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

I shall take the case by parts. What are we debating? Pro mentions the BOP is on the side which posits the positive claim. I agree. The positive claim in this particular debate is that "Infinite Regress is a fatuous argument for the existence of God" I will not, therefore attempt to argue the existence of God, but rather to defend the argument that is put in question, that is, the argument made by Saint Thomas Aquinas saying that the contingency (or movement, or causation) of everything around us calls irremediably for a necessary being (or an unmoved mover, or uncaused cause) as the end to an impossible infinite regress. To accuse one of the most renowned philosophers of making a fatuous (complacently or inanely foolish, according to webster. com) argument is rather a bold claim, and I hope my opponent will accompany that bold claim with a bold defense of his arguments. Arguments for fatuousness:I think this is an exhaustive list and summary of Pro's arguments, if not I would be grateful if my opponent could point out any argument I missed (or if I have overlooked the subtleties of any particular one of them). Preliminary Point. Pro does not argue, but mentions, the claim that God is being allowed undo exception from the rule of causation. The famous question "who created God? " would sum that up quite nicely. As Pro mentions this in passing, I will also address it in passing.1. The termination of infinite regress does not provide basis to believe in the God Aquinas believed in, as it does not prove other divine attributes (answer to prayers, intervening in history, proffering salvation etc. )2. The use of infinity is an exploitation of the limited and imperfect human mind, as we cannot truly grasp its implications.3. String theory suggests the Big Bang may not be the origin of existence, as we may live in a multi-verse.4. Science constantly changes our view of the universe, putting into question the recourse to God as a simple, singular solution to complex problems that science has not yet been able to address.5. Scientific advances also question the religious belief in the anthropocentric nature of the cosmos.6. Even unfalisifiable claims must at least be proved to be at least possibly true in order to give them credence. (The Flying Spaghetti Monster or Invisible Teapot argument). Rebuttals:Preliminary Point: Aquinas does not posit God and then exempt Him from the rules of causation. He shows the need for an exception and gives this exception the title God. This is vastly different.1. The argument does not prove every one of the attributes the Catholic Church ascribes to the Christian God. It does not seek to prove every one of the attributes the Catholic Church ascribes to the Christian God. It is simply irrelevant to point out the argument does not prove something it does not address.2. The same could be said about those who posit the possibility of infinite regress. The human mind, such as it is, must grapple with these concepts as best it can.3. Saint Thomas was completely unaware of Big Bang Theory, having lived nearly seven centuries before Father Georges Lemaitre proposed this theory. The fact that some (still a minority, but perfectly serious and well-respected) physicists are positing that the Big Bang singularity was not the beginning of the universe, but rather that we live in a multi-verse, does not address the arguments of Aquinas, which are philosophical and not based on current or past understanding of physics or cosmology. If the Big Bang singularity was not the absolute beginning of existence, that only puts the problem further back, it does not eliminate it. In the language of the Summa, the multi-verse itself would be a contingent reality and still require a necessary one.4. Science is a method of obtaining knowledge which presupposes logic. It investigates the material world y material means and cannot hope to address what matters are philosophical in nature. The matter of contingency requiring the existence of a necessary being is not one that can be proved or disproved y scientific inquiry. It must be proved or disproved by logical reasoning. A fault must be find either in the premises or in the reasoning that leads to the conclusion.5. The anthropocentric nature of the cosmos in Catholic theology is not dependant on our physical position in the universe, the time we have been living on earth or what celestial body revolves around which other celestial body. It is an entirely theological position which does not affect the argument in question one way or the other.6. This is true, and this is what Aquinas' argument does. It shows by logical reasoning that the existence of God is not only possible but probable. Both teacup and flying spaghetti monster are contingent. Teacups and spaghetti are material objects created by man for culinary purposes and owe their existence to something outside of themselves which finds use in them, in this case either as a container for drink or as a direct source of nourishment. Arguments in favor of these tend to progressively strip away any of the attributes that could possibly describe teacups or spaghetti (this teacup didn't come out of an oven, this particular spaghetti monster isn't material or made from durum wheat). They quite rapidly reveal themselves to be a truly fatuous argument. ConclusionUnless Pro is able to prove in the next two rounds that his objections to Aquinas' arguments are still valid, or come up with a new argument proving that Aquinas' reasoning is in some way so faulty as to deserve the name fatuous, the result of this debate is clear.