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

On the descriptive analysis of my arguments. 1. Accurate portrayal of my argument. 2. This is not my argument. Arguments based off concepts such as infinity can be accurate, but our historical epistemological process has shown that concepts such as these should be under immense scrutiny due to our history of clinging to singularity and simplicity. Aquinas, in a sense, simply uses the fact that we do not fully understand infinity by stating that an infinite regress must have an end, which has no basis in mathematics. Infinite regression, as with infinite increases/decreases along with concepts such as asymptotes, must be proven as something that cannot practically or pragmatically exist. Aquinas' insistence on placing an arbitrary end to the regress shows that the regress is in fact not infinite. My argument here is one of the poignancy and necessity of doubt, and realizing that until we can comprehend concepts such as infinity and the way they apply to practical issues, whether metaphysical or not, arguments based off of them should be heavily suspected. 3. Accurate portrayal of my argument. 4. Explanations derived from the infancy of our species may in fact be necessary. The source and cause of an argument may not be enough (as your video pointed out) to disprove it, but it can be extremely helpful. For this reason we see arguments about source validity in political debates. However, the important factor in determining the truth of these claims is unfalsifiability, moreso than historical context. However, they are both pertinent. 5. Conceded. 6. Accurate portrayal of my argument. As was said by (I believe) Ricky Gervais, if you understand why you don't believe in any of the other thousands of gods created by man over the centuries, then you understand why I don't believe in yours. Response to Rebuttals: 1. Again, you'll have to forgive what appears to have been some confusion over what is absolutely necessary to the argument and what is simply a "side note" or a "tangent" which I find myself going on quite often. The context is simply for informational and descriptive purposes. That being said, the fact that Aquinas' is arguing for a deistic god rather than a theistic one goes towards not the merit of the argument, but instead the credibility of the author who is claiming proof towards his personal, Catholic god. 2. Here, despite repetition, Okkam's razor can be easily implemented. Nothing about the concept of infinite, whether "known knowns," "known unknowns," or "unknown unknowns" points towards any trace of the divine. There is no possible way (to roughly quote from Hitchens) to move from the laws of the observable universe, be it physics, mathematics, biology, etc. to proof of a divine being. It is not conceivably possible, and it has never even been credibly tried. That being said, it is important to note that I am coming from a place of doubt and skepticism, not only about the divine but about applications of concepts such as infinity. The reason for such doubt, and thus the reason why the use of such infantile knowledge of our species on these issues, is the historical processes of our species being attracted to simplicity that have been proven wrong countless times (as expressed in Round 1). In short, Aquinas' is incorporating concepts into his "proof" that he did not nearly understand and that even today, centuries later, our species cannot claim to adequately understand. This in itself serves as one of many points of counterarguments against the argument by infinite regress. 3. I'm afraid you have misinterpreted the Thomist argument. Aquinas insists in his essay that there must exist primary and intermediate causes, leading us further to ultimate effects. The argument undoubtedly rests on a linear progression of time. Your insistence on the regression being pushed "further back" by string theory requires of you to recognize the necessity of this linear regression. 4. I may lose my fellow atheists here, but it important to note what David Tracy states: the fact that reason and logic have a history is a problem for reason and logic. I do not for a second believe that logic is entirely synonymous with systematic and adequate argumentation. It can be said that the umbrella of logic includes rational and systematic argumentation, but once again I must challenge the proposed simplicity of such a claim. 5. Conceded. 6. You have changed what you are arguing between rebutals. You recognize that I am defending the FSM/teacup theory, but not the assertion itself. Unfalsifiable claims cannot be given credence, even if said to be arbitrarily "possible." By my admittance of god being neither disprovable or provable, unfalsifiable claims are already "possible." However, that does not equate to accuracy. The divinity test which you propose can indeed be applied to the FSM or the teacup assertion. How so? I can simply state that they are divine, that they are the ultimate cause (though I could create an entirely different string of arguments to explain how), and you cannot prove me wrong. Yet again, the unfalsifiability of an argument is lethal to that argument. The great thing about evolution is that it is so easily proven wrong. A rabbit in the pre-Cambrian is all it would take, but it has not happened. The emphasis is placed not on whether the proposal is possible, but whether or not it is cognitively possible to prove the assertion wrong. And in this case, the divine cannot possibly be proven wrong. In your writing, I see the difficulty in using the word "fatuous." It is ultimately a word that is a matter of personal opinion and less to the point of accuracy, so that, I concede. I hope it has been clear in my first debate that a bulk of my problem is with the accuracy of the argument. For my lack of clarity, I apologize but do not concede the general point. I would like to simply reiterate the necessary points I have made: 1. The existence of a divine deity cannot be proven nor disproven. 2. My opponent concedes the fact that the burden of proof is on the believer. 3. The burden of proof, as a method of determining probability of an argument, requires the reader to side with the improbability of the existence of god by the very nature of the burden of proof. In other words, if proof cannot be given by the individual who is required to give proof first, the argument necessarily falls to the benefit of the unbeliever. 4. I do not, as many atheists do, propose that the fault in the argument lies necessarily in the exemption of god from the infinite regress for within the context of Christian apologetics, god remains out of time and space. I do argue, however, that our limited understanding of time and space and complex concepts makes arguments derived from them (especially extraordinary claims that fail to provide extraordinary evidence, such as god's existence), plus the history of incorrect assumptions of simplicity and linearity, plus the implications of string theory as altering our understanding of space and time, the probability is again left to the unbeliever. Any arguments to the contrary run the reasonable risk of appealing to the misunderstood and thus are invoking an entirely different debate, one of gap theory. 5. To argue for simultaneous causes is to change the argument proposed by Aquinas which clearly makes linear distinctions between prime causes, intermediate causes, and ultimate effects. The assertion that string theory only "pushes back" the regress is admittance to this understanding. In adding the possibility of simultaneous causes, one has strayed from the original cosmological argument. Anyways, I thank my opponent for patience with me and my first debate on this site (as well as what I see now as some pretty distinct issues of clarity that I will have to work on), and I have thoroughly enjoyed it. Can someone also tell me how to edit text formatting? I don't see where I can do this. Thanks! :)