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

At a glance, it may seem that my opponent's logic is watertight. Unfortunately, the argument for which my opponent supports has many a flaw; my opponent has only confirmed this in round 2. "Except, if each is limited in how much it can limit one another then each factor is deriving how much it can limit the other factor from another and so on. This would either go around in a loop (where the factor is ultimately would dependent upon itself for limiting itself) which is absurd or it the limitation will go on for infinite (as Con seems to suggest), which is also absurd. "My opponent attacks my argument of infinity, as if he doesn't also argue for infinity. 1. God is unlimited2. God is without limit3. No limit equates to infiniteC. God is infinite". .. the limitation will go on for infinite (as Con seems to suggest), which is also absurd. "Simply put, my opponent contradicts himself by claiming infinity to be "absurd. " If he wishes to remove this contradiction, he will need to prove that God is not an unlimited factor- but to do so, he would need to disprove the very definition of "God. " I will explain further as this round continues. "To use an example, a sack being pulled by a rope would be an example of dependency, because the sack's movement depends upon the rope. It would be absurd to suppose that the rope is infinitely long, because the rope must ultimately be pulled by something. So, this sort of dependency cannot go on forever. "The flaw lies within the definitions of "dependent" and "limited. " I contend that they are not one in the same. Dependent: Determined or conditioned by another; relying on another for support[1]Limited: Confined within limits[1]My opponent states that 2. Something limited is limited by something else. When there is no reason to concur that limitation is a state of dependency. Let us observe the Frail Man argument: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. As you can see, the frail man acts within limits- but he is not dependent on the strong man to exist. So I put forth a separate, more feasible argument:Imagine a sack, and a rope- but the rope is not attached to the sack. They are floating through motionless time and space at the exact same rate; this includes all factors. Remember, these factors limit each other, but there must have been something to put these factors into motion- an induction of energy into a closed system. I could argue that this energy could be that of the big bang; for energy is not created or destroyed- it is only manifested (according to the Law of Conservation of Energy). There would be no need for one to pull the rope if all factors are moving at the same rate. And this would not rely on the existence of an infinite cause; hence, it is improbable that unlimited energy could exist in the known universe. Therefore, it is improbable that God could exist within the known universe. "God is limited to not being able to limit Himself, but that is simply because He is an unlimited being of course He cannot place a 'true ontological limit upon Himself' and that there would nothing else that could, but God could still place a temporary limitation upon Himself. "Impossible. For if God were unlimited, he would be unable to change his mind- since, as my opponent has agreed, he is already omniscient. 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. He could, however, make a temporary change if he was not unlimited(and thus, no longer God). Yet, my opponent would have to concede the debate if he wishes to argue this contention. "So, in order to show a shortcoming with the Second Way, Con must either show that an infinite dependency is coherent. .. "I contend that my opponent is also arguing for an infinite dependency. If he wishes to claim that an infinite factor is absurd, he will need to prove that God is finite- which would be counteractive. ". .. or show that God is more than just limited to acting logically (or show a problem with God being limited by logic). "No, I do not see the point in arguing that God can be illogical- this would be an oxymoron when considering the definition that my opponent and I have decided for God. I agree that God can only act within the realms of logic- but that does not dismiss my arguments. I contend that it is only logical to dismiss the "dependency" on an unlimited factor. On to Pro. [1] The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary