knowledge, it is what we can garner from merely formal reasoning. And just as in physics and mathematics we can know things about infinity my simply applying the concept to mathematical models and seeing what happens, there are certain things we may know from thinking logically about infinity. One such thing is that if there is an infinite line of causation, meaning there is no beginning to the chain, there can be no effect. Pointing to theories that posit a state of affairs before the big bang does not disprove there being an ultimate cause, it only brings into question when this beginning took place. As a point of fact, most modern cosmologists take for granted the need for a beginning regardless of the particular model they deem more likely, as Dr. Craig summarizes quite well in his website: http://www.reasonablefaith.org... 3. Causal chain and time in the Thomist argumentThe argument Saint Thomas proposes carefully avoided a dependency on time as a necessity for causation, as time itself would need to be explained. At the very least the first cause could not be said to have happened "before" its effect, as its effect is, among other things, time itself. That particular cause must be considered, if anything, simultaneous. There are other cases of simultaneous causation that are being observed in the field of quantum physics today. Linear regression merely means that "something is caused by something that is caused by something", not "something is caused by something previous to it in time."4. LogicLogic is first defined as systematic and rigorous thought and then we proceed to give it formal rules. Those formal rules are rarely debated. Its history has been of progression and reformulation of the same rules. It does not include systematic argumentation, it IS systematic argumentation. Webster: "the science of the formal principles of reasoning" Oxford: "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity".If my opponent has a definition of logic other than the generally accepted and commonly used definition, he had the obligation to propose this definition. For the purpose of this debate we can substitute any and all instances in which I have referred to logic with "rational and systematic argumentation" if he wishes.5. Conceded6. Unfalsifiable claims FSMI have not changed what I was argumenting, I merely endeavored with evident lack of success to clarify it. I will try to do so again. Pro contended that an unfalsifiable claim needs to have an at least probabilistic argument. I accepted this principle, and pointed out that Aquinas' argument is precisely one such argument. Aside from that main point, as Pro had mentioned the FSM and flying teacup analogies, I showed that this is not comparable to the belief in God. If there is to exist a Prime Mover or Necessary Being, this being must be transcendent and immaterial, as the cause of all time, space, matter and energy. Both examples are, at first glance, out of the running on that count (one is made of pasta and the other is a teacup); any argument in order to sustain their existence has to strip away attributes of spaghettiness or teapotitude, ending up with a being with the same exact attributes as God, only referred to with the inadequate title of Spaghetti Monster.The claim of God's existence may not be directly unfalsifiable, but the arguments in his favor are. You need only point out a fallacy in its reasoning. There is no such fallacy, therefore it stands.Pro's final contentions1. The existence of a deity cannot be proved or disproved. May well be true, but entirely irrelevant, as the debate is on Aquinas' argument, not God himself.2. Burden of proof is on the believer. Agreed, but once again, not immediately relevant.3. Burden of proof requires reader to side with improbability of proof. Not in this debate. The positive claim in question is that the argument from infinite regress is in some way fallacious. The burden of proof is on the side of the "believer" in this assertion, not in the existence of God.4.Fault of the argument lies on limited understanding of time and space and concepts like infinity, History shows humans tend to errors because of their tendency towards assumptions of simplicity and linearity. This was already addressed, but I may as well note the apparent contradiction between being a proponent of Occam's razor, which prizes simplicity in answers, and a belief simplicity is somehow a problem in human thinking.5. The argument for simultaneous causes changes the argument proposed by Aquinas. Not so, as explained above. The matter of word choiceI gratefully accept Pro's concession on the matter of the wording of the resolution. I do not take it as a concession of the debate, which is of too much substance for it to go on a matter of semantics. To "win" a debate by virtue of mere wordplay is, to my thinking, a cheap victory and an insult to both the opponent and the intelligence of the readers. The reason I insisted on the issue is because it strikes me as one of those times in which a matter of semantics takes away from the substantive issue in the greater debate. It is common trait of much of what is called "the new atheism" that it often places more weight on rhetorical flourishes aimed at painting opponents as dullards and themselves as bulwarks of clear thinking (the brights) than on serious engagement with opposing views. This manner of presenting the issue, referring in this case to one of the greatest minds Western culture has produced as making fatuous arguments could lead less serious thinkers than my opponent to take lightly or not even consider the position of men wiser than themselves.Having accepted this was a poor choice of words I will no longer insist on the matter. I hope we can proceed on a matter of substance and urge voters NOT to give me their vote on this matter of mere semantics.Conclusion:This is a debate on whether or not the argument from Infinite Regress is falatious or not (I suppose changing the word fatuous for falatious will not be objected to). In support of this contention we have seen a series of arguments that have proven false, unconnected with the actual issue, dependant on a definition of terms different from the generally accepted one or which misunderstand the implications of the arguments. I leave to the voters the appraisal of the merits of the arguments and the strength of the rebuttals.I thank my opponent for this debate. It has been a while since I had a debate with no forfeits, and this is refreshing. I thoroughly enjoyed it and hope we can spar again in the future on this or other issues.On a lighter note, for a sucinct summary of my position you can go here: http://www.catholicmemes.com...