The existence of God can be logically demonstrated using Aquinas' Second Way argument

I thank Con for their rebuttal. Con objects that I am inconsistent in contesting their use of infinite as being impossible and yet I claim that infinite is possible for God. Except, I said an infinite "dependency" is impossible. I didn't say that if infinite simply means "unlimited" that it is impossible. Obviously I think something can be infinite if infinite means 'unlimited in being'. So, Con's objection at this point is not relevant because God is not a series of dependent things. Con attemps to counter my understanding of limitation and dependency by saying "There was a frail man and a strong man. The frail man was limited by his own strength- which was not much; but he was not dependent on the strong man." Except, obviously the frail man is not dependent upon the strong man. The frail man is also not limited by his own strength, the frail man's strength is limited by other factors. So again I don't see the relevancy here. The frail man is still limited by something else. Then Con argues that things could fly through space due to only limited energy. Ok but again if they are arguing that the things floating through space are dependent upon energy and the energy is limited then I agree and argue that the energy is limited by something else. So again, I don't see how this contradicts the argument I put forward. Con then returns to the logical limits that God has. Con argues that "if God were unlimited, he would be unable to change his mind- since, as my opponent has agreed, he is already omniscient." Again, if something is logically impossible then it is not the type of limitation that I am talking about, so if it is logically impossible for God to place a temporary limit upon Himself then fine God cannot do that, but that still would not affect the argument because I am not talking about logical limitations. Then Con argues "Furthermore, for a change to be temporary, it would imply that he would revert this change at some point. But what would be the need to change himself if God could have prevented the reason for which he needed to change in the first place? Ergo, God cannot make a temporary change if he is unlimited- as my opponent suggests." It seems that Con thinks that God could not temporarlly change Himself because God shouldn't need a reason to change Himself. But God could have plenty of reasons, that are not due to limitations, to change Himself. He could change Himself simply because He wanted to or because He thought it would be a good way to reveal Himself to mankind. Con concludes by saying that God would be an infinite dependency, so the argument self-defeats. Except, I think Con is misunderstanding what I mean by an infinite dependency. An infinite dependency is where there is more than one thing and one/some of the things relies upon the other/s. God is a singular thing, so it is absurd to argue that He is an infinite dependency. Con then further says "I agree that God can only act within the realms of logic" Ok we agree on this point, so I think we can drop the point about God 'be limited because He can't limit Himself', as this is a limitation due to the rules of logic and not an ontological limitation. Con finishes by saying "I contend that it is only logical to dismiss the "dependency" on an unlimited factor." I am not sure what Con means here, except that they still think that there can be an unlimited number of limiting factors. But again this is absurd because that would be equivalent to saying that a sack can be pulled by infinitely long rope. Now Con may bring up their objection that limited and dependent are not the same thing, and I agree that they are not necessarily the same thing, but in this regard they relate because if thing x is limited because of thing y then x's limitation is dependent upon that y's placing of the constraints. So again, the sack is dependent upon the rope to pull it. I then contend that a thing, which is limited in its being, is dependent upon something else to limit it to its being. If Con wants to contest this then they either need to explain how something like a sack can be pulled by an infinitely long rope or they need to reasses whether or not they actually accept P2 of the original argument. Thanks