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

"Con again states that a frail man's strength should have to be considered as limited by a strong man. I don't see how this follows because the frail man is obviously not limited by the strong man, but rather by something else. Just because the strength of both men is being assessed doesn't mean that the frail man is necessarily limited by the strong man. "Exactly! I thank my opponent for finally conceding this contention. As one can see, both the frail man and strong man exist and are limited by other factors, yet they are not dependent on one another to exist. Not to mention, it is the frail man who is limited by his own strength- as is the strong man. The same applies to all limited things- as they coexist without the need to depend upon each other. By coincidence. "Con then objects that energy is not limited and yet affects other things. Except, energy is limited, it is limited to being the contained thing that it is, for instance energy can't be or do anything, rather it is confined to acting only as energy can act and be only as energy can be. "This is an example of a straw man fallacy. My opponent establish a false premise for what energy is, only then to dismantle it. I could say the same thing about anything, regardless of its limitations. Just like God, for instance- 'God can't be or do anything other than what he is able to do, rather he is confined to acting only as God can act and be only as God can be. ' Not to mention that the first law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. By its very nature, energy is unlimited. "Again, I think Con and I agree upon God only being able to act logically, so I don't know why they are still bringing the issue up. "I am not 'bringing the issue up,' I am trying to 'bring it down. ' My opponent argues for a God that exists within the realms of logic, but I have proven how a God who is 'unlimited' simply cannot exist within the realms of logic. Furthermore, my opponent has not provided adequate logical evidence to counter this claim. "God could of course place a temporary limitation upon Himself, such as becoming human, but at the same time He can remove this limitation. So, I don't think it is illogical to imagine God placing a temporary limitation upon Himself and yet at the same time be unlimited in His being. "Conjecture. My opponent ignores my question about God's need to change his nature if he is omniscient. Logically, the "God acts in mysterious ways" slogan does not work here. Not to mention that he hasn't provided any counter-arguments to support this claim. Argument extended. "It seems Con thinks that if God can't act illogically then God would be limited by His own nature, except this does not follow. For I thought we agreed that logic is a description upon how things must be, not about some ontological force that prevents something from happening. "I agree with the given description of logic. But what must be: only a God who is capable of logical and illogical decisions can truly be 'unlimited' in a finite universe. I have provided logical evidence for this scenario in the previous rounds- of which, Pro has not countered any. Secondly, my opponent's premise for this very debate exists with the presupposed notion that "[there exists] some ontological force that [can] prevent something from happening. " My opponent would argue that this is God. "Again though, I have only conceded that God is limited to acting logically, I obviously never conceded that God is ontologically limited. "If God exists, acts, and is influenced within the realms of logic- I argue that there is no difference, for every limitation that God possesses must be a logical limitation. This would include ontological limitations. "I think Con may also be confused about what "ontological" means. It doesn't mean 'outside of logic', rather it means 'being'. So when I say God is not limited ontologically, what I mean is His being is unlimited, but only being able to act logically has nothing to do with this (as we both agree). "Before we can discern the ontological perspective of God, we must first discover what it would take to make him who he is. This would include his inability to be illogical. So, therefore, we can conclude that God's state of 'being' exists only as a logical, metaphysical deity. Ergo, he is ontologically limited. "Con is confused by the rope analogy that I used. The rope analogy was to demonstrate that a direct causal chain can't go on forever (ie. someone must pull the rope). So, if P2 of the argument is about a direct causal chain, then clearly it too could not go on forever. "If I was confused, it would seem that my opponent was confused as well. For he is arguing for a deity who cannot be unlimited (as I have demonstrated previously) and thus, cannot be the one pulling the rope. Like I have said before, and my opponent has not yet corrected me. The "sack and rope" analogy does not work in a universe with absolutes, rather, it exists in a world where limitation is governed by dependency. I have already demonstrated how this is simply not the case for limitations. "Though in the end, I will concede that perhaps P2 is not analogical to the rope analogy. So, at this point the second way may not work as it stands, but that does not mean that it does not work when understood properly. Only that my version of it may not work. "I appreciate my opponent's honorable concession of P2 in contrast to the "sack and rope" analogy. If we had more rounds, I would encourage my opponent to supply a more credible argument for the sake of the given resolution. Ultimately, my opponent's original arguments would have worked in a universe where there are absolutes. Nonetheless, the second premise counteracts the conclusion because an unlimited deity could not exist if he was only governed by logic. Not to mention that the "rope and sack" analogy can only answer one question, and that is "Who is pulling the rope? " When logically, it is impossible for an unlimited deity to pull this rope for, in this universe, an unlimited deity would not exist. In the end, most of my questions and arguments were left unanswered:1. How does a factor's limits enable it to be dependent on a greater factor to exist? (Frail Man analogy)2. How can God be unlimited if he is limited by his inability to be illogical?3. Why would God need to make a temporary change to himself if he is omniscient?4. Why isn't God dependent on himself if he is limited to logic, and infinite by nature? In the end, there were more questions than answers- as it is for most debates towards the existence of God.