Why prefer 1 over 1*? I would argue that 1* reflects our current understanding of causality better than 1.

Obviously you would. As you've made several recent attempts in multiple threads in order to discredit the Kalam arguement, that it appears to be some what of a fixation with you. The fact that you resort to a Part 2 is a sign of how all your previous arguements fall apart. A different thread dealing with the same problem of infinite regress isn't going to get a different result.

uh...come again? Perhaps you didn't notice but my last response to sntjohnny in Kalam's first premise went completely unaddressed. So, rather than being a "sign" of how my previous arguments fell apart, my starting a second thread is a challenge to proponents of the KCA to refute my criticism.

*snort* As you seem to have a knack for simply ignoring refutes even when they are presented multiple times, or trying to reword your arguements to shuffle around them, I'm not entirely surprised someone wouldn't address a response from you when it may have been previously addressed. I for one am not directly addressing this "challenge" as your criticism has been presented on multiple fronts and addressed on those fronts. If you want the responses of proponents of KCA you can simply research them. You're hardly the first to take a shot at it. All this thread is is another assertion of infinite regress and how much you would prefer it (you'd think after so many threads on the subject started by you one wouldn't be able to take the hint). This is made even more transparent by the fact that you give no elaboration on "our current understanding of causality." Starting it out as vague to already have a little wiggle-room, are we?

As sntjohnny commented on a previous post infinite regress is like "trying to jump out of a bottomless pit". I find that to be an apt metaphor for this issue.

Translation: "I, for one, am not up to the challenge."

And this is why deconstuctionism rots your brain boys and girls.

Cutup, how can you possibly prove number 1*?  It is not enough to say that it is usually the case.  You  are going to tell me that you can prove definitively that NOTHING has ever had only 1 cause?

BTW, I typed these words on the page.  Are there multiple causes of that?  (Hint: I know you're going to say yes.  I am pretty sure I know what your explanation is going to be, but let's get it out into the open.)