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

I hope both my opponent and the readers will forgive the redundancy of restating my opponents position before answering. I find the best way to avoid falling into the straw-man fallacy is to try to present the argument as I understand it so my opponent can correct me should I misunderstand him on any point.As a side note, the video is complementary to my rebuttal on point four.Pro's Response:1. The fact that Aquinas does not by his argument give evidence for the Christian God he believes in and is to Whom he dedicates the Summa is important as a matter of historical context. 2. Due to our incapacity to fully understand concepts like infinity, arguments based off them cannot be regarded as accurate or in any way sufficient as evidence of the divine.3. Though Aquinas was not aware of the Big Bang or string theory, this does not mean more recent discoveries have no implications on his arguments. String theory (as well as Einstein's theories), in allowing for time travel, put the Thomistic scheme into question, as it depends on the linear progression of time which may not be the case.4. Empirical data can supplement or contradict philosophical inquiry. When attempting to explain the universe, one must avail oneself of Occam's razor and discard superfluous assumptions from the explanation. Although "explanations derived from the infancy of our species" cannot be entirely disproved, they are unnecessary. "Logical reasoning is better replaced by adequate and systematic argumentation via Occam's razor."5. Conceded6. Pro denies having made an argument for the Flying Spaghetti Monster or invisible teapot. In any case, the argument given against these are also arguments against belief in any deity. Note on the choice of words: Aquinas was brilliant, but this does not give all his arguments carte blanche. All of his arguments must be contended with on their own merits and to claim the contrary is to become suspect of a claim to authority.Rebuttals:1. The context is indeed the Summa Theologiae, a treatise on Catholic theology. All arguments are intended to be consistent with God as known to Catholics, but not all arguments seek to prove every attribute of this God. We know the context (he is a Saint in the Catholic tradition and a doctor of the Church) this says nothing one way or the other about the merit of the argument. Unless Pro can prove otherwise we must take this point to be conceded.2. We cannot fully comprehend infinity, this does not mean that we cannot know certain things about the concept. Whatever else it is, infinity is not equal to three and a quarter. Both in mathematics and in physics, it is understood that infinity must not be taken to exist in any real sense (it can only be said that something tends to infinity, as it is a concept, and not a number). That a line of causation cannot go back infinitely can be known through logic, without need to fully grasp every aspect of this concept. If I were to say I can lend you a quarter for the gumball, but you have to wait for me to get it from my friend, who has to get it from a friend, who has to get it from a friend... you can see that the progression either ends with a person who really does have a quarter or there is no quarter to begin with. This, applied to movement, causation and being itself (with the argument from contingency) is what Aquinas refers to. Completely within the grasp of human thought, in spite of dealing with a concept we cannot understand in its entirety.3. String theory and wormholes do not worm their way out of the Thomistic argument. I do not say that it pushes the matter merely back in time, it merely postpones the moment when we must face facts. Contingency, movement, causation, are not caused, in Saint Thomas' argument by something further back in time. They are caused by something. Even in the 13th century, without the benefit of String Theory, they were well aware that a cause could perfectly well be simultaneous. The fact is that time itself is contingent, along with everything else in the universe. The implications of string theory are mind-boggling, but making contingent beings necessary by virtue of showing us that time is (in the words of Dr. Who) a wibbley-wobbly timey-wimey... thing is not one of them.4. I'm afraid there is a terminological misunderstanding here. Adequate and systematic argumentation IS logic. Occam was himself a logician and the principle of parsimony named after him is a principle of logical thought (given two explanations of the world you are to prefer the simpler one to the more complicated one, unless simplicity can be traded for more explanatory power. Laplace answered well that the prime mover was not a necessary assumption for his model of the solar system, because, whether or not the Prime Mover is the ultimate cause of said movement is not necessary to determine how exactly the celestial bodies move or interact. When considering the question put forth by Saint Thomas, science is not adequate. Science, in fact, does not prove everything: (see video) http://www.youtube.com...5. Conceded6. I do say Pro himself holds to or defends the flying spaghetti monster or the invisible teacup theory. What he argued was that unfalsifiable claims must be proved at least possible in order to give them credence, and he merely mentioned those rhetorical devices in passing. I fully agree with the first statement, which is the entire point of Saint Thomas' argument (to prove the possibility and even probability of the existence of God). My answer to the teapot or spaghetti monster argument, however, cannot be taken as an argument against God, as it is to take a characteristic necessarily attributed to God as the Prime Mover, First Cause or Necessary Being and showing how these supposedly equivalent explanations do not hold up to the "divinity test".Note on the choice of words: I do not argue from authority, whether proper authority or otherwise. I simply argue for common sense and proportion. Take for a minute the figure of George Bernard Shaw. Shaw was a socialist and an atheist, he held any number of positions I vehemently disagree with. He was, however, a man of great intellectual weight. If ever I were to come to find an argument made by Saw which struck me as fatuous, this would give me great pause. It is not a rare occurrence that I find an argument make by Shaw which I think is wrong, I often find arguments which can be considered falatious in some respect, but never have I found something "complacently or inanely foolish" in his writings. I would be loathe to accuse him of fatuousness until I was quite sure I was not misunderstanding or somehow misrepresenting his argument. Only then would I have the moral courage to accuse such an example of rigorous (though incorrect) thinking as George Bernard Shaw of fatuousness. It is in this sense that I note the boldness of my opponents claim that something "fatuous" could come from from the most careful work of a mind my opponent himself classifies as "brilliant". Thus far I have seen many claims as to why Saint Thomas was wrong (I disagree with these claims, but that is in the end of no consequence) I have yet to see a single one to support the charge of fatuousness.