Aquinas' First Way succeeds

Conception Con argues that for me to charge him with only thinking he can imagine a change without a cause, while not actually conceiving of such a thing, could just lead to skepticism about conception altogether. Except, if there is a reason to doubt one's conclusion, then we should doubt what they are purporting to imagine. For instance, if I think that an uncaused change is logically impossible then of course I don't think that one can conceive of it, even if they think they do. So, if one can conceive of something, compared to just imagining it, really comes down to whether or not it is logically possible for the thing to happen or not. I have argued of course that it is not logically possible, so Con's conception argument doens't hold water with me. Inertia Con objects to my saying that the laws of physics are actualized, because he says they don't change. While I agree that the laws don't change in substance, they do change from state to state (which is what actualization is) because the laws are a part of the universe, which changes from state to state. Regardless of whether or not inertia and gravity are tied up in one another, the point I was making is that inertia can still be part of the laws of physics. So, inertia can be causal or at least a description of something that is causal. I don't see any reason to suppose that inertia is a description of something a-causal. Free Will Con argues that it is impossible for God to be the cause of free will, because then God would be the cause of self-actualization. Except, I deny that freely willing would amount to self actualization, so it seems Con is just inserting his own views here. Again, to freely will is to direct the actualization that God grants, it is not to commit actualization upon itself. My second premise Con argues that if "we experienced acausal happenings all the time, our intuition would tell us that acausality is possible." Except, my argument is that we would never be truly justifed in concluding that acausal happenings occur, so how could we arrive at such conclusions? If we constantly saw rocks appear from nowhere or move around without any direct source, we would still look for causes of these things. Now, perhaps I am wrong and it is only because we do see so many events that seem to have a cause and effect relation that we go ahead and conclude that there must be such an intrinsic correlation. So, again it goes back to the issue of whether or not it is logical to suppose that somthing can change without a cause. Of course, I don't think it is logical because again in order for something to change without a cause it requires that something is generated without any source, and this is absurd and really amounts to saying that something can come from nothing. I don't think that Con ever dealt with this issue of generation without a source. Of course, I don't think that particles can change uncaused, but I think that it is easier to demonstrate that the universe cannot change uncaused because one may being playing a sort of trick in imagining that a particle moves without a cause, when they are really neglecting to imagine the quantum laws causing it after all. While, if the universe changes without a cause they would more likley to have to concede that the change would come from no source, which is absurd. Pure act Here Con thinks that I have misunderstood in attributing him with the view that laws are causal. I was applying my own view of laws here, while the issue is whether or not laws or in his view the descriptions of objects that laws entail, can be causal. Regardless, the point is that Con argues that these sort of things can actualize other things, without being actualized and therefore don't require God's actualization. I answer to this issue again in saying that the laws must be actualized because they are part of the universe, they change their state with the state of the universe. Conclusion This debate has been fun. I am glad that Con proposed the topic. I hope if anyone reads it they have a better grasp of the argument and objections that can be made to it.