The naturalist infinte regress argument stiupulates that cause, event and time presuppose previous causes,events and time.
That " nothing" is hardly nothing as it is the quantum fiels, pulsating with energy!
Natural causes and explanations- the presumption of naturalism- fit the fact of simplicity for the Razor whilst Richard Swinburne's notion of His simplicity cannot,because of His convoluted, ad hoc assumptions! Quite the opposite,eh,Meleagar?
Please study Rationalist Griggy's OP as it would inform you of why supernaturalsim cannot get off the ground! Note why teleology is not at all apparent but a mere pareidolia!
RG.,SG. posts 43

Scientists only find teleonomy- no planned outcomes rather teleology-planned outcomes as George Gylord Simpson in "The Life of the Past], Ernst Mayr [ orginal to use term teleonomy against teleolgy] in " What Evolution Is" and Paul B. Weisz [ using the term causalism rather than teleonomy] in " The Science of Biology."
As Weisz notes, teleology means the past before the first, the event before the cause, thereby negating time.
OTavern, you are begging the question of those purposes-planned outcomes. Natural selection is the non-planning,anti-chance agency of Nature. Yes,a meaningless Cosmos can deliver purposeful beings! Please stop with the argument from incredulity! Theology depends on the argument from ignorance, begged questions and- the argument from incredulity!
"Logic is the bane of theists."
Thus, as no demarcation line exists betwxist science and other matters, but rather the demarcation line exists betwixt it and errors.

What arguments about Him do you find valid,pro or con?
Why would any rational person desire to worship when as autonomous beings, nothing requires us to worship anyway per Lamberth's argument from autonomy.
Due to our level of consciousness,in line with Morgan's Canon, and the UN Charter of Human Rights, we are indeed free beings, whom no God has rights over us, but who would fact that one-way stree noted at Fr. Meslier's the problem of Heaven.
No disembodied being or -soul can exist per the argument from physical minds. Evidence only exist for our type. When our brains have problems, so do our minds. The soul lacks explanatory value.
How could a such a mind have intent,especially, when as noted, no intent lies behind the Cosmos?
Supernaturalists query from personal incredulity why existence rather than non-existence and answer with that non-explanation- God.
Whynot and Belinda, I invite you to post @ http;//fathergriggs.wordpress.com
http://carneades.aimoo.com
http;//skepticgriggsyspeaks.blogspot.com

Per the argument from physical mind,despite Alvin Plantinga's silly dismissal of it, as we only know of physical mnds, then a disembodied one would contradict our conservation of knowledge. What would be the empirical basis for it? MInd came late in evolution.
Thus God not only would not have intent, He couldn't even have a mind to have it!
Since transcendence precludes omnipresence, He cannot be both. He cannot even be transcendent as Existence is all! Were He, however, transcendent, then He couldn't act in the Cosmos had he mind and intent.
Now that makes Him that square circle!
enegue, ok.

Who might seriously address these pertinent arguments? What is the evidence for a disembodied mind? Ti's just a theological inanity to aver that God metaphysically could act in the Cosmos yet we'd just see teleonomy at work. No, science trumps metaphysics! Thus, it would be that new Omphalos argument to aver that He uses epistemic distance to hide Himself ambiguously so as not to overwhelm our wills by letting teleonomy seem to rule!
Again, per Reichenbach's argument not only is Existence all, it precludes any way to compare it to other objects such that not only do all teleological arguments beg the question per Carneades's argument, it eviscerates the fine-tuning and probability arguments, because how could one argue for the former without comparing tuned and non-tuned universes, and without comparison , no probability ensues!
No teleology wanted us so that conditions had to just right for us! No, conditions depended on randomness- mutations, the demise of the dinosaurs, the cooling-off period and the rise of flowering plants -as well as natural selection. The puddle argument disposes of both arguments: a puddle says to itself, how glorious that I was the effect of fine-tuning and probability! No, natural causes caused the hole and the rain that filled it up as teleonomy works that way!
Theism is just reduced animism- that superstition that discerns intent behind natural causes as the Azande do when they find the germ spirit acting behind natural causes for diseases or the wind spirit behind the wind when it knocks off tiles that harm human beings!
Lamberth's Malebranche Reductio notes that Nicholas Malebranche in positing that God is the true force behind actions unwittingly keel hauls God as that Primary Cause! He just makes the let there be light mystery that we never will discern how He acts as that Primary Cause with natural ones being just secondary ones!
The Supreme Mystery,surrounded by other mysteries has no explanatory value! God did it means God did it metaphysically as the God of the explanatory gap!
Supernaturalism,despite Gregor MacGregor, rests in magic!
Supernaturalists themselves use the genetic argument against themselves with their arguments from angst and from happiness-purpose!And no e vidence exists for either argument!
God wills what He wills is just a empty tautology.

Reduced animism is still as superstitious as regular animism! No wizard exists behind the Cosmic Curtain!
Ferengi is an inane person at Amazon Discussions who prides himself on asking inane questions. Such deserve no responses!
How might a serious inquirer respond yea or nay, in part or whole to the previous commentary?

Lamberth's non-genetic argument argues that supernaturalists themselves absolve us naturalists of using the genetic argument whenever we note how they come to believe. They use their unsubstantiated arguments from happiness-purpose and from angst to get people to believe in Him. That pellucidly- crystal clear- illuminates that in fact they do have psychological and sociological reasons to believe. Xenophanes notes that people see God in their likenesses. I note in the argument from pareidolia that they see what is not there- intent and design when mechanism and patterns are there. This means that they resort to a psychological mechanism to ascribe intent and design and why then they are reduced animists. The term reduced animism rests on no category mistake as it refers to ascribing intent at the level Nature herself as full animism refers to spirits behind natural causes. No intent exists for the wind spirit nor for the Spirit of Nature. eneque, I have no soul or spirit. Science finds none. I'm valuable, just because I exist and due to our level of consciousness. Cheerio!

http://gnu.tumblr.com http://skepticicality.blogspot.co http://grigggsthenaturalist. wordpress.com

-- Updated Thu Jun 14, 2012 5:32 pm to add the following --

Before theists can talk about God meaningfully, they must give evidence as to how He operates in the Cosmos instead of merely assuming that He does have those omni-attributes! Where lies the evidence that He acts in the Cosmos. No, the Primary Cause and the Design arguments are no evidence as natural phenomena say sufficiently why things are as they are! They must show that He does have intent so that He can be the Primary Cause and so forth. Not only should they give that evidence but also for Heaven, Hell, the future state and free will instead of just assuming them!