Well it's nice to see SOMEONE responded to the argument. Not you, of course. But here's the rest:

1) It is solely incomprehensible and decidedly anti-rational to claim that, because you don't believe in a position, you don't have to "waste time" on the arguments for it. By your logic, I shouldn't spend time looking at evolution because I "don't believe in it". (I do, actually...please don't get confused here). Don't you spend your free and possibly professional time presenting arguments from positions antithetical to your opponents? By the "rationality" you hold, this is futile, since no one has to listen to sides they don't believe.

Here's the point, which you already know, but conveniently avoid following when it suits your agenda: you hold beliefs (hopefully) exactly because you have investigated BOTH SIDES of an argument, not because you happen to believe one already. It is mere abject complacence to believe you never have to listen to an opposing argument.

2) If that is a "refuation" of the Kalam argument then I'm a member of the RRS. Are you kidding me? So let me get this straight...an infinite regress is posed. Oh wait, no, that's impossible, as Kelly has already agreed. So instead we have what, exactly? Causal chains understood antichronologically ultimately initiate with...ummm...got any answers, here? Proposing that a creator needs a creator entirely misunderstands the notion of a "first cause". Misunderstanding an argument does not exactly refute it, does it? Perhaps you might advance that Kant has sufficiently demonstrated that the conditioned (causal chain) is the inquiry of the understanding, and the unconditioned (first cause) is the inquiry of the reason. In this antinomic instance, reason deduces what the understanding cannot grasp. Now, then, does that mean that what reason posits cannot exist? No, not at all. It simply becomes beyond inquiry. Advancing the quotidian and infirm observation that a creator additionally requires a creator is a permissible and necessary DEDUCTION, not a REFUTATION, for only another infinite regress is created, and the proposed solution will be simply the same again. Dawkins, you, et al do not understand the argument, and this is why most theologians and philosophers don't really bother trying to explain it to such parties. I, however, don't mind.

Let me ask you: how do you solve the problem of an infinite causal regress? Positing a new infinite regress does not solve the problem, it merely avoids it. That's fine - just the RRS style, I suppose. So, seriously, and for the last time: address the infinite regress of causality implied by modern physics, NOT the new problems generated through positing a creator being.

3) Why don't you, Brian, try to critique the argument? I am, after all, in discourse with you, not your friends. You don't see me pulling my friends out of the woodwork to assist me, do you? Given that you have set the precedent, however, I will now do so. By the way, it's okay if you have to resort to assistance. I don't think any less of you.

4) Positing a creator being does not mean that one has in fact implied "god". As Hume notes, one can only imply a being sufficient for the task required. Descartes got it wrong, and so do most theologians. One cannot additionally prove that any creator being is anymore YHVH than Krishna or whoever the creator being of the Yanomamo may be. I suppose at this point I should point out that, once again!, I am no theist. Asserting that I am is only childish, fruitless, and completely irrational. Stomp your feet all you want - it is another atheist taking you to task for your poor, poor logic and knowledge of the counterpositions.

5) I know what a straw man fallacy is, Brian. If you'll reread my note, I accused you of it. The difference is, you actually committed one, while I did not. Amidst your other red herrings, you claim that I am in fact a creationist, and then post a video about people living in denial of that. But I am no creationist. I know this is hard for you to believe. I'm sorry.

6) I don't suppose I have been anymore threatening than your menacing attacks on those who you perceive your enemies. I dare, you - absolutely dare you - to submit this entire discourse to any logician and have them objectively assess who has been responsible for the fallacies here. I have not once provided an actual straw man (there are a million other fallacies, by the way...RRS has only ever accused people of this one, though. If you want a real taste of irony...or, more accurately, absurdity...you might note that by alleging a person has provided a straw man when they haven't and thus ignoring their supposedly invalid/fallacious argument is a...guess what!...straw man fallacy. I have never misrepresented your position, have I? I maintain that you are atheists who deny the supernatural and are resigned to physics alone. Read back over this, if you dare. Have I ever claimed otherwise? Not once. Have you, however, distorted, mandated, and manipulated my claims? You even imposed YOUR SPECULATION OF MY DOXASTIC STATE on me! Have I resorted to anything as silly, absurd, and consummately ridiculous as saying "you know, I think this guy Brian is really just a creationist as well...I think I'll just respond by ridiculing cryptocreationists" (you can use the coinage, I don't mind...). No, I don't have to resort to that.

