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

Thank you to Con for taking on this debate. I do not object to the summation of my arguments put forward by my opponent. I will posit, however, that Con's preliminary point in the rebuttal was conceded by me in my first argument. Although most atheists/anti-theists will posit such a claim (specifically that god is given undue exemption to the infinite regress), I recognize that such a causal regress depends on a progression of time, which god is said to be outside of. On this point, the argument can be thought of as consistent, although not necessarily accurate. In response to rebuttals: 1. As noted initially, the lack of evidence for the Christian deity as opposed to a simply deistic god is a matter of historical context and serves to show the Thomist arguments within the framework of which he is writing and within the purposes of his philosophical inquiries. I ask my opponent's forgiveness if such a claim was seen as entirely necessary for the cognitive, rather than historical, analysis of the question at hand. 2. The human mind must deal with concepts such as infinity as best it can. However, that does not in any way warrant an argument based off these concepts as accurate. Religion and arguably theology as a whole are ways of understanding the cosmos from the infancy of our species, and it would serve us better to recognize our limited understanding of these concepts rather than not only claiming adequate understanding of such concepts, but also using them to make such extraordinary claims such as the existence of a divine, which I hope my opponent would agree requires extraordinary evidence, which we have not seen. 3. The fact that Aquinas was not aware of the big bang, and even the fact that his arguments are not derived from such findings, is irrelevant in the cognitive analysis of his claims. Simply because Aquinas was not aware of such findings does not mean that his arguments cannot be supplemented or contradicted by them. A reading of such arguments should not, at least in this case, depend on the reader using only a level of critical analysis possible by the author himself. It then becomes a question of the readers' understanding of the credibility of both arguments and both authors. Given that the big bang was not the "absolute beginning of existence," my opponent's claim of the regress problem simply being receded is to misunderstand the application and poignancy of such a claim. String theory, and admittedly Einstein's laws, allows for time travel (though the ability of humans to successfully travel through a worm hole is unknown at this point). The idea of an infinite regress depends upon a unidirectional, linear conception of time. The multi-verse theory allows us to see that our own conceptions of time are necessarily dependent on the singularity of our current place in the cosmos (i.e., our current universe) which, while not proved at our current state of technology and scientific development, should be highly suspected in relation to a claim that posits a rhetorical implication of subjective imagination (or dis-imagination) having any impact on objective reality. I short, I claim that perception is not reality, and that Aquinas' perception (while possibly justified historically, though not proved) was severely skewed. 4. I must argue to the contrary that empirical, scientific data cannot supplement nor contradict philosophical inquiry. It is tot his point that an introduction of Okkam's razor would be useful. When Laplace was asked to demonstrate his model of our solar system in court, he replied to the question of where the Prime Mover was in his model by saying "It can work without that assumption." In this case empirical data and the simple innovation of a great and curious mind was enough to show that explanations derived from the infancy of our species, though not entirely able of being disproved, are simply unnecessary to understanding the cosmos and its workings. Thus, logical reasoning is better replaced by adequate and systematic argumentation via Okkam's razor, which tells us that it would behoove our species to rid ourselves of parts of explanatory theories that we do not need. Opposition to this, once again, will ultimately result in the increase of obviously fabricated claims (much like the concept of falsifiability). 5. I concede this point as consistent with my mentioning it in passing as a point of implication rather than cognitive analysis. 6. It is a misappropriation of my argument to claim that myself or anyone else is making an "argument in favor" of the invisible teapot or Flying Spaghetti Monster. You provide readers with a very good reason to not believe in these claims, and thus not to believe in claims to a deity, for your proofs against them are precisely the methods that need be used to show the improbable nature of a deity, specifically the Christian deity being argued for by Aquinas. I find it important to note the reason for my use of what my opponent claims to be a "bold" choice of words, fatuous. I do not argue against the fact that Aquinas was a brilliant mind, but this in no way gives credibility to his claims and any argument to the contrary I will suspect of making improper claims to authority.