I'll echo those asking MB to be more exact in what he means by "infinite regression" as it is becoming clear that he was referring to something different by this than I do.

So, to be clear, I thought he was referring to the premise in one of Aquinas's Five Ways that says that there cannot be an infinite regress of efficient causes (this is a result of Aristotle's analysis of actuality and potentiality) and thus that there must be a first cause.

However, it seems like he instead is referring to the responses to cosmological and design arguments that say, "But who designed God?" or "Who caused God?"

Why is it reasonable to claim that the thing that didn't have anything that came before it is God?

How does the argument from design rely on terminating an infinite regress?

Consider it as a definition, perhaps along the lines of "God is that which created the universe."

I was doing what you're suggesting in your second paragraph. The infinite regression is avoided by invoking God. I'm asking why the regression stops at God, how is God immune to taking the regression further?

Isn't that clear?

So you say, because you're terminating the regression at God. My question is, how are you able to do that?

I'm not saying that everything must have something that came before it, I'd like to avoid the infinite regression too, I'm asking how anyone can be certain that God isn't also subject to a regression?

Because if it doesn't then we can posit that God was in turn designed, and god's designer was designed, and the designer of God's designer, had a designer .......

Would this not undermine that the God Christians worship is the original creator?

Maybe you don't know what it means to identify a something as a something?

That is not a definition, at least, not any more than saying "Usain Bolt is the fastest man in the world" is a definition.

I'm waiting for MB to further clarify what exactly he's arguing against and about. For example, I believe that identifying God with the first cause is what happens in some cosmological arguments.

Possibly. Is that an answer to my question? It seems like an evasion to me, perhaps you can elaborate.

First, you'll need to give a clearer explanation of the position you're criticizing.

Two responses: first, so what? You are not talking about the logic of the argument, but to some group of people being disappointed.

Second, it is not an assumption of the classic design argument that everything is designed, so I don't see much cost to them simply denying that god is one of the things that is designed.

that's just his wording for 'if god designed the universe, who designed god?'

Yeah, I picked up on that after a while. I'm trying to force MB to not use the "regression" formulation to refer to that response though.

Anyway, on the merits, it is a bad response to the design argument.

I'll update the characterization slightly to remove the strict time sense of the word "before."

Claim: Everything has an antecedent.

Does this characterize your central claim better?

that is the part mb doesn't get.

the arguments don't start out 'everything' they are more similar to 'every thing' or 'the universe' or similar. So no 'everything had a cause->god is first cause->well what caused god' its 'the universe had a cause->lets name that cause god->end of discussion->followup discussion, so what can we then figure out about god, if anything'.

mb should picture the cosmological arguments attempting to explain physical reality in this universe only - not to explain other possible planes of spiritual or other existence of which we have no knowledge and these sorts of arguments may or may not apply.

It's not a response specifically to the Design argument, the Design argument is simply an example of where the regress is being used by theists to support their position but then being arbitrarily halted to avoid it regressing too far (past God) and undermining their beliefs. It'll do but I have no interest in that argument particularly, only in the apparent immunity of God to the regress.

No, it's not.

I am asking why the regress stops at God. Can anyone provide a logical reason (that requires no special pleading) for how God is immune to the regress?

No, holy cow. Is this a level?

If you use the logic that something complex must have a designer, then how do you justify making an exception for God? What could be more complex than God? Their own logic suggests that their exception can't be supported.

I simply want to hear a rational explanation for that exception/immunity, whatever word you want to use.

why do you think god is complex? how do you know anything about him?

the theist argument is something like 'everything designed had a designer'. You try to debunk by proposing a separate claim of 'designers must have been designed' - But you have offered no support of your claim and have now brought on yourself the burden of proof.

gods the axiom

The question that I'm asking.

How do you know that God was the originator of everything? Because you regressed to the point where God was the explanation, before everything, there was nothing before that.

You avoided an infinite regression by invoking God to terminate it.

How?

(I am not actively seeking to prove that in fact there must have been something before God, don't forget that I don't even believe in god, I can't get excited about you not believing that there wasn't anything before something I don't even think existed anyway, I simply want to establish how the regression is being terminated to prevent it being infinite, what's the logic/evidence/justifying reasons?)

You think something complex came from something more simple? How can God be less complex than the universe that he created?

Whatever. I doubt you're arguing that God is less complex than us and if we needed a designer then logically God does too. And that designer needs a designer, and that designer needs a designer...

But no! Say the Theists, in fact that regression ends with our God. There was nothing before him, there is no infinite regression, God is immune to that logic.

OK, how?

No, I'm not. No, I haven't. See above.

It depends on the specific framework you're using for God.

So far, I've asserted that God created universe as an example of how you can stop the "regression" in a certain way.

What exactly is necessary to "avoid" such an infinite regress? You appear to be coming from a place that ASSUMES that such an infinite regression should exist. That is, the regression exists unless there's a reason for it not to exist. This is what my various attempts at characterizing your position have been.

How is your line of questioning any more meaningful than a 2-year old asking "Why? Why? Why? Why?"