@FredI see the dialogue further revealing the presumptions that are brought to the KCA. Many people don't have an issue with there having been a First Cause to the Universe, or thinking about the Universe as a caused state. Rather, what people have an issue with is the nature of that cause. I would agree that as written, the dialogue does end in a stalemate if we're counting points. That was how I intended it to.I had some thoughts about how the dialogue could've continued. The Defender would've pressed the Prosecutor on how she grounds the PRJ, and would've cited the PRJ as evidence of a rational foundation to reality. The Prosecutor would've quipped that the PRJ is grounded pragmatically, not ontically. The Defender would've responded by saying that's adding more arbitrariness to life. So on and so forth.If I do develop the dialogue some more, it would be to have the Defender get the Prosecutor to admit that her reality is being shaped and defined arbitrarily how she wants it to be, and that at worst this is no different from what the Defender is doing by pointing to God. So, if metaphysics is arbitrary, then we ought to pick the theory that has the most utility. At least, that's how I'm sketching it in my head at the moment.