This Argument for the Existence of God Doesn't Work

Is the first cause God?I have argued that in order for the first cause to be rightly called "God," it must be shown to be intelligent. I shall refute my opponent's argument where he argues for this."(7) Well, the First Cause has to be infinite, meaning that it isn't limited by something, else the thing that is limiting it would be the First Cause. This is because the limiting thing would have to have existence before it can limit."I disagree. Something can constrain something else, yet not be the cause of its existence. For example, if I am constrained by the need for oxygen, it is not the need of oxygen which has caused me to exist."Now, since the First Cause is initially (for now) infinite, then the First Cause is perfect. However, perfect implies that a thing can't change, because change means that something gets or loses something that it previously had." To begin with, I don't see how this follows. Firstly, what is the definition of perfect? The only way my opponent can show something is perfect is if he comes up with some definition of perfection and shows how the first cause must have this. Second of all, perfection does not entail immutability. It's perfectly possible for something to be perfect, and yet to be subject to change. For example, a perfect circle on a graph could be moved from one location to another. The size and radius could be changed. It is undergoing changes, yet remaining a perfect circle."(10) So, since this First Cause cannot change because it is perfect, the First Cause cannot cease to exist (the first thing my opponent wanted me to show)."Once again, this is simply false, since my opponent has not defined change. Change is always from one state to another. For example, an ice cube from solid to liquid state.However, dropping out of existence does not count as a change. Precisely because the thing is not changing from one state to another.Ax -- (changes to) --> AyHowever, something cannot "change" to nothing, since there is no ending state for that thing. It's essentially like:Ax -- (changes to) --> __Thus, coming in and out of existence are not changes, since change requires an initial and final state of that which changes.Next, my opponent tries to show that since the first cause causes us to have intellect, it must also have intellect itself.However, this is a mistake in reasoning. Something does not have to formally have something else in order to give it.Take heat for example. We can start a piece of paper on fire by another fire. Or, we can start it on fire by producing heat from friction.The analogy should be obvious. The first cause can contain intelligence in the same way that rubbing our hands together produces heat. It can very well contain the ability to cause intelligence, yet not be intelligent itself.InfinityI thank my opponent for clarifying his infinity argument. Unfortunately, it still is a poorly constructed argument and fails.I think he sums up his argument nicely when he says:"A (= {c1, c2, c3"} ).Then, I can construct a sequence C of increasingly large chains of what the cause-effect chain is not equal to.You can call it C, but the important thing to note is that C = ~A by definition, as this is what the cause-effect chain isn't entirely made up of.Then, ~A = { {c1}, {c1, c2}, {c1, c2, c3}, "}. Since this goes on infinitely long, A gets included in ~A, which means that the cause-effect chain is entirely made up of what it can't be entirely made up of. This is a contradiction."Essentially what my opponent is saying is that since C is not A, and C contains A, then A is not A. And this is a contradiction. Thus, infinity must be impossible.However, this is just bad reasoning. Let me try and formalize this argument and show why.A = {c1, c2, c3"} C = { {c1}, {c1, c2}, {c1, c2, c3}, "}P1: A is an element of C.P2: C is not A (by definition).C: A is not A.However, I can make the following argument which is exactly the same:P1: A brain is an element of Socrates.P2: Socrates is not a brain.C: Socrates is not Socrates.We can easily see why this argument does not work. In premise 2, all we mean by "is not" is "is not identical to." I am composed of many parts. I am not identical to any of these parts. However, there is no contradiction here. Likewise, there is no contradiction in this case as well. C may be composed of many parts which are or are not identical to A. It may be composed of many parts which are not identical to itself. There is no contradiction here whatsoever. My opponent makes this mistake quite clear when he says "I didn't say A and C are the exact same chain. I said A was in C (so A was in ~A, which leads to a contradiction)." Emphasis is mine.And as I have shown, there are many examples of something being in something else where the two things are not identical. I am not identical to a head. So I can say I am a not-head. However, I am composed of a head. So a head is in a not head! This is essentially what my opponent is arguing... and it is just a bad argument.CausalityMy opponent shifts the burden and tries to say that I ought to prove acauality is real. However, he is the one making the claim. I am not making the claim that things pop into existence without a cause. I am merely pointing out that we have not ruled out this possibility. On the other hand, my opponent would have us believe that everything which begins to exist has a cause. I see no reason to believe this is the case.I am not proposing that things are caused by nothing... I am proposing that they aren't caused by anything. That there is absolutely no explanation for why some things happen rather than another. Why does the universe have to be explainable? Why can't the universe just have popped into existence, and exist, and that's it?I shall present a dilemma which I believe refutes this cosmological argument:P1: Either everything has a cause or some things do not have a causeP2: If everything has a cause, then there is no first cause.P3: If some things do not have a cause, then it could possibly be the universe, and the first cause has not been proven.C: In either case, the first cause cannot be proven.ConclusionI believe I have mounted objections to my opponent's argument which refute it, and show that it certainly does not work. Thank you.