In closing, the Kalam argument has not been refuted (and this is just ONE of the many arguments you must, as a theist, deal with), as the argument which was claimed to do so sufficiently is in fact illegitimate. You have once again personally failed to address any of my critiques, instead being only capable of perceiving and accusing fallacies where their are none (and not even alleging the correct ones, at that) and ignoring the fact of your own. Once again, I am not surprised, but I do once again dare you to submit this to your pal Dennett. That he and any other professional philosopher, who have nothing but my deepest respect, elect to maintain even the faintest association with you would surely terminate. Philosophers have a way of shunning children and fools.

Favorite quote so far: "Do you understand how honesty works? We don't like, enjoy, or spend time refuting arguments with people who don't even accept their own arguments." - Brian "Sapient"

--Seriously, seriously...show me the argumentation principle that upholds this. Your complete lack of proper and satisfactory logic is not only appalling, but incomprehensible. I do not have to actually believe an argument to pose it, as Aristotle noted over two thousand years ago, but you do have to provide a refutation in order to reject it. You don't just get to believe whatever you want. All beliefs face the tribunal of proof and, failing that (as in the case of free will, not your problem if you're an epiphenomenalist, though), critique and cogent argument. I've reviewed the so-called "refutations" of cosmological arguments on this site. None, not one, is up to snuff. Review your Aquinas, Hume, Kant, Craig, Smith, and a dozen others before believing that a slapdash pastiche of purported refutations suffices. Also, try to defend your position yourself, instead of relying on others.

Second favorite quote: "You act like a Christian pawn. If you don't want to be suspected of being a dishonest Christian who refuses to admit he is Christian (over 40 have done that to us in the last two years) then you should probably not defend the bible to the letter exactly like Jerry Falwell would." Brian "Sapient"

--Hmmm...this is maddening, really. So now understanding a specific passage in a book implies necessarily that I defend it? Brian, this is just shit. Sorry to resort to such language, but come on, man...this is just absolutely deficient of all logic. Look - I happen to understand the Christian concept of blasphemy. I also understand the Hindu concept of karma and vipaka, and of reincarnation. Do you know what reincarnation is, Brian? Can you read a Buddhist text and correct someone if they misunderstand it? Sure, I think you could. Does that mean you actually believe it? No, not in the least. Just because I understand something you apparently do not does not mean that I believe in it.

You're anything but rational. This has been sufficiently proven and I will be submitting this discourse with a link to this website for review in an upcoming journal. I think we'll call it "the abuse and rape of logic". I'll forward you a copy. On me.

Sincerely,

Joshua Ryan Dellinger. (I get your name right, at least extend the same attention and courtesy).

P.S. I will add that in the beginning I had some respect for what you and your crew were doing. This was after watching the televised special and before viewing the website. I thought you and Kelly were both well-spoken, brought up valid points, and were doing a great service by seeking to debunk the fallacious logic of some religious types. However, my reason for rejecting religion is that I find it immoral and cruel (a la Nietzsche) and find it a hindrance to morality (my reading of Kant's Religion Withing the Limits of Reason Alone...you might pick it up, great read, very effective position). This is how I stumbled upon your site. I didn't like that, like Dawkins, you and Kelly only confronted easy adversaries and ultimately appeared as only intellectual bullies. Look - arguing with Ray Comfort's soda can analogy is very, very facile. Arguing against the more luminous and equipped minds (not me, but others whom I would like to supply) is not so easy and requires that a person recognize their tenuous grasp of what they so doggedly support. It is a philosophical principle of modesty that one always permit the possibility that they are wrong and entertain notions to the contrary of their position. Obviously, you and Kelly are not philosophers nor decent arguers. It's sad, and even though I do agree that religion should be eliminated (and I will not bother with asserting again that this is in fact my true position...you have snooped into my UNCC career and found that I openly protested an anti-homosexuality demonstration by the UNCCGOP...why would a Christian "stone the homosexuals" do that? They wouldn't...I did, because I'm NOT Christian) I cannot countenance the eradicating force of something foul and irrational by something equally foul and irrational. I do implore you, however, to have this debate reviewed by objective sources. I entreat you, please, for the good of your cause which is my own, to rectify your errors and acquire stronger argumentation skills and material. Thanks for this.