[Jack Simth]

Of course, you just claimed that he has, you said little, if anything, of how, or when. What would that be? Red herring, perhaps? Reification, possibly? Non-Sequiter, perchance? Ad homien? Argumentum ad logicam? Shifting the burden of proof, maybe?

As for the Posts he has made recently in this thread, yeah, there could be a fair amount of appeal to authority, aurumentum ad nausium/popularum, but that's mostly used in support, not as his main arguments. Fluff, even, easily thrown out to no real effect.

Seriously though, can you actually get around his point that if you follow cause and effect backwards, you must either conclude that at some point there was a cause that did not have a cause of it's own (a termination to an infinite recursion), OR conclude that there was an ever-present (if potentially ever-changing) "something" that pre-existed to infinity (either another form of termination to an infinite recursion, or a conclusion that the recursion continues infinitely)? Note that he did not specify which must be so, nor did he specify there was any concrete way to choose, nor did he specify any neccessitated form to the "something" when that route is chosen - in fact, he said "The question for each of us is what is more logical." (emphasis added)
He did not specify that anyone must of necessity pick a specific one over the other.
"For me, the only logical solution is their was a designer. " (emphasis added)
He did not specify that this must be the only conclusion - he specified very clearly that it was HIS conclusion, after specifying that all such conclusions pretty much amount to opinion. Do you have a way out of his "One or the Other" logical proof? Perhaps one or more additional option(s) that fit(s) without being a subset or mixture of one or more of his listed potentialities? If so, please, enlighten me.