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

For my first debate, I want to tackle the "god question." I will start by saying it cannot be posited that there is conclusive evidence for a god, nor can it be posited that there is conclusive evidence that there is no god. My position simply recognizes the burden of proof (he or she who posits the first positive claim must be expected to provide sufficient evidence before the opposing side can be expected to do the same), and states that there is no reasonable reason to believe a deity exists. Because this is the basis of my argument, I will start as follows: I will begin by tackling the major "proofs" for god's existence as provided by Thomas Aquinas (scholastic Dominican priest of the thirteenth century deemed "Angelic Doctor" of the Catholic Church) in "Whether God Exists," as a part of Summa Theologica (1274). While a majority of theists are actually unfamiliar with these arguments, the ecclesiastical structures which promote religious doctrines are undoubtedly based on them, if not for their naive belief in god then by the conviction of church leaders who are undoubtedly familiar with and convinced by these arguments. Thomas Aquinas' proofs can be categorized in the following ways: 1. The unmoved mover. We see that things are in motion, and nothing can be in motion without being acted upon by an initial "mover." There cannot exist an infinite regression of "movers." The end of this regression is what we call "god." 2. The un-caused cause. Everything has a cause, and nothing can be said to be caused by itself. Again, we are left with an impossible infinite regression of "causes." The end of this regression is what we call "god." 3. The Cosmological argument. There must have been a time at which nothing existed. Physical things exist now, and because they cannot be said to have created themselves, there must be a non-physical entity which brought them into existence ex-nihilo (from nothing). This entity we call "god." These arguments posit an infinite regress and then say that that regress cannot possibly exist. Aquinas simply ends the regress and labels that end "god." This has been arguably debunked by noting that "god" is being allowed exemption from these rules of causality and motion. It may be said, however, that god need not be restricted by these because of the nature of time. Time only began with the big bang, or in some individuals' view at the "creation" of the universe. For this reason, I do not argue (as most atheists/anti-theists do) that Aquinas' ending of the regression improperly exempts god from the premises. If Aquinas' is to be taken within the proper context of his beliefs and time, we must then consider two things: 1) these regressions and their termination do not provide any reason to believe in Aquinas' proposed god's ability to answer prayers, intervene in human affairs, judge the morality of human actions, provide salvation or damnation, or endow certain primates among us to carry out his will; 2) the use of the concept of infinity should be thought of as exploitation of the limited and imperfect human mind. The former should be thought of as a point of practicality towards which establishing the credibility of the author can be can be used. At this point in time, our species has come to deal with the concept of infinity prematurely, but still do not completely understand its poignancy or possible applications. String theory suggests that what we think of as the beginning of time (i.e., the big bang), or what I would label the ultimate "terminator" of infinite concepts, be it a natural event or divinely caused, may in fact be terribly wrong. We may indeed live in a multi-verse, in which our universe is simply one of many universes. It has been proposed that our universes' "big bang" was either the separation of a larger universe into two separate universes (of which we exist in one), or the combination of two universes into a larger one. This would mean that our concept of time is dramatically relative and only applicable to our own singular universe. Because infinite regresses, and the argument from causality and motion, are dependent on time, this shows us that Aquinas' conception is in its most basic form a representation of the exploitation of the limited human mind. In arguing the probability of the lack of this deity from applications of string theory (which has not been definitely "proved" but argued for by numerous infamous particle physicists and legitimized by the following), one can look to history. History and those who come before us can give us a very good idea of the probability of certain beliefs or even the probability of continued or innovative worldviews. It allows us to develop, as a species, a level of prescience which generations before would have had no way to explicate onto their universal philosophies and their understanding of the universe. Here, it is important to remember that at one time, it was thought that our planet was the only planet, and that that planet was flat. It was then found that our planet was spherical, but yet it was still thought that our sun was the only "sun" that existed. Once we discovered that we are a part of a larger solar system, we thought that ours was the only solar system. The Hubble telescope has shown us the immensity of our error, and even shown us the extraordinary matter of the red-light shift. This tells us that our species has a wretched history of assuming and demanding simplicity and singularity. However, we have been shown of our ancestor's inaccurate ways, and some of us have come to a mindset where we cherish and yet fear what Charles Darwin referred to as "the stamp of our lowly origin." Simply put, belief in a god is knowledge that no primate can claim to make. An addendum to this point, although not entirely relevant to the cognitive analysis of Aquinas' argument, points out the religious belief in anthropocentric nature of the cosmos. Besides the burden of proof giving us a look into the probability of which side of the "god debate" is accurate (also remember that this debate does not allow for gray area -- one side must admit categorical and moral defeat), the idea of unfalsifiability can give us another perspective. Claims such as the afterlife, or the triune nature of the divine, and indeed the entire idea of a metaphysical and multi-omni (forgive my "creation" of a descriptive term) deity, can be labeled as unfalsifiable by the very nature of claims as laid out in the beginning of my argument. This is intrinsically tied to the burden of proof, but I find it necessary to display this concept more specifically. If unfalsifiable claims are taken to be at least possibly true, the number of fatuous and clearly fabricated claims will inevitably and continuously increase. If someone were to come to you, preaching of an invisible teapot (or in many cases, a "Flying Spaghetti Monster") on the other side of the moon (or anywhere in the visible universe) which contains an extraterrestrial organism who controls our actions (much in the same way Aquinas' god was claimed to), you would rightfully and reasonably ask, "Why would I believe in that?" If the unfalsifiability of an argument is not said to be lethal to that argument, the response will inevitably be "Why not?" and this would be reason enough for you to believe such a claim. In short, the burden of proof (including the concept of falsifiability), the exploitation of the lack of sophistication and reasoning (largely due to our evolutionary process providing us with adrenal glands too large and pre-frontal lobes too small) of the human mind with regards to the infinite, and the inaccuracy of previous claims to simplicity and singularity (ultimately resulting in the classic theistic claim of divine simplicity) provide for a convincing and thorough argument against Aquinas' proofs.